One person one vote

[Westside Steve]

Kind of a bullshit and misleading name for the ad campaign which could easily come back and bite the Liberals in the ass as it has happened before changing the 60% to a simple majority. Changing the Constitution in a perfect world should be harder then just riding the whim of the media. That's why the 60% was adopted.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

https://signalcleveland.org/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-august-vote-on-issue-1/

[calfoxwc]

The argument against issue 1  - "so and so wouldn't have passed" doesn't mean diddley when  you consider that bad things can also be passed, like partial birth abortion, etc etc etc.

On principle - if a state can't get 60% approval of an issue, the issue should not be approved.

In a red state, the left will demand 51%. In a blue state, they will demand the 60% - whatever gives them the advantage.

So, I support issue one. Hard-core democrap cities should not be the deciding factor in the 51% vote.

Sixty percent is a cushion against corruption.

Vote for Issue one.

[MLD Woody]

3 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Kind of a bullshit and misleading name for the ad campaign which could easily come back and bite the Liberals in the ass as it has happened before changing the 60% to a simple majority. Changing the Constitution in a perfect world should be harder then just riding the whim of the media. That's why the 60% was adopted.

WSS

Steve, serious question. Did you actually read through the whole article you posted and the ONLY objection you had / thing you found concerning was the liberal campaign name?

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

Steve, serious question. Did you actually read through the whole article you posted and the ONLY objection you had / thing you found concerning was the liberal campaign name?

No I didn't, I've been following it on the news and just looked until I could find a link. Am I incorrect in my assumption that the issue will make it easier for a 51 vote majority to pass amendments to the Ohio Constitution?

The liberal money is on the vote no campaigns.

But my point Remains the Same that it should be harder to amend a constitution even if it benefits my side once in awhile.

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Issue_1,_60%_Vote_Requirement_to_Approve_Constitutional_Amendments_Measure_(2023)

WSS

[MLD Woody]

21 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

No I didn't, I've been following it on the news and just looked until I could find a link. Am I incorrect in my assumption that the issue will make it easier for a 51 vote majority to pass amendments to the Ohio Constitution?

The liberal money is on the vote no campaigns.

But my point Remains the Same that it should be harder to amend a constitution even if it benefits my side once in awhile.

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Issue_1,_60%_Vote_Requirement_to_Approve_Constitutional_Amendments_Measure_(2023)

WSS

I would read the article you posted. It clearly lays out some of the hypocrisy coming from the Republican side

Ex. Last year pushing against special August elections and then this year being all for it to ran Issue 1 through. 

 

Ultimately, the Republicans / conservatives want to ban abortion as much as possible. In reality, that isn't the will of the majority of people in Ohio. As a result, an amendment is going around that's up in November (I think) to protect reproductive rights. As is, the Reps seeing this passing. So, in a desperate attempt at stopping it, they're changing the rules. They're making it harder to pass things like this specifically because they want to block this potential amendment (and they've admitted that). So after being against these special elections they're now using it to get their way and go around the will of the majority. And they're making up some stuff about out of state interests to give their base a better talking point. 

 

Ultimately, they were against these elections, and now they're for it, because it suite them. 

They say this is about out of state influence, but it's an attempt to block things they don't like (reproductive rights, weed, etc.).

Just another attempt by conservatives to go around what the majority of folks actually want. 

 

It's incredibly transparent. 

[Bob806]

Vote NO on issue 1.  Well, that's what I'm doing anyway. 

Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it. 

You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view. 

[hammertime]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

I would read the article you posted. It clearly lays out some of the hypocrisy coming from the Republican side

Ex. Last year pushing against special August elections and then this year being all for it to ran Issue 1 through. 

 

Ultimately, the Republicans / conservatives want to ban abortion as much as possible. In reality, that isn't the will of the majority of people in Ohio. As a result, an amendment is going around that's up in November (I think) to protect reproductive rights. As is, the Reps seeing this passing. So, in a desperate attempt at stopping it, they're changing the rules. They're making it harder to pass things like this specifically because they want to block this potential amendment (and they've admitted that). So after being against these special elections they're now using it to get their way and go around the will of the majority. And they're making up some stuff about out of state interests to give their base a better talking point. 

 

Ultimately, they were against these elections, and now they're for it, because it suite them. 

They say this is about out of state influence, but it's an attempt to block things they don't like (killing babies, weed, etc.).

Just another attempt by conservatives to go around what the majority of folks actually want. 

 

It's incredibly transparent. 

Why do you want to murder children in the womb so badly?

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

I would read the article you posted. It clearly lays out some of the hypocrisy coming from the Republican side

Ex. Last year pushing against special August elections and then this year being all for it to ran Issue 1 through. 

