323
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] dezmd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Do it anyway maybe? The more informed people, the better they can be at making decisions.

[-] 2piradians@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is this the same referendum format requiring half the votes +1 to pass? The exact thing they're trying to kill off?

EDIT: The measure should have to be supported by the same vote threshold to pass that it seeks to impose.

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 39 points 1 year ago

The irony is even dumber since they already passed HB 458 which forbids such an election in August.

They broke their own rule, a rule that they themselves pushed through.

Don't ever pretend that the GOP cares about rules or laws. They will literally do whatever they must to remain in power.

[-] RunningTowardTheVoid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thank you for this. I live in Ohio and did not know this law existed. I have not heard it brought up in any discussion or news coverage (although I admit my decision was made early and have not spent much time listening to the 'debates'). Did LaRose and company offer any reason as to why they think HB 458 does not apply in this case?

[-] 2piradians@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

["As a course of action, normal course of doing business, yes, I do not believe in having elections in August as a normal way of holding elections," he explained.

"But if the state legislature decides to hold an election in August, it's not unusual," said LaRose.] (https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192550481/ohio-issue-1-ballot-special-election-abortion-constitutional-amendment)

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago

Sort of the ironic soft underbelly of small-d democratic institutions. You overthrow them by winning power democratically and keeping it by force, whereas if someone wants to take it back for democracy they have to then take it by force and keep it democratically, the harder proposition.

[-] snipgan@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

Edit 8: 9:15 PM

Yes 603,050 40.7 %
No 878,360 59.3 %

47.4% counted. Keep in mind a lot of the urban/city areas haven't even counted most of their votes yet where the more rural areas have.

Edit 9: 9:22 PM

Yes 744,053 42.5 %
No 1,006,127 57.5 %

56% counted.

Edit 10: 9:30 PM

Yes 809,110 42.8 %
No 1,082,764 57.2 %

60.5 % counted. Urban areas still undercounted.

Edit 11: 10:06 PM

Yes 1,100,677 43.2 %
No 1,448,086 56.8 %

81.5% counted.

Edit 12: 10:36 PM

Yes 1,217,867 43.4 %
No 1,585,920 56.6 %

89.7% counted. Cuyahoga and Lucas counties seem to be the ones having a decent chunk to count still. Both heavily leaning No.

Edit 14: 8:33 AM

Yes 1,315,346 43.0 %
No 1,744,094 57.0 %

97.9% counted. Looking like a slam dunk and massive support for No. Winner winner chicken dinner.

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago
[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] MacGuffin94@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

OK, these numbers are looking remarkably good. Definitely exceeding predictions that already had the measure being soundly defeated.

So I have to wonder... How far off are the polls nationally? We know the Republican party is shrinking, and we know that polls are getting harder to do because people under 50 tend not to answer cellphone calls from numbers they don't know.

Is it possible that next year will actually be a landslide for both Biden and Democrats in the House and Senate? I don't want to get too hopeful, but Ohio's kind of a bellwether, and this... This looks good. This looks very good.

[-] Kingofthezyx@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Every year, 4 million people are newly eligible to vote as they turn 18, while 2.5 million people over the age of 65 lose their ability to vote due to death.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Pray for a landslide, prepare as if we're -2 under. I'm very optimistic.

[-] Jonna@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Just remember that a minimum wage increase WON in Florida with a higher percentage than Trump, even tho both candidates opposed it. If Democrats don't run to progressive positions, they don't benefit from the public sentiment.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I personally think Biden wins by 80%

Republicans have near zero support in the United States and the 2024 election will be an embarrassment for them.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

80% is a serious exaggeration. At least 25% of the electorate would vote for Trump even if he ate a baby on live television.

[-] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

A live baby. With a dull spoon.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

They'd say the baby must have deserved it for some reason. And hey, at least he didn't abort it!

Come to the rural south and you will find this isn't true sadly.

[-] NABDad@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think it's important to remember how close the election in 2020 was. Just looking at the popular vote:

81,282,916 for Biden 74,223,369 for Trump

46.9% of the people who voted wanted more of the same. I don't think that number has dropped much since then.

Trump still has the support of almost half the people in the United States. It might be easier mentally to forget that, but we can't let up. We have to treat the next election and every other election like our lives depend on it!

Suggesting that somehow ~62% of the Trump supporters from 2020 suddenly came to their senses seems pretty damn farfetched. If 10% of the people who voted for Biden in 2020 decide they don't need to bother in 2024 because "Republicans have near zero support", then Trump could win.

Personally, I believe if we have the same desperate need to defeat Trump in 2024, and drive turnout to the same degree, there might be a few percentage points increase in favor of Biden. If we relax and assume it's already won, we'll have another four years of Trump.

[-] ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

AP projects issue 1 is defeated.

This is a seems somewhat hopeful sign about the current electorate. And turnout looks much better than anticipated. 40% in many areas so far. For a special election, that’s very high.

[-] Hairyblue@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Let's vote Ohio! I am in Alabama but I am very interested in this.

[-] dezmd@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The entire country is metro areas, suburbs, college towns, and everything else is rural Arkansas. Florida just gets that added bonus of the Sunshine Laws that do so well to expose the crazies in an efficient manner. Florida overall has not actually been full on red for decades (maybe conservative tinted, but not R red), even if it kinda feels like it.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year 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 15 points 1 year 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 1 points 1 year ago

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

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 1 points 1 year 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 1 points 1 year 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 13 points 1 year 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
323 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3976 users here now

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS