Starting to see some vote no signs around Cortland. The public unions are already starting their fear mongering that a constitutional convention will take their pensions away etc.

NY Con Con

I wouldn't trust anyone that NY would send..

but if the unions are scared maybe its a good thing..

Yeah I'm a little fuzzy on how exactly the delegates are selected. I'm a huge supporter of an amendment to make NY two states though. Why is NYSRPA and SCOPE silent on this issue so far? At least I haven't heard anything

I'm voting yes. As noted, the ones opposing so far give me hope it is a good thing. Regardless, no matter what they come up with, the people still have to vote on the work product. If they create an unpalatable set of changes they can be voted down. 

Aardvark you work in the IT world ?  I chuckled when i saw the work product reference..

Nothing good can come of a con con.  You guys think we are magically going to get gun rights here?

LOL Yes 30+ years   The jargon creeps in all the time. 

The NYSUT building (New York State United Teachers) has a bunch of Vote No signs out front.  Apparently it's being passed around to teachers that a concon would be bad for them.

NYSLUT sucks anyway. They pimped cuomo in the election, then immediately sent out posters about how he "doesn't respect you"

I'm a CSEA member and we were told flat out by the CSEA leadership to tell our members to vote no because if there is a constitutional convention the state will take everybody's pensions away including retirees and we'll be left with nothing.

That's the same load of horse-shit the Democrats invariably use: Don't vote Republicans, they'll take away your (insert here) pension, social security, retirement, entitlement, etc. it's all from the Playbook.
My Wife by virtue of her job was required to join the CSEA.  When they send their newsletter propaganda I read through it, then wipe my ass with it because that's the best use for it; lies, and innuendo, written by people that couldn't do their job, so they took position being the mouth piece for those that could.....I've yet to meet one that wasn't a loud mouth, useless fuck sucking the collective tit of those who actually do the work.

The general election was even better, they didn't "endorse" anyone but their pre-election new letter / magazine was all like, "We don't endorse anyone, but let me tell you about my friend Hillary Clinton and everything good that she's done".

Wowwwww, scare tactics in full swing.

http://uupinfo.org/defendunion/concon.php

If Cumhole wants it then it has to be bad for taxpaying New Yorkers!  That is the bottom line folks.

^ That there.

None of the changes I would want will ever happen (like the ability to have a recall vote), so I'm against it, especially if he's for it.

He's fucking our families every way possible and we remain silent.

So true

...and so very true

As I pointed out up above, the convention CANNOT unilaterally make changes to the State Constitution.  Any changes put forward by the convention must pass the voters.  As such, the people against the convention could still vote down any proposed amendments.  Whereas not having the convention means we do not even get a chance and trying to implement reforms and having a say on any changes.

If the politics in this state are heavily influenced by downstate, would the delegates to a con con be similar?

I'm also lacking a bit of confidence in the general populace, as far as how things would be "improved".  With the way things have been going the last hundred years, I would be hard pressed to find enough citizens out there with the right knowledge of history to decide how to improve or correct our state government.  Even most republicans have no idea of the proper role of government.

There's only one way to correct our state governmnet, burn it down and nuke the ashes.

I have absolutely no confidence "we" could succeed with that. We didn't oust Coumo did we? I would think we would be on the losing end of this.

Yeah I'm a little a fuzzy on how the delegates are selected.

This.  NY gun owners alone could have sent Cumhole packing.  But no, as a whole we don't give a flying fuck about voting as long as we can hunt dee-ah and watch the Yankees on TV.

Please... I never watch the Yankees unless the Indians are playing them, because they are all that is evil in the sports world... followed closely by the NE Patriots and Boston Red Sox!

But I do agree with the other part!

The issue isn't whether pensions will be taken away, it is access to the pension fund.

IIRC, NYS pension fund cannot be borrowed against by the Legislature for appropriations.

It is also my understanding, that the NYS pension fund is one of 2 that are solvent in the US.

Since I can remember, the politicians have had a hard-on to raid the fund.

My concern, if money is borrowed, it is removed from investment, making the taxpayer liable to service the loan.

So, not only is the money not working to earn and compound on the free market, it is paid back with interest solely from taxes collected.

Now, I could see this escalating to a point where, the money is squanderd on gimmicks like "start-up NY" with no repercussions and with us the taxpayer holding the bag.

Either way, you, I, the taxpayer is fuq'd.

Queston: Would you give a drunken sailor a 10k loan... and expect to be paid back?

