May 10, 20232 yr 32 minutes ago, Gramarye said: I would have predicted the Chinese and Indian numbers to be substantially closer. So fair point. Still, I'm curious (a) whether that Chinese number has shrunk and/or will shrink, and (b) whether those seats really can't and/or won't be filled with students from other countries. When I was in the student rental business at Dayton years back, it was amazing how many students were coming over from China. The universities were courting these students because there was a ton of easy money behind it. From a housing standpoint, they had a pretty decent living expense budget (they were not living large but had a bigger budget than many of the other international students) especially European students who tended to struggle more financially. The Chinese influence went from almost nothing in the early 2000's to a significant international presence at Dayton by 2012-2015 time frame. From what I hear it has greatly pulled back given Covid and other tensions with international relations such that the flow of Chinese students has slowed precipitously. I think it may pick up some but not to the levels of 10 years ago given the current state of international affairs. 36 minutes ago, Gramarye said: I would have predicted the Chinese and Indian numbers to be substantially closer. So fair point. Still, I'm curious (a) whether that Chinese number has shrunk and/or will shrink, and (b) whether those seats really can't and/or won't be filled with students from other countries. From my limited immigration legal experience, I remember that India is a challenging country, not necessarily for student Visas but once the student graduates, it is much harder for them to find employment in the US and convert their Visa to an H1-B or other form. This may ultimately depress the number of Indian Students who come because it is much easier to get a work Visa from China or most other countries than it is from India. I don't know though. 39 minutes ago, Gramarye said: Maybe. But I think we should reserve judgment on the trends in international student enrollment until we actually see it, and also whether the causes of it are endogenous or external (e.g., regulatory, which could be changed). For the moment, you appear to be right, and I was surprised to learn that the disparity was this high myself, at least as of 2019: certainly, I do not know how the international students will shake out. Clearly they will be in demand for many schools to help make up for the decline in American students simply due to the fact that there will be far fewer than them in the future.
May 10, 20232 yr 41 minutes ago, Gramarye said: In truth, state and local laws play a much larger role in people's everyday lives than they appreciate. If you are a young renter (the sort of person we're generally talking about in this thread), you won't sense any differences, other than bar closing times, or more recently, marijuana laws. You have to go get a new driver's license and plates at some point, but nothing differs drastically. If you are a business owner or investor, then state and local laws can make a big difference, depending on the type of business. In the distant past, things were probably much different from state to state, since a lot of banking was confined within a state. Now the same laws generally apply to banking across state lines (VA/FHA/conventional mortgages, max credit card interest rate, etc.).
May 10, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Lazarus said: The ethnic, political, and physical characteristics of U.S. cities that are growing versus those that are stagnant reveal no pattern whatsoever. The reason why many "hot" cities appear to be "blue" is because they have a large black population, a voting bloc that often votes 90% Democrat, despite it having little overlapping interest with the "We Believe" yard sign crowd. I wasn't talking about population growth, but economic opportunities and growth. Cleveland has been shrinking in population for decades, but its GDP continues to grow, and it still offers magnitudes of order more jobs and economic opportunities than any red county in the state. Even if you want to say this has nothing to do with more progressive policies in cities, you would have to concede that urban places are the economic hearts of states and the nation as a whole. There can be no disputing that. I would also offer the position that the stagnation/decline in population of cities in the Rust Belt and some other places were more due to larger national trends, like offshoring manufacturing. It's not just Black people who vote for Democrats, though. Pretty much all racial minorities do in majority numbers. So do most other minority groups, including LGBTQ+, some religious demographics, etc. And so do plenty of just plain white, cis, non-minority people as well. There is a reason that Republicans would likely never win the presidency if not for the EC. Maybe you should be asking why all those groups won't vote Republican.
