Triumph of Democracy?
The Vote on Issue One in Ohio
The resilience of Democracy is often surprising. At a time when many are bewailing its demise, we continue to see “new shoots” growing on rocky ground. For instance, take the recent referendum in Ohio over changes to the Ohio Constitution. Voters rather overwhelmingly voted to keep their present ability to change the Constitution by a referenda vote of 50 percent plus one.
To understand this as a vote for democracy, think of the old childhood game of pounding a peg into the top of box. For every peg you manage to “destroy” another emerges. At present in Ohio, as in many states, decision making political bodies are increasingly less democratic. Gerrymandering has weakened democracy in the State legislature. The Electoral College constrains the popular election of the President. Political parties are, for many reasons, led by factions that are out of step with the general membership. The pegs of democracy have received a hard pounding. The “peg” of referenda has “popped up.” And in this case has resisted being pounded down.
My point is that people do want democracy and they can understand threats to democracy at a grassroots level. It is understandable that minorities want to see limits placed on majority government. In some cases most of us applaud such Constitutional constraints as the Bill of Rights and the Civil War Amendments. But such rights are limited and such limitations are ultimately subject to the majority will when and if it is expressed.
One way of seeing the ebb and flow of political power over the course of American history, is to focus on the battles between relatively inarticulate and less organized demands of majorities and the interests of specific minorities. Many of us find ourselves on both sides in these struggles. We are, after all, a majority of minorities, and a majority made up of minorities will always lean toward majority acceptance of some, but not all minority interests. I think most of us prefer a government that represents a tension between these two principles, majority rule and minority rights.
And the pendulum swings. Today I think I see a resurgence of support for the democratic principle as many see majority rule threatened. Many understand that economic minorities have been very successful in using law and the enforcement of law for their own purposes. One can hope, however, that this is not at the same time a move away from respect for protection of minority rights: religious, cultural and political.
John,
I am independent. I lean conservative, but I will not kowtow to either party. With that said.
With all due respect. The Federal Constitution requires a 2/3 vote, plus a lot of other hoops to jump thru. It should be very hard change a constitution, state or federal. By the way, it is not lost on me the fact that Issue One was in fact changing the constitution with a 50%+1 vote.
You should need to have more than just 50%+1 to change the core legal document in the state. A Super Majority is appropriate in this case. It is still one person, one vote. You just need 60% of one person, one vote people to pass a major change. By the way, that "marketing" campaign was very deceptive.
Fix Gerrymandering. As they say two wrongs don't make a right.
Should we also change the Federal Constitution to allow 50% + 1 to change it? If we do and the opposing party gets in, we very well may get something we don't like. I don't care what side of the aisle you are on. This has consequences.
I am well aware of the argument that the Federal Constitution is different than the state. I don't buy the argument. The definition of a constitution is "a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed." It is the same, period. The amendments that will end up in the constitution will have nothing to do with fundamental principles.
Why, we could write into our constitution that pedophilia is perfectly acceptable. Or no teacher should ever be punished for have a sexual relationship with a minor student.
The whole ballot issue was not done in the right spirit. It was done to try and stop a ballot issue in November. The wrong time. It should have been done a long time ago. Not around an abortion debate. By the way, I could slam both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups on that issue. I believe they both have it wrong. It makes me sick. Another time though.
I believe that the fact that you could change the state constitution with 50%+1 was not well known. A hidden flaw that now that it has been brought to light, we will see many groups on both sides of the aisle use it to put bad policy into the constitution.
Let the games begin!