2026 Ballot Measures (Page 3 of 3)
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Purse swinging aside, did one side or the other convince you? I voted. No matter what happens, my life will likely not change to any measurable degree. Hopefully the people who have been spamming my phone with calls/texts, and putting political ads on youtube nonstop all die horrible deaths. Thank you for your attention to this matter. |
|
Wow! When asked to relinquish their own power, Missouri voters say "Nah, we won't be doing that." Who could have imagined? Missouri voters reject income tax phaseout, initiative petition changes |
|
Originally Posted By JAD762: I’m not surprised they bombed. Maybe a little surprised by how much they bombed. Originally Posted By JAD762: Originally Posted By bigbryce31186: 81.7 no on 4 83.9 no one 5 Lol, this is backfiring so bad I’m not surprised they bombed. Maybe a little surprised by how much they bombed. I thought it was going to be closer to 90% based off the amount of "no's" I saw on social media. |
|
Amendment 4 results by county: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-elections/missouri-ballot-measures |
| Moved to southern Missouri about a year ago and compared to Florida where I lived the previous 10 years, a lot of Missourians seem to be easily swayed to keep taxes instead of trying to force less spending. I was surprised a few months ago when I voted for the home property tax freeze and yet it was defeated by about 10% in my county. The commercials showing mentally challenged people losing their jobs unless we allowed our property taxes to be continually raised apparently worked well here. After living in other red states, Missouri is an odd one. Appears to be red by voting Republican in presidential elections but sometimes acts like a blue state when it comes to taxes and nanny state issues like car inspections (really just an opportunity for mechanics shops just like it was when my original state of Oklahoma had those 30 years ago before getting rid of that stupidity). |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Wow! When asked to relinquish their own power, Missouri voters say "Nah, we won't be doing that." Who could have imagined? Missouri voters reject income tax phaseout, initiative petition changes Bladeswitcher, Do you know the difference between a democracy and a republic? The USA was founded on the principle of giving up some of their 'power' [e.g., enumerated rights to the Fed gov't] to make society work. No large diverse democracy has ever worked. Moving from founding republic principles to democratic will fail. MO constitutional amendment results are proving this to be true. There have been 11,000 proposed amendments to the US constitution with only 27 being successful [one of which was to reverse an earlier amendment] in 250 years. Constitutions should reflect the founding principles of the organization: not define the correct toppings on pizza or to leave the seat up or down. That is what legislatures do. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: What? Are you under the impression that Missouri's initiative petition process has changed? Do you think we used to have a 60% standard? Do you think the 50%+1 thing is new? None of that is correct. Missouri's initiative petition process has remained basically unchanged since 1908. If Amendment 4 is defeated, nothing will change. The process will continue just as it has for nearly 120 years. https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_initiative_and_referendum_in_Missouri You might note that of the 73 citizen-led initiative petitions to change the constitution on the ballot since 1908, only 29 were approved. 44 were defeated. So much for "free reign." Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: 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. . . . . What? Are you under the impression that Missouri's initiative petition process has changed? Do you think we used to have a 60% standard? Do you think the 50%+1 thing is new? None of that is correct. Missouri's initiative petition process has remained basically unchanged since 1908. If Amendment 4 is defeated, nothing will change. The process will continue just as it has for nearly 120 years. https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_initiative_and_referendum_in_Missouri You might note that of the 73 citizen-led initiative petitions to change the constitution on the ballot since 1908, only 29 were approved. 44 were defeated. So much for "free reign." 100% of your assumptions are incorrect. Read again. Slower this time. |
Interviewer: Well, can you... blow up the world?
Tick: Egad. I hope not. That's where I keep all my stuff.