May 10, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: I disagree 100% with your conclusions. Let's break down the areas that are growing significantly in the so called "red states" Look at Columbus, Ohio and Austin Texas as 2 prime examples. Both cities offer 2 key job drivers: 1) Seat of state government and government offices and 2) Large Research university. These factors have existed long before so called "blue" social policies and the Democrats pretty much controlled all the levers of local politics in those areas. in fact, you could argue that the foundation that led to those areas to thrive was laid by policies put in place by previously run Republican governments. I think the argument about "blue" politics being the reason why these areas are thriving is a misguided one. The areas were set up to thrive because of the factors laid out above that led to the incubation of jobs in 21st century industries that often centered around research and technology. Neither a university nor being a capital is required for a city to grow, since there are dozens upon dozens of cities that are growing quickly without them, so this is a simplistic diagnosis of that success. You're just saying things. What foundation did Republicans provide that is responsible for urban growth today, specifically? Conservativism has never been at the forefront of innovation or technology. Hell, you guys are still denying climate change and vaccine efficacy, and you started out the American experiment by burning people accused of witchcraft, so when was this time where conservatives were busy fostering technological and research advancement? 2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: Going around other "red" states and looking at the thriving markets and you see the same similarities: 1) Raleigh Durham - State Government, 2 Large Research universities. 2) Nashville TN - State Government, Strong Research University, also have the confluence of the country music industry to further help things. 3) Atlanta - Many large research universities, head of state government creates a draw for younger educated professionals and companies to relocate there because of the labor pool. All you're really saying here is that education is important in building a strong economic foundation. Which is super ironic considering the general disdain the Right has for education, but especially higher education. If your argument is that universities and colleges are important factors in economic and social growth, why are Republicans so dead set against free college, for example? 2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: People go to places for jobs. companies go to places because of the labor pool in the area. Having a large research university contributes to that labor pool. If people have opportunities they will stay, if not they will leave. It is human nature. The social policies that may exist in that area may be superficially important to people but at the end of the day, they are going where the opportunities are. People and companies are currently flocking to Texas because they have a great income tax structure and provide good opportunities to do business. Yes, exactly, Texas is great for corporations, but I noticed you didn't mention it being great for workers. Because it's not. Companies are flocking to Texas because they can pay their employees lower wages with fewer benefits combined with less regulations and standards they have to follow. There's a reason most of the Sun Belt has worse quality of life metrics across the board than say, New York or Illinois or California, the trifecta of most hated states by conservatives.
May 10, 20232 yr What red cities of size there are out there have a huge military presence and therefore heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.
May 10, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Lazarus said: The fact that the federal government approves student loans and pell grants to just about anyone explains why there is no incentive for the state universities to lower tuition. Currently, undergrads can get $12,500 per year in loans. That's pretty much exactly what every single state school charges around the entire United States. The endowments and special funds like the Texas oil fund recruiting mechanisms, not undergrad tuition. Again, what you're describing - the fed government backing grants keeping tuition artificially low - however it "works," it isn't capitalism.
May 10, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Lazarus said: Utah attracts a lot of people from California: The United States is a really, really big place. People are free to live wherever they want. But it's really unlikely - no matter where they choose - that state laws or local government will have a significant impact on their life. California has the largest population of Republican voters in the country. Just because people move from California does not make them liberal/progressive.