If so, vote YES!

Maybe, maybe not. Unlike the private sector, government accounting used different rules such as not counting the cost of a pension in future dollars. The good news is the Financial Accounting Standards Board is in the process of implementing rules on municipalities to make pension calculations real and not the figment of imagination. The bad news is that as municipalities start reporting their liabilities under these new rules, many are going to be running massive deficits and require significant tax increases. Remember the state constitution guarantees pensions that cannot be reduced. That means the liability to cover the pensions is on the taxpayer with no backstop against high taxes. 

Problem (as explained to me when discussing a Federal Constitutional Convention) lies in the fact that it's closed door, and what emerges could be anything. Take for example the Second Amendment; during a CC it could be reworded to reflect a more concise meaning, it could be stripped away, they might put all guns and ammunition under the control of the DNC National Chairman, you just don't know.
On the State level, given the far Left leaning Democratic Party control that sways so much influence across the State that's largely polar opposite, how do you think a CC would fair for those outside the rotten Apple?


I prefer voting for specific items of Legislation as opposed to cart blanc freedom to do what ever they damn well please with the basis of Law for the State.  

I wholeheartedly concur with my esteemed gulag sharing colleague.

+1 here.

Like I said earlier.  Nothing good would come of it.

NO CON-CON

If cuomo suddenly said I want every citizen to have a machine gun I'd instinctively vote against him. Smarmy fuck.

When is this vote & where?

The back of the ballot during November's general election.

Vote NO and tell everyone you know to vote NO as well.

A con-con would be a con job.  Nothing good would come of it.

This right here...I don't want to leave any amendments coming from behind a closed door from "delegates" that come from who knows where up to voters of this state...

While small good things may POSSIBLY come out of it, I'm not willing to entrust the few freedoms I have to these fucktards... I'm not leaving anything up to a state where 70% of voters elected Schumer...AGAIN!

Everyone in this forum consistently bitches about how downstate controls the politics of the entire state and are ruining it, and I wholeheartedly agree...what do you think will happen with the ConCon?? That all the sudden downstate will just sit back??

ETA: as earlier stated, Cuomo wants it, so how good could it possibly be for us??

Article on Newsday on the proposed convention.  It is neither for nor against. Just an infomercial.

http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/new-york-constitutional-convention-vote-raises-hopes-fears-1.14091435

ALBANY — New York voters will soon decide whether to authorize a constitutional convention to confront issues long mired in political gridlock, such as additional guarantees for abortion, repeal of the 2013 gun control law, measures to combat the influence of big-money campaign donors, improvements to mass transit in New York City and on Long Island, and anti-corruption measures.

If voters call for a reboot of the highest law of New York, a constitutional convention also could take on popular structural proposals that usually don’t raise a peep in Albany. Those options include legislative term limits, eliminating the Senate or Assembly to reduce cost and partisan standoffs; curbs on the extensive power of governors in crafting state budgets; and banning outside jobs by lawmakers.

“Politicians in office cannot or will not sufficiently regulate themselves,” said Gerald Benjamin, distinguished professor of political science at SUNY New Paltz. “Maybe we can find a better way at a constitutional convention.”
Voters will make the decision Nov. 7 in a yes or no vote. If approved, months later three delegates will be elected from each of 63 State Senate districts statewide. Another 15 “at large” delegates will be elected from anywhere in the state for a total for 204.

The delegates would draw a salary for months of public work that would begin in 2018. Their recommendations would then be subject to a referendum on an election day, probably in 2019, after a series of public hearings, speeches and advertising blitzes from all sides.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has said he supports a convention but only if delegates aren’t dominated by elected officials who could protect the status quo. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) and Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan (R-East Northport) opposed a constitutional convention.

Supporters of a constitutional convention argue it is the only way to reform Albany’s ethical behavior and to reduce the influence of wealthy corporations and individuals on policymaking. Many opponents, however, fear that politicians and incumbents, who could become delegates, would hijack the citizens’ convention to unravel current protections in the constitution, such as the guarantee of pensions for teachers and other public workers and environmental protections.
Another camp opposed to a convention fears that incumbent legislators would take control of it, costing taxpayers millions and making sure no substantive work to curb corruption is passed.
The stakes are high.

A constitutional convention in 1846 placed caps on borrowing as well as punished the bribery of public officials for the first time. In 1866, one created free public schools and gave African-American men who owned property the right to vote. In 1894, a convention established “forever wild” areas of the Adirondacks and Catskills and founded the State University of New York. The 1938 convention required the state to care for those who couldn’t care for themselves under “articles on care of the needy,” and banned discrimination based on “race, color or creed.”

