• aidan@lemmy.world
    cake
    M
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months 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
      16
      ·
      11 months 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.world
        cake
        M
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            cake
            M
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Pipoca@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

        • lingh0e@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months 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.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            cake
            M
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            “Minorities” in this context refers to the people with the lower number of votes cast.

            Yes.

            They lose. It’s the very definition of voting.

            Not necessarily? Plenty of candidates lose the popular vote then win elections in all sorts of campaigns.

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months 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
      12
      ·
      11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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.