Constitutional Amendment - Popular vote electoral vot

[zeko]

It looks like the amenders have given up for the present . . .

https://www.10tv.com/article/proposal-h ... n-2019-apr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Zeko

[kcclark]

It looks like the amenders have given up for the present . . .

Just saw that too. Some rare good news.

[WY_Not]

Well dang. Was just coming to post this.

Good news indeed. Or, at least a reprieve from the stupidity.

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/04/ ... -ohio.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[WhyNot]

...perhaps they thought that having the Darling of Mars (She) lose Ohio by 450,000 votes wouldn't look good in their adds as a bona fide reason for ''cccchange''

Perhaps in their fuzzy math they originally thought it was, She lost by a mere 4500 or perhaps 45,000 votes. That could be ''sold'' ''spin'', ''explained'' . Just git 3-4-6-9teen News feeds to say it, it MUST be true...

The real takeaway in the ''perhaps'' world is, perhaps they WILL try again, at a later date. In any event, chalk this one up in the WIN column

[High Power]

They haven't given up. You can bet that they are working on plan "B."

[WestonDon]

They haven't given up. You can bet that they are working on plan "B."

Agree with this 100%. The way our state constitution is abused is a classic example of mob rule. Even though this not exactly a firearms related issue I have no doubt it soon will be. It's going to be a tough fight.

[High Power]

They haven't given up. You can bet that they are working on plan "B."

Agree with this 100%. The way our state constitution is abused is a classic example of mob rule. Even though this not exactly a firearms related issue I have no doubt it soon will be. It's going to be a tough fight.

They are like cockroaches. You can never get rid of all of them. They don't like it when they are exposed to the light.

[ohiodff]

Ohioans for Making Every Vote Matter

They call themselves this, then they propose something that literally makes no Ohio citizen's vote matter.

[bignflnut]

If we're going to get into the weeds like this...I propose that if a certain percentage of registered voters (say 35%) aren't in favor of a candidate, the election is void and we make a second attempt. Of course we can dicker on the floor level, but, shouldn't there be one?

Let me explain. Let's say that there are 100 registered voters but only 25 take the time to vote (county coroner, or some such). If someone gets 13 out of 100 possible votes, they attain the office, with only 13% of the possible vote? 13% of the voters can elect someone to office? At what point does the participation rate come into play? Let's hope it's not a 3 way race that goes 10-8-7!

For instance, in 2016, only 55.7% of registered voters cast a POTUS vote.
Candidate A got 46.1% of the popular vote ( 46.1 of 55.7 is 25 2/3% of the possible vote)
Candidate B got 48.2% of the popular vote ( 48.2 of 55.7 is 26.85% of the possible vote)

In either instance, we're putting someone in office with about a quarter of the possible vote?

I'm all for the Electoral College and not proposing any change to that, aside from factoring in the overall participation rate and setting some floor to what we consider a mandate.

At what point does the official not have a mandate, if we're supposedly giving them a mandate with less than 30% of the vote?

[willbird]

If we're going to get into the weeds like this...I propose that if a certain percentage of registered voters (say 35%) aren't in favor of a candidate, the election is void and we make a second attempt. Of course we can dicker on the floor level, but, shouldn't there be one?

Let me explain. Let's say that there are 100 registered voters but only 25 take the time to vote (county coroner, or some such). If someone gets 13 out of 100 possible votes, they attain the office, with only 13% of the possible vote? 13% of the voters can elect someone to office? At what point does the participation rate come into play? Let's hope it's not a 3 way race that goes 10-8-7!

For instance, in 2016, only 55.7% of registered voters cast a POTUS vote.
Candidate A got 46.1% of the popular vote ( 46.1 of 55.7 is 25 2/3% of the possible vote)
Candidate B got 48.2% of the popular vote ( 48.2 of 55.7 is 26.85% of the possible vote)

In either instance, we're putting someone in office with about a quarter of the possible vote?

I'm all for the Electoral College and not proposing any change to that, aside from factoring in the overall participation rate and setting some floor to what we consider a mandate.

At what point does the official not have a mandate, if we're supposedly giving them a mandate with less than 30% of the vote?

If you google "Holiday City Ohio" it will show you an Ohio village with only about 100 residents. They have like 6 village council members. They are thinking of reducing the number of village council numbers because of difficulty finding enough people. They do have some rules about how many votes or what % of voters it takes to elect a new council member.

The village was created as a way to do Municipal power when Toledo Edison controlled the region. They do have a large brass foundry that was a good anchor customer for power. They now have a Menards distro center and a growing plastics company.

Took years of legal wrangling to get Edison to concede. Now several other larger municipalities have won the right to do Municipal power locally.

Bill