Brutus_buckeye

It is not "giving up power" if you view negative rights that are currently enshrined as "giving up power" Again, citizen referendums are 50% still so it is not like the path to a citizen initiative is extinguished.

Direct democracy has never been a successful form of governance. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic. You need the checks to let the populist steam out of the balloon sometimes. Any student of civics should realize this fact.

My view is that people can come to their decisions many different ways and it can be personal to them despite how it may be presented to the public. I think the legislature is playing politics and certainly acting a bit disingenuously here. I also think the proponents of the abortion amendment are doing the same thing in their selling of the amendment too. That is politics. I also think that there are also politicians who have wanted to propose this amendment for a long time that could care less about abortion but needed an issue like abortion that could stoke passions of supporters to get them to the polls. Without the abortion issue, I think you struggle to get people on either side of the issue to come out on the matter, and when you try and pass an amendment like this, you need to have the engagement of a number of passionate constituencies. For me, that is irrelevant, I have thought for a long time now that we should have a higher threshold for Constitutional Amendments but that has been my position for a long time. Regarding principled stand vs non principled stand, I think it depends on the individual person and what their motivation is.

Many states do not allow this, so that is a very good point. Maybe the popular amendment idea is not the best method for states. Now I am not supporting the marriage amendment, I personally voted against it years ago, but at least with the higher threshold, it shows where the values of the vast majority of the residents are in the state at that time. This is a good example of how times and opinions change which is not a bad thing. Even if over 60% would have voted to pass the amendment in 2004, that is fine because it truly represents the majority of the state's voters. Remember back in 2004, it would be tough to call Ohio a "red" state and certainly not 60% of its voters would be considered Republicans back then. So back in 2004, you could likely say that the marriage amendment was not necessarily a populist argument but represented the values of the vast majority of Ohioans at that time. Now obviously today things are vastly different and opinions have changed dramatically. I think if you had to repeal such an amendment, it would achieve the 60% threshold to repeal the amendment because it is not a populist whim, but a new reality of how people in the state think. So I do not think it would be as bad as you think. To your point though, maybe a better process is to add a legislature component to it along with a popular vote.

you are correct. But from a practicality standpoint, why would anyone do this. Let's face it, politics have never been a noble profession no matter what many politicians try and make you think (and not to say politicians are bad people, many get into it for the right reasons, but it is often the way the game just has to be played).

I never said the issue is not being sold as about abortion. I just said for me, personally, it is not about abortion. There are certainly other reasons that have merit to support it, but to your point, the issue would not be on the ballot now if it were not about abortion and in my opinion, I think Issue 1 will fail pretty strongly. Don't get me wrong, *Power* certainly is at play here. That spans party lines and political affiliations. If the shoe were on the other foot, you better believe that progressives would back this bill if they were the ones that had full control of the levers of power. But from a governance standpoint, removing the abortion issue, the 60% threshold does prevent populist fervor from sweeping and passing bad policy decisions. Given the fact that Ohio is a right leaning state, at the 50% threshold, and a populist fervor swept up by say Donald Trump campaigning in Ohio, would it be difficult to imagine an amendment to Ohio's Constitution that prohibits a foreign national from owning property in Ohio? Maybe, placing restrictions on immigrants in Ohio ability to get a drivers license or other state regulated rules that would make it hard for them to conduct commerce in Ohio? Go back 70 years and you could likely squeak by above 50% to enshrine Jim Crow laws in the Ohio Constitution. Do you think that could be foreseeable in a right leaning state like Ohio? I could see it happening. Would you feel more comfortable knowing that the populists would need at least 60% of the voters to pass something crazy like this? I think there is some merit to having a mechanism like this to let some steam out of the pot and then engage in more methodical deliberation to come up with better solutions (maybe sometimes slower than people like) to the key issues.