May 10, 20232 yr 55 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: It's not just Black people who vote for Democrats, though. Pretty much all racial minorities do in majority numbers. But black Americans, uniquely, act as a bloc, to a greater extent than any other. This article from 2016 argues that it's mostly due to peer pressure: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-many-black-voters-are-democrats-even-when-they-arent-liberal/
May 10, 20232 yr 37 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: Neither a university nor being a capital is required for a city to grow, since there are dozens upon dozens of cities that are growing quickly without them, so this is a simplistic diagnosis of that success. You're just saying things. What foundation did Republicans provide that is responsible for urban growth today, specifically? Conservativism has never been at the forefront of innovation or technology. Hell, you guys are still denying climate change and vaccine efficacy, and you started out the American experiment by burning people accused of witchcraft, so when was this time where conservatives were busy fostering technological and research advancement? unfortunately, you are good at drawing flawed conclusions from the facts that are presented to you. If you look at many of the key growth cities over the last 50 years you see some themes in all of them 1) Many are state capitals or the seat of government (Denver, Salt Lake, Atlanta, Columbus, Indianapolis, Nashville, Raleigh Durham, Austin, Phoenix) 2) Many have large research universities that generate hundreds of millions in research and potential spin offs into the corporate sector from their research (Ohio State, Emory/Ga Tech, Utah, Univ of Colorado, Vanderbilt, Duke/UNC, Texas, ASU) 3) There are advantages to being in the Sun belt as it is a growing area. People are moving down there and like being in warm humid weather 4) Other cities that are growing that may not be in a capital/large R1 University have certain other characteristics. Charlotte has developed a strong concentration of banking, Miami has been huge in the crypto and also has a large port, Houston again has a huge port as well as oil. It also does not hurt that these cities are in the sunbelt as well. As many other people have been able to determine, the growth of cities in this country in the 21st century has followed certain trends that have been highlighted above. Progressive social policies is not part of that. SOmehow, you seem unable to see that or admit the obvious.
May 10, 20232 yr 27 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: As many other people have been able to determine, the growth of cities in this country in the 21st century has followed certain trends that have been highlighted above. Progressive social policies is not part of that. SOmehow, you seem unable to see that or admit the obvious. What's weird is that some growing cities have very good airport connections but others don't. Miami, obviously, has the singular advantage of being much closer to South America than any other US Airport, not only because it's so far south, but also because it's so far east (most of South America's population is east of our east coast). Denver also has a huge airport since Salt Lake is really its only competitor in the middle of the United States. Meanwhile, Nashville and Austin do not have good airport connections. Nashville is too close to Atlanta and Austin is wedged between Dallas and Houston.
May 10, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Lazarus said: What's weird is that some growing cities have very good airport connections but others don't. Miami, obviously, has the singular advantage of being much closer to South America than any other US Airport, not only because it's so far south, but also because it's so far east (most of South America's population is east of our east coast). Denver also has a huge airport since Salt Lake is really its only competitor in the middle of the United States. Meanwhile, Nashville and Austin do not have good airport connections. Nashville is too close to Atlanta and Austin is wedged between Dallas and Houston. Neither does Columbus, Indy, Raleigh Durham. Certainly good transportation helps things, but I almost think the seat of government combined with a large research university has more strength. You can always expand and airport and add more flights as demand dictates.
May 10, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Lazarus said: But black Americans, uniquely, act as a bloc, to a greater extent than any other. This article from 2016 argues that it's mostly due to peer pressure: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-many-black-voters-are-democrats-even-when-they-arent-liberal/ "Peer pressure" is certainly a take.
May 10, 20232 yr 38 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: unfortunately, you are good at drawing flawed conclusions from the facts that are presented to you. If you look at many of the key growth cities over the last 50 years you see some themes in all of them 1) Many are state capitals or the seat of government (Denver, Salt Lake, Atlanta, Columbus, Indianapolis, Nashville, Raleigh Durham, Austin, Phoenix) 2) Many have large research universities that generate hundreds of millions in research and potential spin offs into the corporate sector from their research (Ohio State, Emory/Ga Tech, Utah, Univ of Colorado, Vanderbilt, Duke/UNC, Texas, ASU) 3) There are advantages to being in the Sun belt as it is a growing area. People are moving down there and like being in warm humid weather 4) Other cities that are growing that may not be in a capital/large R1 University have certain other characteristics. Charlotte has developed a strong concentration of banking, Miami has been huge in the crypto and also has a large port, Houston again has a huge port as well as oil. It also does not hurt that these cities are in the sunbelt as well. As many other people have been able to determine, the growth of cities in this country in the 21st century has followed certain trends that have been highlighted above. Progressive social policies is not part of that. SOmehow, you seem unable to see that or admit the obvious. You specifically said that Republican/conservative policies laid the foundation for urban growth. You have offered no specifics to that end, and that's what I am asking for. None of those things above are related to conservative policy, but I would certainly argue that prioritizing higher education and public funding of such institutions are not conservative in nature. Your other points basically boil down to luck of status or location, which have nothing to do with conservative policy, either. So what are the specifics of conservative beliefs or policies that enable urban areas to grow?