 

Ultimately, the Republicans / conservatives want to ban abortion as much as possible. In reality, that isn't the will of the majority of people in Ohio. As a result, an amendment is going around that's up in November (I think) to protect reproductive rights. As is, the Reps seeing this passing. So, in a desperate attempt at stopping it, they're changing the rules. They're making it harder to pass things like this specifically because they want to block this potential amendment (and they've admitted that). So after being against these special elections they're now using it to get their way and go around the will of the majority. And they're making up some stuff about out of state interests to give their base a better talking point. 

 

Ultimately, they were against these elections, and now they're for it, because it suite them. 

They say this is about out of state influence, but it's an attempt to block things they don't like (reproductive rights, weed, etc.).

Just another attempt by conservatives to go around what the majority of folks actually want. 

 

It's incredibly transparent. 

Exactly as I said the Liberals want to make it easier for the whim of the news media to change the Constitution and the conservatives want to make it harder. Why? Well in this case abortion on demand anywhere anytime for any reason looks like it's on the line. Transparent? Sure. That if the shoe were on the other foot and the amendment was going to ban abortion for any reason in the state of Ohio you would want that 60% margin chiseled in stone. Let's not be coy.

WSS 

[Westside Steve]

46 minutes ago, Bob806 said:

Vote NO on issue 1.  Well, that's what I'm doing anyway. 

Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it. 

You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view. 

Speaking of transparent. I bet a lot of people would be in favor of a 51% vote to eliminate any one of the Bill of Rights. Probably happens soon enough anyway so WTF.

WSS 

[MLD Woody]

18 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Exactly as I said the Liberals want to make it easier for the whim of the news media to change the Constitution and the conservatives want to make it harder. Why? Well in this case abortion on demand anywhere anytime for any reason looks like it's on the line. Transparent? Sure. That if the shoe were on the other foot and the amendment was going to ban abortion for any reason in the state of Ohio you would want that 60% margin chiseled in stone. Let's not be coy.

WSS 

- liberals don't want to "make it easier", they want to keep it as is

- "whim of the news media"... What are you talking about? I get that this is your party talking point for you to parrot, but what do you actually mean? Do you think that 

- this doesn't legalize "abortion anytime". Again, you're just parroting party nonsense. It protects an individual's right to reproductive care (ex, stops conservatives from trying to fuck with birth control) and protects abortion up until fetal viability (~22 weeks). 

- and then a bunch of what ifs completely ignoring the blatant hypocrisy of conservative legislators in Ohio. No surprise. 

[MLD Woody]

23 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Speaking of transparent. I bet a lot of people would be in favor of a 51% vote to eliminate any one of the Bill of Rights. Probably happens soon enough anyway so WTF.

WSS 

Would certainly make it easier for conservatives to ban books

[MLD Woody]

1 hour ago, Bob806 said:

Vote NO on issue 1.  Well, that's what I'm doing anyway. 

Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it. 

You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view. 

I printed out my mail in ballot today

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

I voted yes.  I'm also for raising the voting age to 45.  

[Bob806]

Issue 1

@DieHardBrownsFan1 I hope you did your homework. If you did and voted yes, so be it. 

[Westside Steve]

2 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Would certainly make it easier for conservatives to ban books

What an asshole statement. First of all the books aren't banned you can buy them and jerk off to them any time you want. Second of all I don't know if it's 75% 25% or half but the outrage comes from both sides little Chum.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

unions want the 51% because they, like the dem party, vote as a "BLOCK in big cities, making a 51% win far easier for them to rule,

rather than a 60% vote to change the Ohio Constitution.

Seriously, Bob, 

3 hours ago, Bob806 said:

Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it. 

You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view. 

I do mean "seriously". leave it as it is, because it has been easier for socialist/communist unions to vote as a block, like all dems do, because you have far more impact than affecting dominance in a 60% vote?

come on, now. That is union sponsored bs.

If hard core dem radical cities and the leftwing unions can vote in a block and break a close vote every time, they win !

of COURSE they don't want it changed. IT will take away their block voting advantage.

   "only 51% to CHANGE THE OHIO CONSTITUTION" ??????????????????

yeah, read up on it - and realize WHY is needs to be changed - radical unions, college students, welfare abusers, all democrats, baby murderers WANT an easier time.

oh, and outlawing AR-15s will nevr happen with 60%.

yeah, they are desperate to keep their advantage.

Sorry Union Bob, I disagree with you again.

[MLD Woody]

1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

What an asshole statement. First of all the books aren't banned you can buy them and jerk off to them any time you want. Second of all I don't know if it's 75% 25% or half but the outrage comes from both sides little Chum.

