Voters in Ohio went to the polls to decide whether to approve a measure known as Issue 1 that would raise the bar for constitutional amendments on the ballot. In the ultimate irony, the votes against changing the amendment process exceeded the 60% supermajority that the measure was seeking in the first place
Can someone explain how 50% is more “democratic”? I feel like it would be more democratic to require supermajority to change laws in this stupid hyper partisan world. In this case it felt like the people agreed so it was bipartisan super majority. Why cant this apply to the rest of constitutional changes?
Edit: im glad i get downvoted for asking for clarification.
The problem is the stipulation was added very deliberately before an abortion rights issue. It was an attempt to kill a more important issue.
Even if you feel it should require a stronger majority the issue was not put out with the hope of making things “more democratic”.
And yes, the results show they could actually have succeeded even on a supermajority, but neither party knew that at the time.
As the only other person said they are doing this right before a big vote.
The real problem is that they are trying to raise the current number of signatures for citizens to amend the Ohio Constitution from the requirement that they need to be gathered in 44 out of the state’s 88 counties, to the new version they would need all 88 counties. And getting rid of a 10 day grace period. This would make it nearly impossible to get anything on the ballot for a vote.
Edit: made it more clear that they would need all 88 counties instead of 44
Double edit: you got an up vote from me because it seemed like a sincere question
50% is more democratic, because it means 41% doesn’t beat 59%.