May 10, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: "Peer pressure" is certainly a take. "This doesn't reflexively validate progressive pieties and therefore can be summarily dismissed until its authors can be suitably reeducated and/or canceled" is also a take. 538 is not a particularly partisan outfit. The study described in @Lazarus' link could have its methodology questioned, but it ought to be taken seriously.
May 10, 20232 yr It's amazing how we constantly hear from conservatives that places like California are failed liberal states due to its progressive policies, yet every successful blue city or state is strictly the result of any and all factors *besides* actual policies. Curious!
May 10, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: You specifically said that Republican/conservative policies laid the foundation for urban growth. You have offered no specifics to that end, and that's what I am asking for. None of those things above are related to conservative policy, but I would certainly argue that prioritizing higher education and public funding of such institutions are not conservative in nature. Your other points basically boil down to luck of status or location, which have nothing to do with conservative policy, either. So what are the specifics of conservative beliefs or policies that enable urban areas to grow? I never specifically argued conservative policy. What I said was that it could be argued that many years ago when these clusters of growth cities started to develop, many of the policies laid in place were placed by more conservative minded politicians that sought to foster business growth through pro growth policies which laid the foundation for what happen to occur. Now, in some sense, these decisions amounted to educated bets at the time and they materialized and made those past leaders look good. I do not think you could point to a specific point in history or specific decision, it was likely a combination of hundreds of decisions. But as I have said all along and many other people pretty much have said, geography, state capitals and research universities are what has led to growth in many markets vs others. Progressive policies have never had anything to do with that growth.
May 10, 20232 yr Just now, Gramarye said: "This doesn't reflexively validate progressive pieties and therefore can be summarily dismissed until its authors can be suitably reeducated and/or canceled" is also a take. 538 is not a particularly partisan outfit. The study described in @Lazarus' link could have its methodology questioned, but it ought to be taken seriously. Yes, that's a take, but certainly not mine. I do find it quite interesting how you all love the position that minorities actually like conservative policies, but won't vote Republican because their friends/family may become angry at them over a *checks notes*... completely secret vote. I have an alternative theory... maybe it's just that embracing white supremacy is a bigger problem.
May 10, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: It's amazing how we constantly hear from conservatives that places like California are failed liberal states due to its progressive policies, yet every successful blue city or state is strictly the result of any and all factors *besides* actual policies. Curious! Its amazing how the data has been presented to demonstrate otherwise yet you still keep promoting that false assertion about progressive policies.
May 10, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: It's amazing how we constantly hear from conservatives that places like California are failed liberal states due to its progressive policies, yet every successful blue city or state is strictly the result of any and all factors *besides* actual policies. Curious! It's all too distract from the fact that among the ten states grappling with the most dire socioeconomic indicators, nine of them lean heavily towards a conservative political affiliation.
May 10, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said: I never specifically argued conservative policy. What I said was that it could be argued that many years ago when these clusters of growth cities started to develop, many of the policies laid in place were placed by more conservative minded politicians that sought to foster business growth through pro growth policies which laid the foundation for what happen to occur. Now, in some sense, these decisions amounted to educated bets at the time and they materialized and made those past leaders look good. I do not think you could point to a specific point in history or specific decision, it was likely a combination of hundreds of decisions. But as I have said all along and many other people pretty much have said, geography, state capitals and research universities are what has led to growth in many markets vs others. Progressive policies have never had anything to do with that growth. But you can't name any of the policies that supposedly laid those foundations? That's a problem if you're going to make such a claim. Also, it doesn't really make sense. The Overton Window has certainly shifted enormously over time, but even in 1700 or 1800, urban areas would've still been much more progressive relative to non-urban society. That's always been the case because cities breed interaction and the exchange of ideas. They are the hub of development, of education, of culture and always have been.