However, opponents also note that other conventions made far less progressive decisions. The 1777 convention, which wrote the first state constitution, rejected an attempt to end slavery. The 1801 convention weakened the governor’s power over appointments and spending and created a spoils system for the legislature that led to rampant corruption. The 1894 convention denied the vote to women.
“We need bold, systemic change now that will take direct aim at the culture of corruption, dysfunction and cronyism that has brought shame to our state for decades,” said Bill Samuels, a veteran of New York political campaigns and founder of the New York People’s Convention group.

Samuels’ People’s Convention group also supports non-ethics measures including full civil rights protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender New Yorkers, more funding for underperforming poor urban and rural schools, and the legalization of marijuana.

Proponents see hope in the anger of voters who feel ignored by politics as usual that helped elect Donald Trump president, just as the Progressive Era fueled the 1915 convention and the Great Depression forced the 1938 convention.
“To me, the most important thing of all is we have to have public financing of elections and we are not going to get it legislatively,” said Richard Ravitch, the former Democratic lieutenant governor who has played major historical roles in New York’s mass transit system, New York City’s fiscal crisis, and in health care reform.

Other supporters also have policy goals. For example, the state Bar Association calls for restructuring the “byzantine” court system to make it easier for lawyers and clients to navigate as well as consolidating trial courts. The Committee for a Constitutional Convention, which includes good-government groups such as New York City-based Citizens Union, wants public financing of campaigns and restoring some power of self-governance to New York City, much of which was lost to Albany when the state bailed the city out of financial crisis in the 1970s.

Ravitch said he understands the fears of opponents — for example, the concern of losing guaranteed pensions for public workers — but he doesn’t believe such elements of the current constitution are in serious danger. He and other supporters of a convention, such as Samuels, insist the risks are worth changing how Albany operates.

Hal Peterson is one of the New Yorkers who has caught the constitutional convention fever.

“Many of our elected officials are unlikely to rain on their own parade,” said Peterson, of Rockville Centre, a former corporate executive turned good-government advocate in retirement. He is trying to get legislators to commit to positions on reform issues and has developed a website (reformalbanynowregistry.com).

His seven proposals include a hard limit on state borrowing; eliminating the “LLC loophole” that allows corporations to use limited liability companies to contribute to candidates and parties far above the corporate limit of $5,000; and term limits and “initiative and referendum,” which many other states have, to allow citizens to initiate referenda on issues not taken up by the legislature.

“Can we afford to be indifferent? No!” Peterson said.

Yet opponents warn that big special interests can play an outsized role in a constitutional convention. That concern led even staunch good-government advocates and reform politicians to oppose a vote on whether to hold a convention in 1997, which led to its defeat. The good-government advocates then feared their attempts to rein in corruption would not only be defeated by delegates dominated by state legislators, but more loopholes would be created along with less independent oversight.
Today, however, the groups say the need to clean up Albany overwhelms their fear that ethics legislation could be further eroded.

Opponents of the November referendum on whether to hold a convention say they fear political bosses, public worker unions and big-money donors to campaigns will seize the upper hand in selecting delegates and the agenda. That agenda could decimate unions, eliminate or devalue the state pension guarantee for public workers, or undo the “forever wild” designations in the Adirondacks and Catskills that prohibit development.

The concern over drastic change has joined opponents on both sides of some issues. For example, the New Yorkers Against Corruption coalition fighting the convention includes Planned Parenthood and Right-to-Life groups, the state Conservative Party and the liberal Working Families Party and the progressive Humanists of Long Island; as well as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Network and conservative church groups.

“There is no question a constitutional convention could do tremendous damage to the state of New York,” said state Sen. Diane Savino (D-Staten Island) and a founding member of the Independent Democratic Conference. None of us can feel safe about a constitutional convention.”

A key concern of labor unions and their advocates, such as Savino, is that the possible elimination of the state constitution’s guarantee — since the 1938 constitutional convention referendum — that public workers get a lucrative, tax-free pension that can’t be “diminished or impaired” for a worker who is vested. Local government leaders, however, blame some of the nation’s highest property taxes on this pension obligation.