WSS

But saying that parts of the bill of rights would be eliminated is a totally reasonable thing to say. 

[Bob806]

1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

unions want the 51% because they, like the dem party, vote as a "BLOCK in big cities, making a 51% win far easier for them to rule,

rather than a 60% vote to change the Ohio Constitution.

Seriously, Bob, 

I do mean "seriously". leave it as it is, because it has been easier for socialist/communist unions to vote as a block, like all dems do, because you have far more impact than affecting dominance in a 60% vote?

come on, now. That is union sponsored bs.

If hard core dem radical cities and the leftwing unions can vote in a block and break a close vote every time, they win !

of COURSE they don't want it changed. IT will take away their block voting advantage.

   "only 51% to CHANGE THE OHIO CONSTITUTION" ??????????????????

yeah, read up on it - and realize WHY is needs to be changed - radical unions, college students, welfare abusers, all democrats, baby murderers WANT an easier time.

oh, and outlawing AR-15s will nevr happen with 60%.

yeah, they are desperate to keep their advantage.

Sorry Union Bob, I disagree with you again.

Did you read the link Cal?

Firstly, unions or no unions, if the will of the people to do a ballot initiative is stymied (if this passes) that's a big no-no. 

SB 5 in 2010. A big campaign donor had it rammed through our statehouse, despite people opposing it 70%- 30%. ALEC sponsored it.

Fortunately we were able to get a grass roots campaign, signatures to put it on the ballot where it was soundly overturned 66%- 34%. 

So on that specific issue, a big time donor (ALEC) was sent home & the will of the people, the voters, prevailed. Thank goodness.

If it smells fishy, it's most likely fishy. 

Secondly, I realize you're anti-union. A group of elected legislators trying to change state constitution(s) are far more dangerous....once again, it's because of the Citizens United  decision.

[Westside Steve]

48 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

But saying that parts of the bill of rights would be eliminated is a totally reasonable thing to say. 

And it is. Since the Constitutional amendment can be carried by a 51 to 49 vote. Just admit it and quit being an asshole.

I've read enough of your stuff to believe, even if you won't admit it, that the right to bear arms should just be eliminated.

And why not? Amendments come and go do they not?

WSS

[Canton Dawg]

7 hours ago, hammertime said:

Why do you want to murder children in the womb so badly?

It doesn’t sound so bad when you change the nomenclature from murdering infants to “reproductive rights”.

[Axe]

5 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

What an asshole statement.

Well, asshole is what he does and how he takes it..

[MLD Woody]

3 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

And it is. Since the Constitutional amendment can be carried by a 51 to 49 vote. Just admit it and quit being an asshole.

I've read enough of your stuff to believe, even if you won't admit it, that the right to bear arms should just be eliminated.

And why not? Amendments come and go do they not?

WSS

You realize this is for the state of Ohio, right?

 

And you're going to sit there and continue to ask me questions and derail this back and forth after just ignoring my earlier post pointing out multiple things you said that were incorrect? Feel free to respond to that first 

[Westside Steve]

8 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

You realize this is for the state of Ohio, right?

 

And you're going to sit there and continue to ask me questions and derail this back and forth after just ignoring my earlier post pointing out multiple things you said that were incorrect? Feel free to respond to that first 

What I realize is that those who advocate abortion on demand any reason anytime will vote no making that goal easier. I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you?

WSS 

[FairHooker11]

as an outsider it is easy to see that this ballot initiative is NO DIFFERENT from what a democratic majority would push 

if it had the means to do so- If it served their self interests

 making the changes to the Ohio constitution "harder' by a 60% majority instead of current simple 50% +1 is 

in my opinion visionary and proactive in response to whats been happening elsewhere in the US. 

protecting against progressive creep is an excellent start. 

the OP source is also "biased" to the leftist leaners wanting to place naysaying on the abortion issue  - even though there is no call to do so

besides, elections have consequences right BArry?  a republican majority seems to grate on some folks here dont it? 

Id say yes to issue 1

 

 

[calfoxwc]

14 hours ago, Bob806 said:

Did you read the link Cal?

 yep

*************************

Firstly, unions or no unions, if the will of the people to do a ballot initiative is stymied (if this passes) that's a big no-no. 

That isn't right - the will of the minority to initiate a RADICAL initiative, by a slim margin of union block votes and large democratic socialist/radical voting blocks, despite a majority of other folks who OPPOSE that racialism, is greatly enhanced with the slim 51% margin. Bob - if an initiative is valid for the majority, that validity should be passed at 60%. 51% gives the minority large voting blocks tremendous power, which is unfair. At 60% - it far more represents the will of ALL the states' folks, not just unions/college student groups/large leftwing cities.  Your union wants block voting power. They LOSE that power a lot if it is raised to 60%.