May 10, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: Its amazing how the data has been presented to demonstrate otherwise yet you still keep promoting that false assertion about progressive policies. Let me know when you begin providing any actual data.
May 10, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, jonoh81 said: Let me know when you begin providing any actual data. johhnyo , Its amazing how you have nothing to present to support your point about progressive policies. O wait, you cant and never could.
May 10, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: johhnyo , Its amazing how you have nothing to present to support your point about progressive policies. O wait, you cant and never could. It is supported, though. Blue states subsidize red states federally. Democrats nationally produce better economic conditions than Republicans. Urban areas, not rural areas, are by far the leaders in GDP, job growth, an educated workforce, innovation, technological advancement, etc. The numbers overwhelmingly are on my side of the debate. And you still haven't answered a simple question to name any specific Republican/conservative policies that either laid the foundations for urban success or promote it today. So what exactly do you think I need to prove? A simple google search will confirm all of these things.
May 10, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, jonoh81 said: It is supported, though. Blue states subsidize red states federally. Democrats nationally produce better economic conditions than Republicans. Urban areas, not rural areas, are by far the leaders in GDP, job growth, an educated workforce, innovation, technological advancement, etc. The numbers overwhelmingly are on my side of the debate. And you still haven't answered a simple question to name any specific Republican/conservative policies that either laid the foundations for urban success or promote it today. So what exactly do you think I need to prove? A simple google search will confirm all of these things. As stated above, your conclusions are incorrect and you interpret your data wrong. you can continue believing this but I would suggest you go back to the data and work on your analysis skills before drawing your conclusions. Just because you want a certain answer to be true does not make it true.
May 10, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: As stated above, your conclusions are incorrect and you interpret your data wrong. you can continue believing this but I would suggest you go back to the data and work on your analysis skills before drawing your conclusions. Just because you want a certain answer to be true does not make it true. If they are incorrect and I am misinterpreting the data, it should be easy to show how. I have no issue being wrong, so if I am, this should be an easy layup for you. I await your debunking.
May 10, 20232 yr On 5/9/2023 at 1:48 PM, Lazarus said: Because 99% of the population does not care about state politics.
May 10, 20232 yr 18 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: If they are incorrect and I am misinterpreting the data, it should be easy to show how. I have no issue being wrong, so if I am, this should be an easy layup for you. I await your debunking. This has been demonstrated by numerous people over and over and over again yet you act like it does not exist. I get it, you know what you know and no amount of facts will change your mind or convince you otherwise.
May 10, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: This has been demonstrated by numerous people over and over and over again yet you act like it does not exist. I get it, you know what you know and no amount of facts will change your mind or convince you otherwise. Where? Can you point to any specific posts then if you're not going to offer the evidence yourself? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about in terms of debunking anything. Maybe I missed it.
May 10, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said: This has been demonstrated by numerous people over and over and over again yet you act like it does not exist. I get it, you know what you know and no amount of facts will change your mind or convince you otherwise. 1 hour ago, jonoh81 said: Where? Can you point to any specific posts then if you're not going to offer the evidence yourself? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about in terms of debunking anything. Maybe I missed it. It's obvious that you're both wrong. 😁 Lots of factors can influence growth in rural and urban areas, but political leaning is not a significant factor. https://equitablegrowth.org/gaps-in-u-s-rural-and-urban-economic-growth-widened-in-the-post-great-recession-economy-with-implications-amid-the-coronavirus-recession/ Urban areas worldwide tend to be more liberal than rural areas. The US is not unique. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cities-conference/home
May 10, 20232 yr Now that the 60% constitutional change is up for vote in August (barring any legal proceedings, there are rumblings that the amendment made to the bill to allow for an August election is illegal), do we have anyone yet who's willing to speak up on why they think this is a good idea? It was crickets the last time I asked. “To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”
May 10, 20232 yr Because the Ashville Representative pushing it is being funded by a billionaire that doesn't want anything to change ever. Edited May 10, 20232 yr by GCrites80s
May 11, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, BigDipper 80 said: Now that the 60% constitutional change is up for vote in August (barring any legal proceedings, there are rumblings that the amendment made to the bill to allow for an August election is illegal), do we have anyone yet who's willing to speak up on why they think this is a good idea? It was crickets the last time I asked. I am anti-referendum and anti-mayor/governor recall. Local ballot issues that involved a bond issue used to require a supermajority, up until about 1960. About once every five years, California voters manage to pass something really dumb. They just passed a tax on real estate transactions over $5 million dollars. If it turns out to be a disaster, it's going to be really difficult to reverse.
