Originally Posted By MGVINCE:
You better read the amendment again.  Amendment 5 suspends the Hancock amendment for 5 years.   It gives lawmakers a broad discretion on raising and creating new taxes on just about anything.

I’m not saying the the whole amendment is bad.  But it definitely benefits the wealthy.   And why is the 9.6 million dollars promoting amendment 5 hidden from their sources.

Originally Posted By MGVINCE:
You better read the amendment again.  Amendment 5 suspends the Hancock amendment for 5 years.   It gives lawmakers a broad discretion on raising and creating new taxes on just about anything.

I’m not saying the the whole amendment is bad.  But it definitely benefits the wealthy.   And why is the 9.6 million dollars promoting amendment 5 hidden from their sources.

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:


Everything this legislature does benefits the wealthy.

Originally Posted By delorean:
Yep, the liberals always stick together.  

The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, REALTORS, and other Soros funded groups that led the NO-campaigns all appreciate your votes.

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
Amendment 4 is the legislature's attempt to ensure that Missouri voters are never able to amend the Constitution through the initiative petition process ever again. They want to make it impossible for citizen-led initiative petitions to pass. Full Stop.

OK, the argument is that it's too easy to pass Constitutional Amendments. That's probably a valid argument. But they could raise the threshold for approving petitions and passing constitutional amendments without making it impossible. Raise the standard from 50%+1 to some higher number -- say 55%, or even 60%. A change like that would have prevented some of the recent constitutional amendments from passing. Easy peasy, problem solved.

They say they want to give rural voters more influence and prevent crazy liberal Democratic ideas from passing simply because the population centers of Kansas City and St. Louis suppport it. That's what they SAY anyway. It works both ways. What happens when there is a proposed constitutional amendment that rural/conservative people support? One urban district would kill it. Is that fair? Does that even make sense?

Notice that Amendment 4 does not change the rules for constitutional amendments proposed by the LEGISLATURE. It only changes the rules for when CITIZENS propose changes. Why do you suppose they didn't apply the same concurrent majority requirement to the amendments THEY propose? If it's good for us, why isn't it good for them?

This is a power thing. They want all the power to rest in those two big rooms in Jefferson City. You may think that's a great idea now, when Republicans hold the majorities. But what happens when Democrats retake the majorities (and they may someday)? Don't you want the ability to force your will when a Democratic legislature refuses to act?

Yes, in recent memory it's been Democrat citizens/voters who have pushed changes to the  constitution (Medicare expansion, abortion, legal marijuana). But it has worked the other way in the past. The much-loved Hancock Amendment which prevents the legislature from jacking up taxes was advanced by Republicans and passed through an initiative petition when Democrats controlled the legislature. A year or so ago sports betting became legal because the sports teams and gambling companies got tired of waiting on lawmakers (Denny Hoskins specifically) to act and put the issue before voters. Both parties (and neither party) have used the initiative petition process to force an issue when the lawmakers in power at the time failed to do their jobs. Do you want to take away that option?

Bottom line is the legislature doesn't like the fact that citizens can amend the constitution. They want to make it impossible to ever happen again.

If you vote for this you're saying Missouri citizens should NOT have the ability to make changes when the legislature won't act. You're saying you think those clowns in Jefferson City have all the answers and should hold exclusive power to set the direction for our state. Really? Have you met those people?

You want to make it harder for amendments to pass? Fine. Kill this crazy proposal and come back with something more reasonable. It is not all or nothing. This measure goes too far and will forever take power away from the citizens of Missouri and give all the power to the legislature -- no matter which party controls the chambers.

Vote NO on 4.

Originally Posted By bigbryce31186:

I'm the furthest thing from a liberal. Boomers like yourself are so out of touch with everything. Americans are tired of getting fucked over every time we turn around. And both parties aren't even trying to hide it any more. Fucking pathetic.

Originally Posted By Deuskid:


@Bladeswitcher

I respectfully disagree

I do believe that voters should be able to amend the constitution; just not as easily as can be done under the current structure.  

The PRIMARY way votes should affect governing is through voting for legislators/representatives.  

A republic is not a democracy:  our founding fathers didn't want a democracy.  our current system is too democratic.  There are other ways other than #4's method [e.g., require a super majority [e.g., 60% vote requirement] that will work as well.  

What we have now is overly skewed one way.  

I say vote YES.  

ymmv

Originally Posted By delorean:

YUGE Yes on 5.

The Hancock Amendment stays in place . . .

Originally Posted By Flak-Magnet:
Removing income tax is something I certainly support in principle. Progressive income tax is a bad thing and communism lite . . . .

Originally Posted By delorean:


Yet you're voting with them.  "I'm tired of getting f*****d over by paying taxes, so I'm going to vote to keep the income taxes."  (Which, according to the same liberal democrats, is rigged with loopholes for millionaires and billionaires.)  Hypocrites.

