6 points
*

If there is interest we can add the Mississippi, Missouri, and Michigan election news here as well. They are state and local primary elections but I’ve not seen much interest by the community.

Edit: Looks like there isn’t.

permalink
report
reply
11 points
*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/2023/ohio-issue-1/

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Response Votes Pct.
Yes 111,710 28.4 %
No 281,694 71.6 %
An estimated 12.6 percent of votes have been counted.

As of 7:50 PM right now.

Edit 1: 7:53 PM
Yes 138,143 29.4 %
No 331,325 70.6 %

Edit 2: 7:55 PM
Yes 158,861 29.1 %
No 387,174 70.9 %

17.5% counted.

Edit 3: 8:04 PM
Yes 193,220 29.7 %
No 457,553 70.3 %

20.8% counted.

Edit 4: 8:19 PM

Yes 232,355 30.9 %
No 519,368 69.1 %

24.1% counted. Yeah I don’t see it passing.

Edit 5: 8:25 PM

Wasserman and Decision Desk already called it for No. Will see how big of a margin now, but it is clear the proposition failed.

Edit 6: 8:48 PM

Yes 376,012 37.1 %
No 638,696 62.9 %

32.5% counted.

Edit 7: 8:56 PM

Washington Post projects No winning.

Yes 429,617 38.1 %
No 697,980 61.9 %

36.9% counted.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

I really hope the numbers stay at these levels. This issue needs to not only fail, it needs to be demolished with extreme prejudice. The goons who put this on the ballot need to see that they are absolutely on the wrong side of history.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Oh boy if it stays ~30 something to ~60, the legislators may regret this. Plus if it’s 60+, the proposition will have failed by the proportion they were proposing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Republicans in Ohio saw what Michigan Democrats have been able to do because of constitutional amendments and shit themselves

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

significant/overwhelming majority of counties

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
63 points

This measure is so blatantly anti-democratic that I can barely understand how anyone could justify it. I get text messages from right-leaning groups though and these are the kinds of things they’re using to push this initiative:

“Radicals are targeting Ohio children. Leftist amendments to the Ohio constitution will allow children to undergo dangerous sex changes without parental consent, and allow men to dominate women’s sports. Protect your parental rights. Protect your children.“

It’s so ridiculously stupid and over-the-top, do Republicans actually believe this trash? It’s obviously about abortion, I’m surprised they don’t come out and just say it.

I voted ‘No’ on the measure, however, Brexit, of all things, did make me think about this a little more. I think Brexit was a universally stupid move for Britain and I can’t imagine something so incredibly important was left up to a slim ~51-49 vote result, when it should’ve been something more like 60-40, which could’ve prevented Brexit altogether.

Yet I’m doing the exact opposite in voting against Issue 1, which I should be in support of, since it would make it harder for potentially catastrophic initiatives from getting passed. I guess it’s painfully obvious what Republicans are trying to do here AND they’re sneaking it in during a low voter turnout special election, it’s literally the only thing on the ballot in my area. I’m contradicting myself because I don’t trust the motives of the people pushing it.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

The 60% threshold isn’t inherently bad, and I agree that an argument could be made for requiring at least 55% approval in order for a ballot initiative to pass. Here are my problems with the Ohio situation:

  • Issue 1 would make it harder to put initiatives on the ballot, period. The big hurdle is requiring a relatively large number of signatures from EVERY county in the state. This means that a single ruby-red county could single-handedly keep an issue off of the ballot

  • Ohio is so gerrymandered that ballot initiatives are about the only voice available to the population. The GOP has supermajorities in the state Senate and House, even though they only have about a 4% advantage in registered voters.

It’s absolutely critical to defeat Issue 1.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Ohio is so gerrymandered that ballot initiatives are about the only voice available to the population. The GOP has supermajorities in the state Senate and House, even though they only have about a 4% advantage in registered voters.

Even more to the gerrymandering, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled the CURRENT gerrymandered districting is unconstitutional. GOP lead house and senate in the state simply ignored it and keeps the gerrymandering which keeps them in control of the state legislature.

Ohioians few remaining ways to make their voices heard is by referendum, which is what the GOP is trying to take away here from Ohio voters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

Constitutions are fundamentally anti-democratic in intention.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

This measure is so blatantly anti-democratic that I can barely understand how anyone could justify it.

This very thing inspired me, a person who currently works nights, to screw up my sleep schedule to vote against it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could just vote by mail at your leisure?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Same. This is the second time I’ve ever voted, and I’m 35.

I guess I have to thank the Republicans for becoming insane enough to make me feel like I can no longer afford not to vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

Republicans count on people’s prejudice and watching propaganda so they don’t know it is about abortion choice. They want to say woke agenda to get them to vote against their interests.

Woke people are women, minorities, LGBTQ, and non Christians. They are against us.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

I actually think you should make it somewhat difficult to do direct democracy votes. There was a crisis in California a while back because the voters decided to mandate taxes don’t go up, and also spending does go up substantially. As separate propositions, both things sound good, but the reason for little-r republican representation is that if your legislator did both those things and caused a crisis you would vote them out. People in charge of institutions have longer term responsibility.

Or look at Brexit where a slight majority voted for it and a majority now regret it since it caused all the economic pain and political chaos everyone was saying it would.

So I think there is an argument for the threshold being above 50%, I think 60% is pretty high but you can make the argument, maybe something in the middle is reasonable. Preferable to me is something like a double approval process…any amendment needs to get approved by 50%+, followed by a mandatory vote in the legislature and if confirmed it would become law, but if it fails it would get another public vote where it would need to get 50%+ and if it got it, become law.

All that said, I don’t want abortion banned in Ohio, I know that’s pretty heavily a part of this vote in particular but just wanted to talk about the actual argument for a bit.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

That’s not an unreasonable reaction but this one in Ohio is different in several ways.

1 The GOP super majority passed a lady abolishing August special elections that went into effect on January 2023. They are immediately ignoring this law and had to create a loophole to even hold this election.

2 It does not just raise the passing vote threshold. It mandates signatures from 100% of Ohio counties to even place a measure on the ballot. And it’s not just 1 signature is a proportion of the counties population. Idk how well you know Ohio but that is almost effectively impossible.

3 The GOP are blatantly short cutting the November election and chose 60% because polling places support for the amendment enshrining abortion rights at about 58%.

4 This is a simple majority to pass but raises it for everything else which is hypocritical. Amendments of this Nature should have to pass at the threshold they are attempting to set.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 446K

    Comments