May 11, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, Foraker said: Urban areas worldwide tend to be more liberal than rural areas. The US is not unique. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cities-conference/home I have never disputed that fact. It makes sense. As areas become more urbanized, the need for shared services increases. Right, wrong or indifferent, the urbanization certainly leads to more collectivist thinking. There is a huge disconnect by rural Republican voters that urbanites who may lean or have certain conservative sympathies in many areas share the same concerns of more urban dwelling conservatives and there is a huge disconnect amongst the progressive class who is concentrated heavily in the cities that the societal problems that they perceive from their urban vantage point are homogenous nationwide and apply the same in rural and suburban environments the same way they apply in urban areas. It is why Republicans have lost the cities the way they have and the Democrats cant compete in the tertiary and rural markets. I get why this is the case for Democrats who preach more big government national policies but Republicans should recognize that their long time biggest appeal has been from the failures of a large national bureaucracy to effectively solve local problems and the need for local governments to have the freedom and flexibility to decide what is best for their regions. They have completely abandoned that platform since Trump in favor of a policy that simply wants to act as a national counterweight to the Democrats bigger government is better approach.
May 11, 20232 yr 17 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: It is why Republicans have lost the cities the way they have and the Democrats cant compete in the tertiary and rural markets. I get why this is the case for Democrats who preach more big government national policies but Republicans should recognize that their long time biggest appeal has been from the failures of a large national bureaucracy to effectively solve local problems and the need for local governments to have the freedom and flexibility to decide what is best for their regions. They have completely abandoned that platform since Trump in favor of a policy that simply wants to act as a national counterweight to the Democrats bigger government is better approach. There are parallels in Ohio as well, as Republicans have dominated our state government for over a decade and have charted a path toward less and less home rule. The Ohio GOP is forbidding local communities from coming up with creative ways to solve local problems.
May 11, 20232 yr 30 minutes ago, Foraker said: There are parallels in Ohio as well, as Republicans have dominated our state government for over a decade and have charted a path toward less and less home rule. The Ohio GOP is forbidding local communities from coming up with creative ways to solve local problems. Certainly there have been. However, it is a bit more complicated when talking about home rule between state and municipalities. Federalism is between the Federal/State government. For example, state government controls various matters such as property rights, etc. Sometimes local cities may (in their infinite wisdom and poor discretion) try and pass ordinances that overrule various state rights under the justification that they are doing what is best for their area, but are actually trampling on existing rights of other parties that have been guaranteed by the state. The Home Rule provisions in Ohio have always been very limited in nature and should never be viewed by liberal or conservative enclaves as a way to escape state laws and regulations that they did not agree with. THat was never how it was intended to operate
May 11, 20232 yr 10 hours ago, Lazarus said: About once every five years, California voters manage to pass something really dumb. They just passed a tax on real estate transactions over $5 million dollars. If it turns out to be a disaster, it's going to be really difficult to reverse. My mistake - this vote only applies to the City of Los Angeles - it's not statewide. This so-called "mansion tax" is the exact reason why you don't want the public voting 50% up/down, since it's really easy to vote in favor of a "solution" that causes as many problems as it solves.