I think you fail to understand the position on the other side. Again, I am not saying you should be for this or against this. But there are at least merits on both sides of this argument. This is not some passionate moral argument that people should be having as it does not fall into that category unless people act irrationally and make it such. From an educated standpoint, there is certainly an argument that you should vote no, because it allows the people a say in ideas where the legislature ignores them. I get this. To a certain extent it can provide a check when there is no voice in the legislature. From a poltiical standpoint, you have progressives and Democrats voting no, because they are squeezed out of the legislative process now. If the tables were turned, these same groups would likely be pushing for a yes vote because uh *power*. But, I do understand the argument against Issue 1. I do disagree with some of the points, but do not think that anyone who votes No on the matter is wrong for doing so. I From the yes view, the issue of minority rights is important. That has been an important distinction that has helped our country remain strong for 250 years as it pushes back against populist whims that may catch traction in certain circles. Furthermore, there is an intellectual argument for yes, because the Constitution document is not a governing document and we should not muddy it up with items that are better left in a legislative capacity, or through referendum. There is certainly merit to that argument too. Let me ask you, how do you feel about the current amendment process to the US Constitution? Do you think that threshold is far to high? SHould it be made easier by 51% of Congress and maybe a direct referendum to the people to pass amendments? Certainly there is merit to allowing the people more direct say in the democracy, but then again you end up with many bad policy ideas getting stuck in the Constitution. I think we should work to prevent against that risk. For example, one of the things you hear right now from Republicans is the need to get rid of birthright citizenship. This occurs periodically throughout our history at a time when populist uprisings blame immigration for perceived woes. By having a higher threshold to amend the Constitution, this is a populist idea that would not be practical and will likely die out once populist ferver subsides.

There is a true debate on both sides of the issue that goes beyond trite sound bites. It is not "giving up rights so billionaires have more power over people" as you say. It is a pretty uneducated response to parody sound bites as to why you should or should not vote for something. There are certainly worthwhile arguments on both sides as to why you should support it or why you should be against it. While, I have laid out the reasons why I have decided to support it, I certainly understand and respect those who articulate their reasons why they are against it. There is room for civil disagreement on the issue because on some levels both sides have merit. However, if your passionate response for voting for or against something is based on the political commercials you watch, I suggest you educate yourself better on the issues (Please note, that this does not mean change your mind, as it is a completely reasonable position to vote against Issue 1 just as it is to vote for Issue 1) so as to not parody the attack points you hear on commercials.

I would not say that is the stance and in fact the Enquirer who endorses a no vote on Issue 1 specifically addressed this position and said that (even though they are against Issue 1) it is disingenuous to characterize the issue in this manner. For me personally, I do not see Issue 1 as an abortion issue (I know most people do and that is a fair way to view it). I am voting yes on the issue because I see it as a matter of good governance. I have seen a number of issues either be proposed as amendments or even pass (minimum wage, Marsy's law) that may sell as good in theory but are not great laws. Furthermore, they have issues that are not very workable and in conflict with other laws. To put them in as an amendment is not the proper path. They should be done as a referendum. A Constitution is a governing document and not a set of laws. It is like a mission statement. Muddying it up with actual "law" like this is not the proper place for these types of issues. They should be done on the legislative level not the Constitutional Amendment level.

As much as I love this, and still think this should be the goal for every bill, I can see the downside and that it could lead to gridlock as it removes the ability to horsetrade on certain issues. I still think each bill should stand on its own and we are better off for it, but people are people and politics are politics and sometimes it is just the messy part of getting things done. But in a perfect world I would agree with this. I just do not see how it could easily happen.

I think it depends on your definition of overturn. If an abortion rights referendum passes in the current form of the amendment, I think it would give the legislature pause and they would seek to tinker with the edges. If you have something that the voters across all political parties prefer, it is hard to really go against their wishes. Taking abortion, I think the majority of Ohioans would prefer that there be at least some access to abortion available. Does this mean that the legislature would fully respect a referendum that provided abortion on demand up until the baby is delivered? Probably not. However, it also means that the legislature would have a hard time repealing such a measure and going back to a heartbeat type bill. So what you would end up with is the legislature would cut back a fully expansive abortion bill and come up with a compromise version allowing access with a lot of restrictions through the state and likely cutting things off at viability at around 15-20 weeks. While there will be those on the far right and far left that will not be satisfied by this result, the majority of people will find it to be a reasonable compromise and be fine with it.

