enz0matic t1_itqjhrm wrote on October 25, 2022 at 3:58 PM

Keep in mind anything added to a constitution can no longer be a ballot issue, or decided by the voters. Many pushing for Convention want to push the interests of a small group, that would not have a chance if put to a ballot. In other words take away the peoples' right to ever vote/choose on those issues.

Be aware that there has also been a long running push for a US Constitutional convention to cement policies that are not popular with the majority of citizens, and favor only a small percentage of the population. It has been slowly making progress towards that goal.

mmirate t1_itqp7oa wrote on October 25, 2022 at 4:35 PM

Incorrect. Even if this ballot question passed, any proposed constitutional amendments would then be put on the next statewide ballot, and would not take effect except with 60% of that vote.

enz0matic t1_itrolsz wrote on October 25, 2022 at 8:21 PM

And once "added to the constitution" will not be subject to reversal until another constitutional convention is called and then would be a very complex process to overturn.

Incorrect? Did you read my comment? Or did you just miscomprehend it? I didn't say that it wouldn't be voted on to get into the constitution. The crux of comment was once in the constitution, near impossible to remove. Not sure how that was incorrect.

Suppose the voters were mislead by propaganda, or subject to disinformation, or even lied to about what an amendment entailed, then inadvertently voted for policies against their interests. There would be no easy recourse once in the constitution. My point is this decision should not be taken lightly, and to consider all the potential negative ramifications - and that IS a correct statement.

Many groups who want constitutional conventions want to instill their ideological policies and remove the choice from the people to change those policies.

mmirate t1_itss2qr wrote on October 26, 2022 at 1:03 AM

When you vote, you are exercising ultimate political authority, even if only a tiny fraction of it and even if limited by who is on the ballot (officials) and who isn't ("civil servants", gee thanks, Pendleton Act). With that authority, like all authority, comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Authority and responsibility are converses of one another, and are as inextricable as the positive and negative potentials in an electrical circuit. As dangerous as it is to wield authority without being responsible for the consequences of the orders you give, in equal measure it is absurd to be held responsible for something over which you have no authority to control.

When you slough off the responsibility to use authority wisely ("what if voters are mislead?"), whomever that responsibility defaults-to, takes authority over you ("because the voters could be mislead, we shouldn't let the vote happen!").

When you think about how dumb voters can be, you have a choice how to react. Maybe we should separate into smaller polities so that whoever is dumb will vote dumb things for themselves without affecting the not-so-dumb polity. Maybe we should have been more careful about only letting people vote if they actually have a stake in the system - after all, voting was not a right explicitly granted to anyone in particular, let alone "every citizen", until the 17th Amendment. Or maybe we should just let ourselves be ruled by whomever can best control the popular epistemology in their favor, and hope that their interests are aligned with ours - what could possibly go wrong?