Construction unions also fear the constitution could strike down legislation that requires union-level wages and protections in all publicly funded construction sites, which has been a boon for unionized companies in landing big contracts.
“We don’t need to rip up the NYS constitution and put everything workers care about at risk to amend the constitution,” states the Facebook posting by the New York State AFL-CIO labor organization. The group says “Albany insiders” will try to take away workers’ rights such as costly pension benefits and legally required union-level wages that must be paid on most publicly funded projects, which drives up costs for taxpayers.

Opposition also comes from the other side of the political spectrum. “It’s a bad idea,” said state Conservative Party chairman Mike Long, who watched the 1967 convention closely and was unimpressed. “The establishment controls the whole convention.” He said, for example, late-term abortion without restrictions could be made the law of the land. “I believe the constitution has served us well.”

Supporters say they need Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to use his bully pulpit.

As a candidate in 2010, Cuomo said it was critical to create a “constitutional commission” through a governor’s executive order or the legislature to identify who could be delegates and the issues they would weigh. Neither Cuomo nor the legislature has done so.

In June, Cuomo emphasized the drawbacks of a convention. “I said a convention is a good idea,” Cuomo told reporters. “I think the devil is in the details. Who are the delegates? What are the issues? . . . You have to elect delegates who are not currently elected officials.”

Cuomo noted that legislators already have the political apparatus and know-how to collect nominating petitions in each congressional district to become delegates. That expertise and staffing could shut out the political novices and private citizens the constitutional convention is intended to attract.

He said New Yorkers should vote for a constitutional convention in November, but only with “the proviso” that elected officials can’t be delegates.

But Peter Galie, professor emeritus of political science at Canisius College, said he doesn’t believe a constitutional commission could legally bar any group of people, such as lawmakers, from running to become delegates.
“Cuomo’s argument is a counsel of despair or an ostensible but not real reason for his opposition,” Galie told Newsday.

Heastie said, “We should be very, very careful in exposing the constitution to the whims of someone from outside the state who could decide to spend millions of dollars to put forth a position.” Supporters estimate the cost of a convention at $60 million. Opponents estimate as much as $500 million.

Flanagan noted the legislature can already propose individual constitutional amendments. “I’m comfortable with the way that works,” Flanagan said. Voters have approved more than 225 amendments proposed by the legislature since 1895, according to the League of Women Voters.

“The legislature is opposed,” said Evan Davis, who supports a convention and had been counsel to former Gov. Mario Cuomo, “and it’s not hard to figure out why.”
Voters, however, seem to like the idea.

A poll in May found New York voters 62-22 percent supported a constitutional convention, said Steven Greenberg of the Siena College Research Institute poll. The support included two-thirds of Democrats, 55 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of independents. But support has already eroded in the face of media campaigns against a convention. In July, a Siena poll found 47 percent of voters supported a convention, although 67 percent of voters said they still haven’t heard enough about the issue.

That's all I needed to hear.  I'm voting No.

Sorry , double posted

Important Question on the vote itself: I know the item is  to be placed on the back of the ballot as of now. So we can conclude that many voters may not see it and vote.
My concern is (I have not been able to confirm this) will a non vote count as a "for" vote as I have heard in conversation on the con con?
If true, this means the fix is in.
Remember several years ago when many voters didn't see the amendment for additional taxation to fund the NYC transit system?

Be very wary people! Matt Bracken wrote about this very situation in one of his books. First gun registration, then the co con to finish us off.

A blank vote is a yes vote.

Going out on a limb here to say that's not true.  Source?

The new NYSLUT pocket calender has a "vote no on the constitutional convention" sign on election day.

Generally speaking a non vore is just that, but it lowers the number of "yes" votes required to get it done. If oit of 100 ballots, 25 say "yes", 24 vote "no", and 51 don't vote, the measure passes.

Exactly voting no here. Plus isn't FUAC pushing this so he can get his hands on state worker pension money? He wants the ability to "borrow" from it. Things are bad enough here already, why give them a chance to screw it up even more

'
More BS i'm sure, but I still don't trust Andy.

Whatever propositions were to come from a convention still have to get put on the ballot and approved by the voters so I don't understand why there is such concern that people in a back room will just be making all these changes with no over sight.

It would be great if we had good measures to vote on, but that will not happen. To help you understand why there is such concern answer me this: why couldn't we vote Coumo out? Why do we have an unsafe act? Why are we being required to register our handguns with the SP? Etc, etc, etc.

This is my understanding also

New Yorkers don't trust their fellow citizens with guns, they're definitely not going to trust them with their pension.