May 11, 20232 yr @Lazarus It's only an issue because you disagree with the policy. That doesn't make it bad policy. And it's stupid to equate it to Ohio's statewide amendments, which are far more difficult to even GET on the ballot.
May 11, 20232 yr "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 11, 20232 yr 19 hours ago, BigDipper 80 said: Now that the 60% constitutional change is up for vote in August (barring any legal proceedings, there are rumblings that the amendment made to the bill to allow for an August election is illegal), do we have anyone yet who's willing to speak up on why they think this is a good idea? It was crickets the last time I asked. I’ve been saying for a long time that a Constitution should be a basic supreme law that is amendable, with difficulty. The US Constitution fits the bill very well. If it can be amended by a simple majority vote, it’s not really a Constitution, it’s just another law. In addition, it does not confer any responsibility for the impracticality of implementation, as a bill passed by the legislature implicitly does. Many things sound good to those who don’t have to make them happen.
May 11, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, E Rocc said: In addition, it does not confer any responsibility for the impracticality of implementation, as a bill passed by the legislature implicitly does. Many things sound good to those who don’t have to make them happen. The state legislature is rife with corruption and bad laws that are impractical and irresponsible. They are not in any way better. Most attempts to amend the Ohio Constitution with a citizen petition fail to even get the required signatures. We aren't California. If anything, we should require proposed constitutional amendments that are referred by the legislature to get 60% and any petition amendments to remain 50%. The State Legislature is corrupt and does not have the best interest of Ohioans in mind.
May 11, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Mendo said: @Lazarus It's only an issue because you disagree with the policy. That doesn't make it bad policy. And it's stupid to equate it to Ohio's statewide amendments, which are far more difficult to even GET on the ballot. Government ought to be via representative, not referendum. There is too much randomness in the outcomes of municipal charter amendments, ballot issues, mayor/governor recalls, etc., and all of these can be weaponized to drive voter turnout for rep or presidential elections. California High Speed Rail was only partially funded by Prop 1A in 2008, which has turned the thing into a political pariah that no elected officials want to touch. The poorly-organized ballot issue set the stage for what is playing out right now. Current governor Gavin Newsom didn't direct any funds in its direction 2-3 years ago, even amidst back-to-back-to-back $20 billion surpluses, because he faced a frivolous recall effort. Now tax receipts are way down, interest rates are way up. The window has closed - all because of a frivolous recall attempt.
May 11, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Government ought to be via representative, not referendum. In general I agree. And the Ohio Constitution is difficult to amend via petition. But we don't have a truly representative legislature, and likely never will again without a new Constitutional amendment to actually fix the Gerrymandering problem in Ohio. The game is rigged unless citizens petition for better government. The legislature can just ignore them.
May 11, 20232 yr 17 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Government ought to be via representative, not referendum. That's nonsense. People worked to have the rules that are in place now explicitly to take some power back from its legislaters. Rightfully so given how easily they choose their constituents through districting. That is how government ought to be.
May 11, 20232 yr 51 minutes ago, E Rocc said: I’ve been saying for a long time that a Constitution should be a basic supreme law that is amendable, with difficulty. The US Constitution fits the bill very well. If it can be amended by a simple majority vote, it’s not really a Constitution, it’s just another law. In addition, it does not confer any responsibility for the impracticality of implementation, as a bill passed by the legislature implicitly does. Many things sound good to those who don’t have to make them happen. I might agree that it should be. But the Ohio Constitution is more comparable to the World Book Encyclopedia than the pamphlet that is the U.S. Constitution. The Ohio "Constitution" is already just a multi-volume set of laws. The idea that the Ohio legislature has any sense of responsibility "for the impracticality of implementation" is laughable. There are already strong safeguards to amendment by referendum in Ohio in the signature-gathering requirements. There were no hearings or studies suggesting that Ohio's amendment by referendum practice was broken and needed this fix, which is what you would expect from a serious legislature. In fact, the legislature did conclude that August elections were an expense we could and should do without, and a law to that effect went into force in March. But just two months later the legislature has already voted to ignore their own findings for political reasons rather than serious study or analysis. If it was just about fixing a broken referendum system, this vote would be taking place in November. Edited May 11, 20232 yr by Foraker typo
May 11, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, Lazarus said: My mistake - this vote only applies to the City of Los Angeles - it's not statewide. This so-called "mansion tax" is the exact reason why you don't want the public voting 50% up/down, since it's really easy to vote in favor of a "solution" that causes as many problems as it solves. What, specifically, makes it bad? And if it ends up being a disaster, it only requires a simple majority to overturn, correct?