Tick: Egad. I hope not. That's where I keep all my stuff.
|
Originally Posted By soonerfan7: Moved to southern Missouri about a year ago and compared to Florida where I lived the previous 10 years, a lot of Missourians seem to be easily swayed to keep taxes instead of trying to force less spending. I was surprised a few months ago when I voted for the home property tax freeze and yet it was defeated by about 10% in my county. The commercials showing mentally challenged people losing their jobs unless we allowed our property taxes to be continually raised apparently worked well here. After living in other red states, Missouri is an odd one. Appears to be red by voting Republican in presidential elections but sometimes acts like a blue state when it comes to taxes and nanny state issues like car inspections (really just an opportunity for mechanics shops just like it was when my original state of Oklahoma had those 30 years ago before getting rid of that stupidity). MO isn't a truly red state. About 1/2 of the republicans are actually purple: economically conservative but socially liberal. That is why the state legislature is so dysfunctional. |
|
Originally Posted By soonerfan7: Moved to southern Missouri about a year ago and compared to Florida where I lived the previous 10 years, a lot of Missourians seem to be easily swayed to keep taxes instead of trying to force less spending. I was surprised a few months ago when I voted for the home property tax freeze and yet it was defeated by about 10% in my county. The commercials showing mentally challenged people losing their jobs unless we allowed our property taxes to be continually raised apparently worked well here. After living in other red states, Missouri is an odd one. Appears to be red by voting Republican in presidential elections but sometimes acts like a blue state when it comes to taxes and nanny state issues like car inspections (really just an opportunity for mechanics shops just like it was when my original state of Oklahoma had those 30 years ago before getting rid of that stupidity). State inspections are NOT an opportunity for shops. Shops DO NOT want to do them. They do not make us any money. That being said, if you saw some of the vehicles that we see on a daily basis, you would actually understand why we have to do them. |
|
Originally Posted By Deuskid: Bladeswitcher, Do you know the difference between a democracy and a republic? The USA was founded on the principle of giving up some of their 'power' [e.g., enumerated rights to the Fed gov't] to make society work. No large diverse democracy has ever worked. Moving from founding republic principles to democratic will fail. MO constitutional amendment results are proving this to be true. There have been 11,000 proposed amendments to the US constitution with only 27 being successful [one of which was to reverse an earlier amendment] in 250 years. Constitutions should reflect the founding principles of the organization: not define the correct toppings on pizza or to leave the seat up or down. That is what legislatures do. Jeez, are we having that argument again? Elizabeth Willing Powel did not ask Ben Franklin if we had a republlic or a democracy. She asked him, “What have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” When people say the U.S. is a "democracy" they're not referring to a pure democracy like ancient Greece. They're saying it's not a monarchy like England. There are a few basic forms of government: democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, etc. A constitutional republic is a form or subset of a democratic form of government. That's all that's being said. There is nothing about being a republic that precludes occasions of direct democray. They are not mutually exclusive. In a republican form of government there are numerous opportunities for direct democracy. One obvious example is voting on taxes. In Missouri a local government cannot raise the sales tax it imposes without the people voting to approve the hike. I don't know many people who don't agree with that. Hardly anyone thinks it's all fine and dandy for their "elected representatives" to raise their taxes anytime they choose. Maybe you think that's OK, but I doubt it. Missouri has allowed citizen-led initiative petitions for nearly 120 years (presumably a lot longer than you or anyone you know has been a Missourian). The state constitution has been amended 29 times through citizen-led initiative petitions. (An additional 133 amendments began as ballot question proposed by the legislature.) Some of those changes were proposed by conservatives and some were proposed by liberals. In every case THE PEOPLE took matters into their own hands when they felt their elected officials were not responsive to their concerns. The initiative petition process is a powerful tool that gives THE PEOPLE of Missouri some measure of control over their government. Again, people of either political persuasion have used it with success. They've also failed in their efforts (more often than they've succeeded in fact). Amendment 4 was an attempt by the legislature to prevent citizens from imposing their will in the future. It was a legislative power grab, nothing more. The people considered voluntarily giving up their power and decided they were not willing to do that. Maybe if there were a proposal to make MODEST changes to the initiative petition process the people might approve that. Amendment 4 was not a modest proposal, however. |
