• aidan@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • aidan@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        But a federalist system isn’t meant to be democratic. It is supposed to guarantee rights and some influence to everyone including minorities.

        • Pipoca@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

        • lingh0e@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • cowfodder@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

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

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.