@HalJor@beehaw.org cover

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

HalJor ,
@HalJor@beehaw.org avatar

I don’t think “love” describes what’s going on in the video.

HalJor ,
@HalJor@beehaw.org avatar

Davis-Bacon has a very limited scope – it doesn’t apply to the entire workforce.

HalJor ,
@HalJor@beehaw.org avatar

Back in the day, golf was played by doctors, who did give a fuck about people. Today, not so much.

HalJor ,
@HalJor@beehaw.org avatar

Automation requires programming and logic decisions, which implies bias by the people planning and writing the code. Unbiased automation ain’t gonna happen.

Voters in Ohio reject change to state’s constitution ( www.msn.com )

Delivering a win for abortion rights advocates, Ohio’s Issue 1 will fail, the Associate Press projects. The Republican-backed ballot initiative would have increased the threshold to amend the state’s constitution, making it more difficult for a measure that would enshrine abortion rights into the state’s constitution to...

HalJor ,
@HalJor@beehaw.org avatar

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?

HalJor ,
@HalJor@beehaw.org avatar

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.

HalJor ,
@HalJor@beehaw.org avatar

Semantics. It’s too easy to rephrase taking away a right as granting another right (or not mentioning rights at all).

HalJor ,
@HalJor@beehaw.org avatar

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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • All magazines