|
Originally Posted By soonerfan7: Moved to southern Missouri about a year ago and compared to Florida where I lived the previous 10 years, a lot of Missourians seem to be easily swayed to keep taxes instead of trying to force less spending. I was surprised a few months ago when I voted for the home property tax freeze and yet it was defeated by about 10% in my county. . . . It's not so surprising that younger voters didn't want to subsidize the old people's property taxes. (Full disclosure, I'm a senior and definitely filed for the senior property tax subsidy in my county.) |
|
Originally Posted By bigbryce31186: I thought it was going to be closer to 90% based off the amount of "no's" I saw on social media. Originally Posted By bigbryce31186: Originally Posted By JAD762: Originally Posted By bigbryce31186: 81.7 no on 4 83.9 no one 5 Lol, this is backfiring so bad I’m not surprised they bombed. Maybe a little surprised by how much they bombed. I thought it was going to be closer to 90% based off the amount of "no's" I saw on social media. Probably fair. Now that I think about it the only people I saw on socials supporting a yes were people directly connected to government. |
|
Appears to be red by voting Republican in presidential elections but sometimes acts like a blue state when it comes to taxes and nanny state issues like car inspections (really just an opportunity for mechanics shops just like it was when my original state of Oklahoma had those 30 years ago before getting rid of that stupidity). I, for one, don't agree with that statement. I had a 2008 Ford Taurus X and brought in for inspection, because of age. It had 80,000 miles on it. They found that the engine cradle was rotted out and the engine would have fallen out of the vehicle at speed. That could have killed my family or anyone on the road. I for one, don't mind inspections, keeps the bad cars off the roads. |
|
Originally Posted By JJKrzos: I, for one, don't agree with that statement. I had a 2008 Ford Taurus X and brought in for inspection, because of age. It had 80,000 miles on it. They found that the engine cradle was rotted out and the engine would have fallen out of the vehicle at speed. That could have killed my family or anyone on the road. I for one, don't mind inspections, keeps the bad cars off the roads. All Fords should have to be inspected every year. (Just kidding) |
|
Originally Posted By onthebreeze: The point of 4 is exactly what you say, make it harder to ammend the constitution, because constitutional amendments are not the correct way to legislate things. That is what the legislature is for. Ultimately, it will make new laws follow the process rather than throwing things into amendments. As far as 5, the gov can already raise tax rates. The difference is you have some control over what you spend, and many of the necessities will still be tax free. Originally Posted By onthebreeze: Originally Posted By chumpmiester: I'm still undecided on Amendment 4 The reason I am still undecided on Amendment 4 is the fact that it would allow the St Louis and Kansas City areas to stop any proposed constitutional amendments that the rest of the state wants. You have to remember that big metro areas are predominantly democratic while the rest of the state is predominantly republican. It is a big NO for me on Amendment 5 as it will only hurt low income families and those that are on fixed incomes. It's bad enough that those of us on Social Security Disability or Social Security retirement generally lose money every year as the rise in Medicare premiums is usually higher than what the COLA increase is. Yes the last few years we actually gained a couple of dollars versus losing 5-10 dollars ( or more) per month. I mentioned the above since Amendment 5 would allow the state to increase sales taxes to the point that low/fixed income can't afford to buy basic necessities. I am pretty much conservative and I am still against Amendment 5. I am also against casinos as they claim that taxes from casinos helps Missouri veterans and I have not seen that happen in all these years. The point of 4 is exactly what you say, make it harder to ammend the constitution, because constitutional amendments are not the correct way to legislate things. That is what the legislature is for. Ultimately, it will make new laws follow the process rather than throwing things into amendments. As far as 5, the gov can already raise tax rates. The difference is you have some control over what you spend, and many of the necessities will still be tax free. Amendment 4 was intended to stop citizen initiative petitions for change. The legislature is not hindered either way. That leaves citizen control to low turn out elections of representation. Some of those petitions are bad, some are good for conservatives, but they'd need to get off their asses and to the polls, in addition to talking to their representation including the governor. |
Keep your powder dry, and watch your back trail.