I know that theoretically the legislature could overturn a referendum but it would not be easy on them. Going against a citizen led referendum is tough politically to override, especially if one passes in a manner of around 60/40. Yes, there is gerrymandering but to immediately overturn it would be politically costly so it should give any legislature pause. Also, while the legislature may be able to repeal the law, what you will likely see is a legislature working around the edges of a bill. Some of the provisions of a referendum or amendment may be unworkable and need to be revised. It would be perfectly reasonable for the legislature to do this. So yes, you may have the legislature nibbling on the edges or you would have the GOP majority who sees a referendum come across and moderating it some yet still respecting the will of the people. It would be hard to see them outright overturning it and completely thrwarting the will of the people since many of them tend to be GOP voters anyway.

I have heard Sloan's position for a while now. I understand where he is coming from but I happen to disagree. The abortion issue has made this the major political row that it has become now. Also, at the end of the day, many progressives are not against this on principle and if they had the power, they would certainly be in favor of such a measure. The biggest thing for most Democrat leaning voters is that given that they have zero control on the levers of power, this is the only way they have a chance to exercise some control in the legislative process. For me, I do not think the Constitutional Amendment is the place to handle matters such as the abortion issue. They are better off being done via citizen referendum which will still remain at 50%. This is where I disagree with Sloan's position. If pro-abortion proponents wanted an abortion issue on the ballot, they could do so through the referendum process at 50.1%. A citizen referendum is a law too. We do not need to enshrine rules into the Constitution that are best meant to be legislative issues and better handled on the referendum level.

I think most people know this will fail, but it is interesting because if you listen to the messaging on the Pro-Issue 1 side, a lot of the messaging is focused on the abortion issue in the Fall. The Pro-Issue 1 crowd gets 2 cracks of the apple to defeat the abortion measure and allows it more exposure on its message for November, and more time to find a message that resonates. While most people favor a pro-abortion position in Ohio. That is not universal and certainly a lot of support for abortion has caveats and a lot of the pro-choice crowd does not favor abortion without restrictions. The big thing that the pro-abortion crowd risks is miscalculating by trying to pass an overly broad amendment instead of a very narrow amendment that would enshrine the right to an abortion up to 15-20 weeks (or viability) or if the life of the mother were in danger. What I anticipate hearing in the fall is a campaign that touches on transgender issues and a lot of other concerns that are not really related to abortion that could limit support for what would otherwise be an easy amendment to pass if it were narrowly tailored.

I think when you have an issue such as this, no matter how it is framed, it is certainly something that is not clear as day on either end. Yes, some groups argue passionately about it from both sides, but nobody really knows how the mechanics of such a change will play out if enacted. Therefore, given that, and given the fact that many voters often do not take the time to deeply research many of the pros and cons of each issue, the natural reflex action of voters is almost always going to be NO. This is why it will likely fail 60-40 range (or more). While the special election was a path to sneak it in to try and stop the abortion measure (which I am not convinced will definitely pass and think it would stand a better chance of being defeated than Issue 1 passing), for such an issue like issue 1 to pass, it would need to have been litigated and debated (and even brought to the ballot multiple times) over a period of years so that people are more comfortable with the idea of it passing. It would be unheard of for something like this to pass within a 3-4 month period such as this.

I think Bernie Sanders found that out the hard way in the last 2 presidential elections.

Looks nice, but we were promised a fortune 100 Global HQ from a new to market company in that building and by golly we need to hold out until we get that

It will be 63-37 No. When given a Y/N vote and people do not completely understand an issue, the default is always to vote no and preserve the status quo

So are they adding a second tower? It seems like the line would take forever if they can only run one car at at time and would make it extremely slow to load.

The Chamber's position is to get the bridge built as quick and efficiently as possible. They are not against Bridge Forward, they are against some of the other groups who are protesting the bridge, but as the article stated, they are not necessarily against the Bridge Forward project as long as it does not add significantly to the cost and timeline. If the Bridge Forward project is funded AND does not add additional years to the completion of the project, then I do not think the Chamber has an issue with what Bridge Forward is proposing, however, if the cost is significantly more and prevents the project from being completed within the projected timeline, then that is where the Chamber takes issue. I think the article did a good job to clarify that they were not necessarily against Bridge Forward but were certainly against some of the other groups looking to stop or change the development of the new bridge. However, they do have concerns with Bridge Forward so they do not fully endorse the proposal.

