Issue 1 poll: Most Ohio voters oppose plan to make it harder to amend constitution

To you, it’s not.

To me and to johnwk2, it is.

The distinction you tried to make is about details, not principles.

And I would add my state’s constitution (Colorado) to the dumpster fire that you proposed.

the question to me is, whether the people of a state should have self determination about freedoms.

my vote would be no on ballot issue one

Allan

It’s an interesting ballot initiative for sure. I am hoping that Ohio residents reject this and keep their power.

Let’s get to why this is happening. Look no further than Michigan, right above them. In ten years we ran several ballot initiatives.

  1. Recreational Marijuana - passed by a substantial margin, but less than 60%.
  2. Abortion rights - passed by a substantial margin, but less than 60%
  3. Outlawed Gerrymandering - passed by a substantial margin, but less than 60%
  4. Voting Rights - passed by a substantial margin, but less than 60%

With the state districts redrawn by a non-partisan committee, the Democratic party took control of both Houses for the first time in 40 years. Women have the right to make their own health decisions. Early voting was extended state wide to at least 9 days before the election. Mail in ballots are now no excuse permanently. It is now easier to vote on college campuses.

Mind you, winning 57-43% is a 14 point margin, that is NOT a close race. But 60% is just hard to reach in anything statewide, especially when the state is a swing state.

But lets look at the GOP arguments about abortion:

  1. Roe was wrong, it should be a state issue.
  2. After Roe was overturned, states started banning or limiting abortion.
  3. Voters in Kansas, Missouri and other red states started rejecting these changes. Michigan changed its constitution to allow it. Wisconsin voters gave the Supreme Court to Dems to change their gerrymandering and abortion laws.
  4. Suddenly, GOP politicians in Washington want to make this a Federal issue again, proposing national abortion laws that would rule over state laws.
  5. Ohio voters passed a petition to put abortion rights on the November ballot.
  6. Ohio GOP tries to jump in front of the voters by holding a special election to raise the minimum needed to guess what? 60 percent.

It is a losing argument. The voters don’t want their rights stripped from them by Federal or Local laws, the voters want to select who represents them, instead of politicians selecting their voters. In a Representative Democracy, it is the voters who choose what policies and politicians are enacted and changing the rules when you are losing is a bad faith move.

4 Likes

I’m in Ohio and the ground game has been on point to strike down this nonsense. It’s obvious to everyone why Republicans are trying to ram this through in a special election hoping for low turnout. It’s going to backfire and rightfully so.

1 Like

Missouri is also having some legal wrangling. They got enough signatures to put abortion rights on the ballot but part of Missouri law is you have to include how much the initiative would cost the state so that the voters are well informed.

The State Auditor, who is vehemently pro-life, put the statewide cost of the initiative at 51,000 dollars. He submitted it to the state AG for approval. The State AG, who is supposed to simply approve it, instead argued that the cost of the initiative was 12.5 BILLION dollars. He argued that if someone wasn’t born, they wouldn’t be poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, which the states get. The never born would also never pay taxes.

It was roundly rejected by the very Conservative Missouri Supreme Court yesterday, who ordered the AG to approve the Auditor’s estimate.

1 Like

The principle is most certainly the same and provides a necessary check on the evils of democracy, by which I mean a majority of one being able to impose its will on the remaining 49 percent of the people.

I stand with our Founders when it comes to “democracy”.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they:

“…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate “the evils we experience,” saying that those “evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy…”

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out “democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel…”

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: "Democracy never lasts long” . . . “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.”. . . “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’”

And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced directly by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership.

JWK

We must also accept the fact that ALL of the above are the opinions of the respective gentlemen who uttered them. Not facts.

The founders, as a whole, were no better or worse than the politicians of today. They were no wiser. Many were as deeply flawed as the Biden’s, Trump’s, DeSantis’s and AOC’s of today. Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention engaged in the same sort of parochialism that dominates the politics of today. Many held views long since renunciated, such as property requirements for voting.

And if I ask the question, “What is a Republican form of Government?”, I would very likely receive different, if not vastly different responses from every member of this board.

Ultimately, it is up to those ALIVE TODAY, not those long dead, to decide what constitutes a “republican form of government.”

Obviously, there is at least one democratic aspect of a republican form of government and that is voting for candidates. I do not feel that a republican form of government need restrict the democratic aspect to that one limited function. Indeed, increased democratic participation can serve as a check on abuses by the government.

For example, several State Legislatures have moved to either outright ban abortion or make it so difficult as to constitute a de facto ban (ergo “heartbeat” bills). It is obvious to everybody by now that the big majority of people oppose this. But because each party answers to its base, not the voters as a whole, they enact policies to favor the wishes of a small minority.

And this is were the direct democratic backstop comes in. When a State Legislature aggrieves its population, the people can directly overrule them.

This has happened in Kansas, Kentucky and other red States and will soon happen in Ohio and Missouri.

While most lawmaking should occur in the context of representative democracy, there is clearly a need for a limited application of direct democracy to act as a check when the representatives of the people act in a manner clearly opposite of the wishes of a large majority of the people.

It should be sufficiently difficult to get a referendum on the ballot to prevent abuse of the process, but it should be possible for the people to directly check their legislature if the need arises.

2 Likes

Your deflection from discussing majority vote vs our Constitution’s requirements is noted.

Additionally, your above remarks become absurd when one takes the time to carefully study the day-to-day debates during the framing of our Constitution, and those during its ratification process.

Comparing our Founders early Congressional Debates with today’s Congressional debates, makes today’s debates look like an adolescent schoolyard food fight.

Thats where I stand on it. I am in Ohio and BOTH sides have made it about abortion when it can impact anything such as gun rights, etc. I am not in favor of the 88 county requirement, leave it at 44 BUT it should be 60%. So my dilema is how do I vote, I honestly have not made up my mind.

1 Like

If it had to be 60, the campaigns would have been ran differently knowing they had a higher threshold to meet, really cannot compare them IMO.

Where in Ohio?
I am in NW Ohio which is predominately conservative and I have seen more no signs than yes. What pisses me off is both sides using the abortion argument when it can impact many other areas.

I don’t trust any living politician with amending the Constitution. Leave it alone!

I will start here first.

This thread is about State Constitutions, not the Federal Constitution.

There is no advocacy for amending the Federal Constitution in this thread.

I do stand by my statement that a dumpster fire should be set and at least half the State Constitutions should be burned (and rewritten from scratch), starting with Alabama.

3 Likes

Again, the Constitution’s requirements apply ONLY to the United States Constitution.

They do not apply to the Constitutions of the several States.

States may rightfully employ elements of direct democracy, while maintaining a republican form of government overall.

The northeast had a history of town meeting forms of government, which are essentially true direct democracy, but which were never questioned by the founders.

Your “again” is noted. :roll_eyes:

We have gone over this before. The principle is the same as expounded upon HERE

Thank you.

1 Like

I’m near Canton and the football hall of fame. I’m seeing more no than yes in my area too Plus, there have been a ton of more no commercials

I am literally directly across from you just south of SR 30.

Not a fan of how both sides made it about abortion though, it could also be about gun control or any other issue. If not for the 88 county requirement I could easily vote yes.

Whelp, I cast my ballot on this today, was actually a bit of a line when I got there around 3:45. We will see what happens, turnout in early voting has been high.

no will easily win the day by a substantial margin.

Allan