I'm about 30-40 years too young to be a boomer, by the way.

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:



Just to be clear, when you say the Hancock Amendment you are referring to a constitutional provision that was created through a citizen-led initiative petition, correct? Just checking.

Originally Posted By delorean:


Yep, it was passed in 1980 when the Missouri had a hardcore majority of Democrats in the house and Senate, and a Democrat governor.  It passed by good margin, along with term limits and some others 15+ years ago and would still be possible under the new system.  All the latest ones have passed with barely over 50%, the abortion one with only 7 out of 114 counties in favor.

Taxes are something that belong in the constitution......abortion, sports gaming, marijuana, minimum wage, and bingo do not belong in the constitution.  The people can still get referendums on the ballot and get things written into law, but there's no reason the in a representative republic that anyone (especially non-legislators) should not be allowed to modify a constitution without a very large majority and multiple voting approvals (like the US constitution.) Thats why there's 27 in the US (one in the last 50 years), 126 in MO (25 attemps in the last 10 years), and 500+ in California.

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:



You trust politicians more than the people. I get it.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

ETA: It does seem weird to take your position while we're discussing voting on a measure to change the constitution, though. Maybe you should sit out the vote on principle. Because the people shouldn't be able to change the constitution easily, right?

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:



And I respect your right to disagree. I just hope that there are more people who agree with me than agree with you. I also hope that when the vote is counted, the majority rules. I think it would be really bad if the majority's view was defeated just because voters in one congressional district didn't agree.

As for your point that it's too easy to amend the constitution, we agree. And like you, I believe there are other ways to make the process A LITTLE harder. If the legislature had proposed requiring a higher threshold to pass an amendment -- a modest increase such as 55% -- I would probably be OK with that. But the concurrent majority requirement is intended to kill the initiative petition process all together. I do not agree with that.

I have worked for the legislature. You've come far too late to tell me we should leave all important matters up to them.

Originally Posted By JAD762:


Remember the joke that if Trump cured cancer the left would vote against it just because they hate Trump?

You’re the mirror image of that joke.

I don’t give a damn who’s voting for or against it because politics isn’t a team sport. So screw your identity politics.

I swear the woke right is every bit as ate up as the woke left.

Originally Posted By bigbryce31186:

I'm all for getting rid of taxes. But don't disguise it as a tax cut when it's not. The bill is getting rid of the income tax, in incriminates, and raising the sales tax to match. The bill also states that  the income tax may never go away, so we the people could be stuck (which will happen) paying less income tax and more sales tax. It's a pathetic attempt by the so called republican party to say "We tried to help you out". Someone who claims to not be a boomer should be able to see right through this bullshit.

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:




We also need a much more thoughtful and engaged citizenry. Basically, we get the government we deserve.


It's easy to point fingers at lobbyists but they have their place. The U.S. constitution guarantees the right of every American to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Every individual, group/cause or "interest" has a right to make its case before lawmakers. Individuals don't have the time, skills or resources to do that so they join groups or form associations who in turn hire professionals to advocate for them. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Unfortunately, it costs a lot of money to keep your special interest's presence in the rooms where decisions are made. A lot of really worthy causes simply can't compete. So the result of that is that the big money interests are the only ones that get heard.

In Missouri, where lawmakers serve limited terms, the full-time/ever-present lobbyists have an inordinate amount of influence. The lobbyists are the experts. They have the institutional knowledge. They know what's been proposed in the past, where the support lies and they work years to move their proposed legislation across the finish line. Freshmen legislators wanting to look like they're accomplishing something turn to the lobbyists for pre-written bills they can sponsor. When it's time for the bill to get a hearing, the legislator can't even explain what the bill does. He/she defers to the lobbyist to explain the details. Over time, elected officials align themselves with certain issues (read: lobbyists) and those issues become part of their "brand" as they advance their career. Pretty soon, Mr. Smith who went to Jefferson City to represent THE PEOPLE becomes "The Senator from Biodiesel" or "The Representative of Missouri's Hospitals."

So much for representative government. It's a flawed system for sure but I don't know of a way to ensure we can effectively "petition our government" without some way for people to advocate on a group or collective basis. Any of us who have written a letter to our Congressman or state rep knows how futile individual appeals are. Politicians pay attention to numbers, not individuals.

ETA: Because the system is flawed, and because our representatives don't actually represent us, it's all the more important to preserve for THE PEOPLE the ability to take matters into their own hands through initiative petitions. Vote NO on Amendment 4.

Originally Posted By JAD762:


Cool.

It’s a shame that 5s supporters can’t argue for it on its merit and has to resort to such silly arguments.

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
 

About the maps . . .

For one, I believe time will will make the question moot. The pendulum of political views/alliances shifts over time. Things will look completely different in 10-15 years. In the sort term, I'm not 100% convinced Republicans gave themselves the advantage they think they have.