In other words - union dominant districts elect union reps. radical dominant districts with large radical populations elect radical leftist reps.

Read my lips, er, never mind - vote FOR issue one to give all of Ohio's population protection against a slim majority in the House putting a radical leftwing idea on the ballot. It is easier for them to lever pretend arguments to sway a few folks to their side, enough to simply put a bad idea on the ballot and let the people decide.

I do NOT want bad ideas getting on the ballot. SO, pass Issue One - and only GOOD ISSUES will get to the ballot - ideally.

  Because if a leftist radical idea gets on the ballot, the unions/leftist giant cities/etc voting blocks will happily vote in a bad idea that is not representative of what the majority of folks actually support. The radical voting blocks should not have the power to leverage a slim margin in the House, to get a radical agenda issue on the ballot. I say that because of the lies - their ulterior motives don't match their fake public rational to get people to vote on ideas.

Made it harder for bad ideas to be passed by the legislature - period. Good ideas are far more easily supported by both parties. Controversial issues should stand the test of a higher vote than 51%.

**********************************************

SB 5 in 2010. A big campaign donor had it rammed through our statehouse, despite people opposing it 70%- 30%. ALEC sponsored it.

Fortunately we were able to get a grass roots campaign, signatures to put it on the ballot where it was soundly overturned 66%- 34%. 

Sorry, Bob, but you just made my point. That big campaign donor can NOT pull that one off at 60%. Bad ideas should NOT be easy to get put onto the ballots. Thanks, man !

***********************************************

Secondly, I realize you're anti-union.

I am not anti-union, I am anti socialist unions. I keep referring you to the AFL-CIO. Go back and look at Richard Trumka. I've given you the link before. Here's another one:

https://www.trevorloudon.com › 2011 › 03 › is-richard-trumka-a-dsa-socialist

Is Richard Trumka a DSA Socialist?

There is evidence that the top man, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is a socialist sympathizer, perhaps even a covert D.S.A. member. Consider Trumka's record with D.S.A.; Every year since the mid 1960s the Indiana based Eugene V. Debs Foundation has held the Eugene Debs Award Banquet in Terre Haute, to honor the late socialist leader. The ...

*************************************

A group of elected legislators trying to change state constitution(s) are far more dangerous....once again, it's because of the Citizens United  decision.

That decision happened because of the unions/democrats/radicals political frivolous lawsuit against Citizens United for doing a film and airing it what the left said was "too close to the election", which was blatant nonsense.

Guess what the movie was?

https://citizensunitedmovies.com/pages/rigged

"Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, desired to air and advertise Hillary: The Movie, a film critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, ahead of the 2008 Democratic primary elections."

The effect of that ruling is a clusterfook - on both sides.

but campaign finance abuses were a clusterfook to begin with.

Lastly, I realize that you are super pro-union no matter what. You need to break from the union group think and look at the real picture on issues.

 

 

 

[MLD Woody]

10 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

What I realize is that those who advocate abortion on demand any reason anytime will vote no making that goal easier. I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you?

WSS 

Again, ignoring other parts of that post. 

Also you said "Well in this case abortion on demand anywhere anytime for any reason looks like it's on the line" ... And it isn't. It isn't on the line here. It isn't on the line in the follow up election. What you said is objectively false. 

[MLD Woody]

13 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

 

It's concerning how much you're just repeating yourself now. 

 

But fyi, as much as you hate this, the votes of union members, college students, and city folk don't count for less. 50k voters all living in Cleveland count the same as 50k voters scattered across the countryside. Just because you don't like how someone votes doesn't mean their vote counts for less (radical concept for conservatives, I know, considering their current love for voter suppression and gerrymandering). 

[Westside Steve]

9 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Again, ignoring other parts of that post. 

Also you said "Well in this case abortion on demand anywhere anytime for any reason looks like it's on the line" ... And it isn't. It isn't on the line here. It isn't on the line in the follow up election. What you said is objectively false. 

Bottom line again nobody gives a fuck about this. It's abortion and I know where you stand. Next time it will be about something else and people will switch hats. Advocates and detractors are mischaracterizing this vote and this measure for their own purposes.

WSS 

 

[Bob806]

28 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Bottom line again nobody gives a fuck about this. It's abortion and I know where you stand. Next time it will be about something else and people will switch hats. Advocates and detractors are mischaracterizing this vote and this measure for their own purposes.

WSS 

 

I hate that abortion became such a political issue and causes so much division.

Simply put, the economy & safety and security are the main concerns for this voter. I'll never understand how abortion could trump those issues, even after chatting with people who consider that the #1 thing.