How are you voting on the statewide issues tomorrow?
Edited to add: Sorry I messed that one up good. I would close this but I don't know how maybe a mod can do that for me.
Edited by Coronach:I shut down the poll, due to it not being able to be set up the way you want.
If you enjoyed reading about "Ohio Voters" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
November 7, 2005, 06:19 PM
I'm not. Didn't get my voting information in the mail this time. That and I failed to properly follow up on it. Sorry. :o
November 7, 2005, 09:13 PM
Actually I we are not up to snuff on the issues other than the fact that this evening when I got home we had 4 messages on the machine. All were prerecorded, 2 were pro issues 2,3,4,5 and 2 were against the same. One was even from the great John Glenn. I was able to gather from Fox News that the Democrats support the issuea while the GOP is against them.
Do you have a link to somewhere we can better self educate???
November 7, 2005, 09:15 PM
Got the same here
lots of voice mails I will have to read them completely before deciding
November 7, 2005, 11:22 PM
Both sides linked below.
I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between. I think I'll vote 50% one way and 50% the other.
All of the contested issues (2-5) should be voted "NO"...if you want to vote for something just to say you didn't vote no across the board, then Issue 2 is the least offensive of the four.
Issue 2 expands absentee voting. No excuse needed, just vote in person or by mail up to (IIRC) 35 days before the election date.
Issue 3 is intended to get 'dirty money' out of politics. What it DOES accomplish is to make sure that the only dirty money that can get into the game is money from 'approved' special interests groups (such as NOT the NRA) and big labor unions. As an individual, a person would be limited to $2000 per candidate for statewide executive office, $1000 per candidate for legislative office, $50 to small-donor PAC, $500 to a PAC....etc. Labor unions and other 'small-donor' PACs can contribute up to $20,000 to a candidate for executive office, and $10,000 for legislative office, 10 TIMES what a regular PAC can contribute.
FWIW, the Dayton Daily News is recommending that folks vote FOR Issue 3...and that right there is enough to tell me to vote no.
Issue 4 intends to do away with gerrymandering. Take the redistricting every 10 years following the census away from the party in power and use some convoluted formula to create districts. The formula is supposed to create districts that are within 3% of being 50/50 Dem/Repub. Of course, this method creates some really bizarre districts and separates communities that should be represented together.
Issue 5 basically is designed to neuter the office of Secretary of State by putting control of elections in the hands of a nine member board. This is basically an attack on Ken Blackwell.
While the intentions are good, the execution is terrible on these issues. Expanding absentee balloting increases the opportunity for fraud. If you want to control campaign contributions, then do so legislatively, not with a constitutional ammendment. What happens in 10 years when they say that the limit should be $1500 in stead of $1000? Can't just pass a new law, has to go through the whole process of collecting petitions, getting it on the ballot, and ammending the state constitution again.
While gerrymandering shouldn't happen, it does, but this is not the right method for fixing the problem, and there is no reason to spend money to create a board to make decisions that are rightly handled by the Secretary of State's office now. At least with the current system, we don't have to worry about a decision by committee dragging out for weeks.
Anyway, I don't care much about Issue 1...looks like the intention is to raise some money to create some economic development and new jobs. Not a big fan of the state taking on additional debt service, but if the program works, then the costs should be offset with additional tax revenue....but 2,3,4 and 5 should all be NO.
November 8, 2005, 09:55 AM
Both sides of issues 2-5 claim to "hold politicians accountable".
So, I went "NO" on all of them. "Yes" votes would create NEW .Guv agencies, and we don't need any more layers of .Guv
I feel like I am a reasonably astute political observer, with a fair-to-middlin' amount of smarts, and if I can't figure out an issue, I vote NO. I have read the text of these issues until my head exploded, and I got nowhere on sorting them out.
November 8, 2005, 12:23 PM
I vote "NO" on all of them.
November 8, 2005, 05:12 PM
Voted yes on 1, no on 2,3,4,5.
November 8, 2005, 05:28 PM
I feel like I am a reasonably astute political observer, with a fair-to-middlin' amount of smarts, and if I can't figure out an issue, I vote NO. I have read the text of these issues until my head exploded, and I got nowhere on sorting them out.This pretty much sums up my philosophy on the matter as well. I'm a pretty bright guy, if I can't figure out whether this steaming pile of poo you just wrote is good law or not, I'll stick with the Devil I know.
Besides, compare/contrast your average ballot initiative with one of the amendments in the BOR. One is clear and concise. One is a mishmash of legalese verbage. Not coincidentally, one is an example of good law, and one probably isn't.