And while I don't necessarily agree with the concept of "majority-minority" districts to ensure blacks have their own dedicated district I also don't agree with Republicans drawing ridiculous districts to give themselves a perceived advantage.

The whole way we select candidates is not working. Fretting over the lines written to benefit or harm specific candidates is akin to worrying about the salad dressing on a pile of cyclosporiasis contaminated lettuce. We need major reforms.

I worked for the Senate during the 2020-2021 redistricting effort. That experience convinced me some sort of independent body should draw the legislative districts. We shouldn't allow the elected officials who benefit from the maps to draw them. Until we do that it's just a rigged game and I'm not going to waste time fretting over it.

ETA: Just a reminder since we're discussing ballot initiatives . . . voters tried to make changes to the redistricting process in 2016 when they passed "Clean Missouri." Not surprisingly, the legislature answered with their own "Cleaner Missouri" and somehow convinced voters to undo the changes they had made.

https://missouriindependent.com/2020/11/04/voters-repeal-clean-missouri-redistricting-plan-they-enacted-in-2018/



If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Originally Posted By Deuskid:


ya, so let's do nothing an it'll get better.  

Blades,  you always post obstacles and problems but never improvements.

With your insight, you should be informing us to a better path

Originally Posted By Deuskid:

Regarding special interests and lobbyists:  they should be illegal.  I believe if you can vote then you have the right to petition the gov't and influence legislation.  No other entity[ies] and no 3rd party influence.

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:



Just so we're clear, if Congress decides to ban AR-15s, the ONLY people allowed to express views of that proposal would be individuals? No groups? No lobbyists whatsoever? There would be no NRA or GOA? That's what you're saying?

Originally Posted By JAD762:


lol.

Please demonstrate where I’ve engaged in name calling. You can’t because I haven’t. But I do appreciate the fact that you’re providing yet another example of how 5 supporters resort to unfounded, emotional arguments instead of just arguing facts.

My complaints about 5, along with math to back it up, is on page one. You’ll excuse me for not typing it out again for someone who can’t be bothered to read it the first time.

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
 

About the maps . . .

For one, I believe time will will make the question moot. The pendulum of political views/alliances shifts over time. Things will look completely different in 10-15 years. In the sort term, I'm not 100% convinced Republicans gave themselves the advantage they think they have.

And while I don't necessarily agree with the concept of "majority-minority" districts to ensure blacks have their own dedicated district I also don't agree with Republicans drawing ridiculous districts to give themselves a perceived advantage.

The whole way we select candidates is not working. Fretting over the lines written to benefit or harm specific candidates is akin to worrying about the salad dressing on a pile of cyclosporiasis contaminated lettuce. We need major reforms.

I worked for the Senate during the 2020-2021 redistricting effort. That experience convinced me some sort of independent body should draw the legislative districts. We shouldn't allow the elected officials who benefit from the maps to draw them. Until we do that it's just a rigged game and I'm not going to waste time fretting over it.

ETA: Just a reminder since we're discussing ballot initiatives . . . voters tried to make changes to the redistricting process in 2016 when they passed "Clean Missouri." Not surprisingly, the legislature answered with their own "Cleaner Missouri" and somehow convinced voters to undo the changes they had made.

https://missouriindependent.com/2020/11/04/voters-repeal-clean-missouri-redistricting-plan-they-enacted-in-2018/




If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Originally Posted By Deuskid:


they can say what they wish in media, run ads..... they should not be talking directly to congressmen nor providing any political funding

Originally Posted By JAD762:


Sadly, when some men are wrong this is the closest thing you can get to them admitting it.

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
Amendment 4 is the legislature's attempt to ensure that Missouri voters are never able to amend the Constitution through the initiative petition process ever again. They want to make it impossible for citizen-led initiative petitions to pass. Full Stop.

OK, the argument is that it's too easy to pass Constitutional Amendments. That's probably a valid argument. But they could raise the threshold for approving petitions and passing constitutional amendments without making it impossible. Raise the standard from 50%+1 to some higher number -- say 55%, or even 60%. A change like that would have prevented some of the recent constitutional amendments from passing. Easy peasy, problem solved.

They say they want to give rural voters more influence and prevent crazy liberal Democratic ideas from passing simply because the population centers of Kansas City and St. Louis suppport it. That's what they SAY anyway. It works both ways. What happens when there is a proposed constitutional amendment that rural/conservative people support? One urban district would kill it. Is that fair? Does that even make sense?

Notice that Amendment 4 does not change the rules for constitutional amendments proposed by the LEGISLATURE. It only changes the rules for when CITIZENS propose changes. Why do you suppose they didn't apply the same concurrent majority requirement to the amendments THEY propose? If it's good for us, why isn't it good for them?

