this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
326 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19145 readers
4637 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS.
It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments.
Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Register To Vote
• Citizenship Resource Center
• Congressional Awards Program
• Federal Government Agencies
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• The White House
• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Senate
Partnered Communities:
• News
• World News
• Business News
• Political Discussion
• Ask Politics
• Military News
• Global Politics
• Moderate Politics
• Progressive Politics
• UK Politics
• Canadian Politics
• Australian Politics
• New Zealand Politics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well the point of a constitution is to bind the future majority, so it makes sense to require significant/overwhelming majority of counties to support it.
Change "counties" to "people" and I might agree. But "significant majority of counties" is just an extension of the anti-democratic bias that we see in the Senate and EC. It should always be one-person-one-vote.
But a federalist system isn't meant to be democratic. It is supposed to guarantee rights and some influence to everyone including minorities.
Requiring a majority of counties to agree on things isn't good for minorities in general.
It generally grants outsized power to one specific minority in particular - white rural voters.
Yes rural voters. That is again the point. Federalism is supposed to balance power between the entities of the federation- which aren't necessarily the populace.
No.
Federalism is about division of power at different scales of government.
In a confederation, the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level. In a unitary government, regional government is subordinate to the general level.
Israel, the UK, and China are examples of unitary states. The EU is a confederation, and the US was one for about a decade before the constitution was passed.
In a federal system, different levels of government are of equal power, but have different powers. States can't control interstate commerce; the federal government can't regulate state speed limits except by doing something like withholding federal highway trust fund money.
While the US federal government started out as an alliance between existing colonies, states didn't start out as an alliance of counties. US States are mostly (all?) unitary governments; Ohio counties have the powers the state government delegates to them.
Counties historically have been a matter of pragmatic. Counties are small so everyone could easily travel to their local county government on foot or horseback. They weren't intended as a way to gerrymander state populations to entrench rural power.
There's a reason that neither the Ohio senate nor the Ohio house follow 'one county, one representative'. Because that would be absolutely bonkers.
What are you talking about? "Minorities" in this context refers to the people with the lower number of votes cast. They lose. It's the very definition of voting.
Yes.
Not necessarily? Plenty of candidates lose the popular vote then win elections in all sorts of campaigns.
Wanting to raise the threshold isn't inherently bad. But from what I've read on this their legislature previously banned August elections like this because of poor turnout and they're also trying to make it effectively impossible to even put a measure like this on the ballot to get that increased majority by requiring a large amount of signatures from every county in the state. Meaning it would only take one county to not get enough people and it theoretically wouldn't matter if literally every single other person in the state signed onto the petition; It wouldn't get in the ballot.
It seems like the 60% rather than 50% is just to try and hide the ball so they can effectively outlaw popular grassroots action going directly to the ballot.
Republicans in Ohio saw what Michigan Democrats have been able to do because of constitutional amendments and shit themselves
Ballot initiatives and referendums and amendments are proving to be the bane of the Republican Party. Even in Missouri, a referendum had voters approve an ACA Medicaid expansion. Voters weren't willing to send a majority of Democrats to the legislature to accomplish the same thing.
This is an Achilles's Heel to the Republican strategy of total loyalty to the party. The voters can still be liberal on individual issues, and these direct democracy votes bypass party loyalty to get at the actual issue.