May 11, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, E Rocc said: I’ve been saying for a long time that a Constitution should be a basic supreme law that is amendable, with difficulty. The US Constitution fits the bill very well. If it can be amended by a simple majority vote, it’s not really a Constitution, it’s just another law. In addition, it does not confer any responsibility for the impracticality of implementation, as a bill passed by the legislature implicitly does. Many things sound good to those who don’t have to make them happen. I fail to see why either the state or US constitutions should be sacred, unchanging texts. We should be having regular constitutional conventions. I also fail to see how Republicans care whatsoever about protecting the Ohio Constitution when they told Ohio voters to pound sand over an amendment that over 70% of Ohioans voted for. They do not care about protecting anything but their minority rule.
May 11, 20232 yr 11 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: I fail to see why either the state or US constitutions should be sacred, unchanging texts. We should be having regular constitutional conventions. I do not see the issue with a regular Con Con, but they are logistically challenging given the expense and time involved and the possibility that they often may not yield any results. However, there is nothing wrong with an occassional Con Con to revisit changing values. This is a much better way to handle it than getting frustrated and simply ignoring the Constitution that is in place when it is too hard to amend.
May 11, 20232 yr 34 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: I fail to see why either the state or US constitutions should be sacred, unchanging texts. We should be having regular constitutional conventions. I also fail to see how Republicans care whatsoever about protecting the Ohio Constitution when they told Ohio voters to pound sand over an amendment that over 70% of Ohioans voted for. They do not care about protecting anything but their minority rule. That amendment was a classic example of voting on general simplistic principles without any responsibility to implement under complicated circumstances. I can't think of anything more destructive and dangerous than regular conventions authorized to make major changes. Leaving aside the possibility of attempts to influence them by mobs, terrorists, or both, the strength of American government is its consistency and resistance to rapid or radical change. Edited May 11, 20232 yr by E Rocc
May 11, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, E Rocc said: I can't think of anything more destructive and dangerous than regular conventions authorized to make major changes. Leaving aside the possibility of attempts to influence them by mobs, terrorists, or both, the strength of American government is its consistency and resistance to rapid or radical change. Be careful what you wish for. New constitutions promise all of that, meaning businesses and institutions of any type can't make long-term plans since anything and everything might dramatically change. Everyone would come away from the convention pissed off and it would take years for the (new) courts to sort everything out.
May 11, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, E Rocc said: That amendment was a classic example of voting on general simplistic principles without any responsibility to implement under complicated circumstances. I can't think of anything more destructive and dangerous than regular conventions authorized to make major changes. Leaving aside the possibility of attempts to influence them by mobs, terrorists, or both, the strength of American government is its consistency and resistance to rapid or radical change. The gerrymandering amendment that we voted on was the one the legislature wrote. It only happened because of the existing process - 1. Petitioners collect signatures on an amendment proposal, 2. If they get enough signatures, then legislature gets to write their own version, which amendment petitioners can accept OR go on to step 3, ANOTHER round of petition drives. Then step 4, it goes to the voters. The petitioners accepted the legislature’s version as a compromise to avoid having to go through another round of petition gathering, which was risky. In hindsight that was a bad decision, but at the time it was justifiable, as another petitioner drive would have been risky and expensive. The petitioner’s version of the amendment would have been superior and would have been much harder to circumvent, and we would have avoided this disaster. This is a great example of why we need the voter lead amendment process and why relying on the legislature is a bad idea. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