1) I never said that everything was roses. I think we agreed on that fact. Certainly, there are issues where you have the poor and marginalized that are left behind and sometimes swept aside in road project. We have both agreed on that. 2) That again does not make things racist. It is also a disservice and divisive to focus on the problem as race matter instead of a socio economic matter. While the fact that the majority of people affected may be African American because they are in a certain neighborhood is not always a race issue and it is a lazy narrative designed to stoke anger and divide people to treat it solely as a race issue. We are better than this and need to move on from this. Yes, it is a fact that some of the sins of yesteryear have caused a portion of African Americans to be left behind in poorer areas of town and have had disinvestment. But those sins of the past are not going on today. Yes, we have residual effects of this, but we are not actively designing roads to eliminate a portion of the community based on their race. Let's move on from that false narrative. If i am not mistaken, the whole concept of the "Opportunity Corridor" is to spur investment in the city around key employment drivers. In this case, the point was to provide better access to the Clinic. This would make sense given the Clinic location and difficulty accessing it from the suburbs and other parts of the state and region. In addition, the goal was to use the Clinic as an anchor to attract more jobs and investment to that area and have it spread out to the surrounding areas. There has been some objection to this because the road goes through a very poor area that has been subject to disinvestment over the last 70 years. it is not just the neighborhood where the Opportunity Corridor is going to go but throughout a good portion of the area even the area by the Clinic. For many years, there outside of the Clinic, there was no investment and when there was, it was often behind a wall and had no connection to the street. With an employer like the Clinic, their financial heft and size could be used to reactivate a neglected neighborhood and spread to other areas nearby. To do this, there needed to be infrastructure investment by the city to spur development in that area first and then hope it spreads to nearby neighborhoods. Unfortunately, in the process of doing this, which was the prudent thing to do, a neighborhood had to be sacrificed in the process. However, the hope is that the benefits of the project more than make up for this by providing increased opportunities to those who live nearby. This example is not racism nor is the planning for the Opportunity Corridor racist. It is a chance to provide investment to the community that ALL PEOPLE can share and benefit from and provides the opportunity to lift up a community. I remember going down to the Clinic many times over the last 30 years and it really was not an appealing area to be in. It is improving now and the area around it is too. It is an investment that benefits many people, but yes, there are a few poor people who are displaced in the process. That need to be handled delicately for sure but without the investment in the OC, investment would not be coming to the area and nobody benefits. Let's tone down the hyperbole regarding the roads for calling them racist is really not accurate

Are the subsidies based on 100% full, a different % full or is it based on a total revenue figure?

I think the disparate impact cannot be applied in all situations. To your point, is it unavoidable? That is a worthy question. I do think that today, as opposed to the 1950s and 1960s, road projects are not designed with race in mind. Whereas in the 50s and 60s, interchanges and roads were purposefully routed through African American parts of town, and they were also left off the interchanges leaving them no access to the highways. Today, based on migration patterns for people of all races, people choose to live in certain areas that require them to commute to city or other areas of town. In Charleston for example, it is a growing city that needs its infrastructure to catch up to its growth. Much of this is inevitable. But that does not mean that road cannot be designed to minimize the effect. But also, the key difference to keep in mind is that today, vs the 1950s and 60s, the people who live in that neighborhood have options to move to a better neighborhood, and more importantly, there are housing advocates looking out for their interests which will lobby for a higher eminent domain payout than they could get 60 years ago.

The article said that for a brand new flight, it is very strong, for whatever that means. I do not know what you compare it too and they did not list any other metrics to show a comparison for what the flight could/should look like. As someone who knows little about this (so take it with a grain of salt), I would imagine anywhere between 85-90% as the sweet spot that a carrier would want to target. Below 80% may be issue for concern and above 90% means the rates are too low or they need to expand service would be my guess. So my best guess is that the flight is meeting its targets and is profitable right now given the investment.

That is all true, but that is not racism or racist policy. That is more socioeconomic issues that transcends race and should be recognized as that.