He’s implicating Trump to try to get to a federal court in an effort to find more sympathetic jurors. Everyone is fending for themselves and doesn’t want to be there last one holding the bag.
The 60% part I think world have been a good thing (look at brexit) 51% deciding things is not necessarily great. It’s the rest of the initiative that was bonkers.
In other circumstances, I would agree with you, but given the severity of the situation vis-a-vis abortion, we need to accept any victories we get to save innocent people from what is a blatant attempt at sparking a political civil war.
Which is one of the things that is so troubling about the situation. Fundamental questions about our democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of protecting our most basic rights from fascists. That should terrify everyone.
The Franklin County Board of Elections had this lovely flier in the line for everyone to see and is such a blatant bit of bias I can’t help but laugh at it https://i.imgur.com/DUK2d9J.jpg
I mean this is ridiculous for so many reasons but maybe the saddest/funniest part is that a “no” vote will “end majority rule” or “destroy citizen-led ballot initiatives as we know them” since a “no” vote on Issue one literally just maintains the status quo. It is literally maintaining citizen-led ballot initiatives as you know them.
California also has the 50%+1 threshold for constitutional amendments. I hate it. With that kind of margin, why not just make everything a constitutional amendment instead of an ordinary proposition?
Because you can end up in a situation where legislatures want to do things that are not supported by a majority. A proposition that changes statute is ripe for reversal, while a constitutional amendment is not.
What the Ohio GOP was angling for was “hey, we know a majority doesn’t support us, but we have that handled by gerrymandering, so now we need to make sure we enshrine minority rule by allowing 40% of voters to control the democratic process.” They know they can keep 40% gaslit and brainwashed, but getting to 50% is a challenge that requires policy instead of bombast.
And it was done precisely because a popular (by polling data) amendment is coming this fall that takes away the GOP’s power to control people’s bodies.
Thus, this election brings into specific relief why 50% + 1 is the only way to protect voters from legislative overreach. Now, and going forward.
I was being mostly sarcastic with my “why not just…” remark. While 50%+1 may prevent legislative overreach (as with any voter-passed initiative), it’s still a terrible barrier for a constitutional amendment because I have no faith that a simple majority will vote to protect or expand the rights and privileges of a minority. e.g. California’s Proposition 8 (an amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2008) passed with 52%.
My point was that, if the amendment threshold were 50%+1, it seems in the interest of anyone seriously wanting to pass an initiative through the voters would want to make it a constitutional amendment simply to prevent it from being declared unconstitutional by the court. That’s basically what happened in California – Prop 22 (an initiative banning same-sex marriage in 2000) was struck down in May 2008, then Prop 8 was introduced in June with essentially the same language at the constitutional level.
Granted, Prop 22 passed with over 61% and support for the ban dropped about 9 points in the 8 years in between, and some of that may have been because of the difference between statute and amendment. But I still feel we need better protection of minorities than “majority rule”, especially when called out so specifically in cases like this.
I would support a system in which enshrining rights in a constitution takes 50% + 1 but taking rights away requires a supermajority. Unfortunately, that’s not in the cards.
Constitutions are supposed to reflect supreme will of the people, not by just a bare majority. Amendments should be hard to pass for that reason.
That said, I’m arguing only the percentage threshold – the will of the people, all people in the jurisdiction considered equally for this purpose. The “signatures from all counties” portion of this Ohio issue violates that by giving greater weight (and impedance) to rural communities where organization is hard and populations are smaller. It would take only one county with low turnout to block serious consideration of meaningful issues that affect the entire state.
This has been known for decades (probably as long as the 5 day work week has been a thing)
And this is “fine”. Because not everyone has the same slack day. Hell, at my current job, me and a buddy outright acknowledge this and he takes the brunt on Fridays when I am just done with everything and I do Mondays when he is usually distracted with whatever his kids told him they need last minute.
Same with meetings. Some weeks, the ONLY thing I do on a wednesday is go to a few meetings. Or maybe me and someone else set a friday lunch meeting because that is the only time we both have a chance, and so forth.
For people who have “real jobs” where they actually work hard (so retail, construction, etc): You tend to not get the “easy” day for the most part. You are busting your ass and being overworked all week long.
For office workers and the like? I think there should be a lot of thought put in. Someone doing data entry might not need to be there all five days. Someone who is doing more design/planning role… we already end up working closer to 6. And efforts toward “flex time” and just general “We don’t care when you are ‘at work’ so long as you are available for meetings and get stuff done” go a long way toward that. Because, for example: I busted my ass for what amounts to a 20 hour shift yesterday getting stuff working for a customer. Today? I am basically checking my email but made it clear that even that is “I might not answer”. And I’ll probably take a few afternoons off next week to even it out.
But, with the shit world we live in: that would map to people who “don’t have to work all 5 days” getting paid 20% less. So pretending you are busy on a Friday afternoon is probably still the better option.
Wouldn’t this be the same for school then? If we don’t give kids the 4 day work week as well then you’re just fucking over a large group of adults that don’t get the five day work week and I bet your bottom dollar that you’ll have tons of staff leave across the country to get that sweet five day work week. What’s more precious than time? You can’t win against that.
Yo same. I’m burning out after 3 years of this. I’ve gotten to the point I don’t care anymore and I’m going to less than half ass shit until I make them fire me or I get a new job.
That’s besides the point. You have to be there so you don’t have enough time to achieve your hopes & dreams, ensuring you don’t build up any wealth, let alone generational wealth, and therefore can never challenge their dominance & authority.
I agree, this is more than whether we work more or less efficiently with 4 or 5 days in the office. The ruling class wants us in our white cages (office walls) for as long as possible so, as you said, they can ensure we can’t work on other stuff that truly satisfies us and gives us a chance of generating actual wealth rather than depending on whatever measly income they want us to live paycheck to paycheck on…
It’s highly unlikely that any of my dreams would make me wealthy, because they all involve having fun, improving myself, and/or making the world a better place. I think most other people are the same way.
That’s why my main goal is to accumulate ‘fuck you money’. Right now, I get my tasks done asap and gtfo and if they don’t like that, they can fire me if they’d like. If they don’t like that all my work flow is smooth and efficient but I leave early or come in late, they can frankly fuck right off… So far I got 5 years worth of living expenses stashed away (my fuck you money stash) but I’m trying to put it in places that it can generate me income in alternative ways so I can flip the script on them and remove any remaining leverage they have on me.
msn.com
Hot