This is a power thing. They want all the power to rest in those two big rooms in Jefferson City. You may think that's a great idea now, when Republicans hold the majorities. But what happens when Democrats retake the majorities (and they may someday)? Don't you want the ability to force your will when a Democratic legislature refuses to act?

Yes, in recent memory it's been Democrat citizens/voters who have pushed changes to the  constitution (Medicare expansion, abortion, legal marijuana). But it has worked the other way in the past. The much-loved Hancock Amendment which prevents the legislature from jacking up taxes was advanced by Republicans and passed through an initiative petition when Democrats controlled the legislature. A year or so ago sports betting became legal because the sports teams and gambling companies got tired of waiting on lawmakers (Denny Hoskins specifically) to act and put the issue before voters. Both parties (and neither party) have used the initiative petition process to force an issue when the lawmakers in power at the time failed to do their jobs. Do you want to take away that option?

Bottom line is the legislature doesn't like the fact that citizens can amend the constitution. They want to make it impossible to ever happen again.

If you vote for this you're saying Missouri citizens should NOT have the ability to make changes when the legislature won't act. You're saying you think those clowns in Jefferson City have all the answers and should hold exclusive power to set the direction for our state. Really? Have you met those people?

You want to make it harder for amendments to pass? Fine. Kill this crazy proposal and come back with something more reasonable. It is not all or nothing. This measure goes too far and will forever take power away from the citizens of Missouri and give all the power to the legislature -- no matter which party controls the chambers.

Vote NO on 4.

Originally Posted By woodxdm:

Seeing that you don’t support it pretty much ensures I will support it

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
Amendment 4 is the legislature's attempt to ensure that Missouri voters are never able to amend the Constitution through the initiative petition process ever again. They want to make it impossible for citizen-led initiative petitions to pass. Full Stop.

OK, the argument is that it's too easy to pass Constitutional Amendments. That's probably a valid argument. But they could raise the threshold for approving petitions and passing constitutional amendments without making it impossible. Raise the standard from 50%+1 to some higher number -- say 55%, or even 60%. A change like that would have prevented some of the recent constitutional amendments from passing. Easy peasy, problem solved.

They say they want to give rural voters more influence and prevent crazy liberal Democratic ideas from passing simply because the population centers of Kansas City and St. Louis suppport it. That's what they SAY anyway. It works both ways. What happens when there is a proposed constitutional amendment that rural/conservative people support? One urban district would kill it. Is that fair? Does that even make sense?

Notice that Amendment 4 does not change the rules for constitutional amendments proposed by the LEGISLATURE. It only changes the rules for when CITIZENS propose changes. Why do you suppose they didn't apply the same concurrent majority requirement to the amendments THEY propose? If it's good for us, why isn't it good for them?

This is a power thing. They want all the power to rest in those two big rooms in Jefferson City. You may think that's a great idea now, when Republicans hold the majorities. But what happens when Democrats retake the majorities (and they may someday)? Don't you want the ability to force your will when a Democratic legislature refuses to act?

Yes, in recent memory it's been Democrat citizens/voters who have pushed changes to the  constitution (Medicare expansion, abortion, legal marijuana). But it has worked the other way in the past. The much-loved Hancock Amendment which prevents the legislature from jacking up taxes was advanced by Republicans and passed through an initiative petition when Democrats controlled the legislature. A year or so ago sports betting became legal because the sports teams and gambling companies got tired of waiting on lawmakers (Denny Hoskins specifically) to act and put the issue before voters. Both parties (and neither party) have used the initiative petition process to force an issue when the lawmakers in power at the time failed to do their jobs. Do you want to take away that option?

Bottom line is the legislature doesn't like the fact that citizens can amend the constitution. They want to make it impossible to ever happen again.

If you vote for this you're saying Missouri citizens should NOT have the ability to make changes when the legislature won't act. You're saying you think those clowns in Jefferson City have all the answers and should hold exclusive power to set the direction for our state. Really? Have you met those people?

You want to make it harder for amendments to pass? Fine. Kill this crazy proposal and come back with something more reasonable. It is not all or nothing. This measure goes too far and will forever take power away from the citizens of Missouri and give all the power to the legislature -- no matter which party controls the chambers.

Vote NO on 4.

Originally Posted By CzechMate5:
4 will fail because 100% of liberals will vote against it and enough conservatives who don't understand how the machine works will vote against it too.

But it will be back for my reasons stated above. Don't worry about it.

Originally Posted By CzechMate5:

Amendment 4 will be back at a 60% level soon enough.

Florida and Colorado both fucked up their constitutions with the 51% thing. They reverted back.

So we KNOW voting against 4 will give liberals free reign over our constitution in conservative land AND fuck up our constitution. That's not my opinion or feeling, it's what's already happened in other states. . . . .

Originally Posted By WillieTangoFox:
I see the thread containing information got turned into a purse swinging match.