|
Originally Posted By Deuskid: MO isn't a truly red state. About 1/2 of the republicans are actually purple: economically conservative but socially liberal. That is why the state legislature is so dysfunctional. Originally Posted By Deuskid: Originally Posted By soonerfan7: Moved to southern Missouri about a year ago and compared to Florida where I lived the previous 10 years, a lot of Missourians seem to be easily swayed to keep taxes instead of trying to force less spending. I was surprised a few months ago when I voted for the home property tax freeze and yet it was defeated by about 10% in my county. The commercials showing mentally challenged people losing their jobs unless we allowed our property taxes to be continually raised apparently worked well here. After living in other red states, Missouri is an odd one. Appears to be red by voting Republican in presidential elections but sometimes acts like a blue state when it comes to taxes and nanny state issues like car inspections (really just an opportunity for mechanics shops just like it was when my original state of Oklahoma had those 30 years ago before getting rid of that stupidity). MO isn't a truly red state. About 1/2 of the republicans are actually purple: economically conservative but socially liberal. That is why the state legislature is so dysfunctional. Echoes of classic Southern Democrats still ring in Southern Missouri. Maybe not echoes in the most southern counties except in the Springfield metro region. |
Keep your powder dry, and watch your back trail.
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: It's not so surprising that younger voters didn't want to subsidize the old people's property taxes. (Full disclosure, I'm a senior and definitely filed for the senior property tax subsidy in my county.) Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Originally Posted By soonerfan7: Moved to southern Missouri about a year ago and compared to Florida where I lived the previous 10 years, a lot of Missourians seem to be easily swayed to keep taxes instead of trying to force less spending. I was surprised a few months ago when I voted for the home property tax freeze and yet it was defeated by about 10% in my county. . . . It's not so surprising that younger voters didn't want to subsidize the old people's property taxes. (Full disclosure, I'm a senior and definitely filed for the senior property tax subsidy in my county.) Subsidy or freeze? I am taking advantage of the freeze, and my tax is several thousand dollars anyway. |
Keep your powder dry, and watch your back trail.
|
Originally Posted By JAD762: I’m not surprised they bombed. Maybe a little surprised by how much they bombed. Originally Posted By JAD762: Originally Posted By bigbryce31186:81.7 no on 4 83.9 no one 5 Lol, this is backfiring so bad It's worth noting the marijuana IP passed with less than a 24% approval of eligible voters. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: When people say the U.S. is a "democracy" they're not referring to a pure democracy like ancient Greece. They're saying it's not a monarchy like England. I wouldn't bet the farm on that if I were you. I'd suspect that 80% of liberal voters think it is a direct democracy with the other 20% wishing it was. |
|
Originally Posted By AeroE: Subsidy or freeze? I am taking advantage of the freeze, and my tax is several thousand dollars anyway. When I said "subsidy" I was suggesting that younger tax payers make up the lost revenue from seniors who avail themselves of the freeze. Younger property owners pay more so the tax bills paid by seniors don't rise (or so they say). In effect the young subsidize the old. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Jeez, are we having that argument again? Elizabeth Willing Powel did not ask Ben Franklin if we had a republlic or a democracy. She asked him, “What have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” When people say the U.S. is a "democracy" they're not referring to a pure democracy like ancient Greece. They're saying it's not a monarchy like England. There are a few basic forms of government: democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, etc. A constitutional republic is a form or subset of a democratic form of government. That's all that's being said. There is nothing about being a republic that precludes occasions of direct democray. They are not mutually exclusive. In a republican form of government there are numerous opportunities for direct democracy. One obvious example is voting on taxes. In Missouri a local government cannot raise the sales tax it imposes without the people voting to approve the hike. I don't know many people who don't agree with that. Hardly anyone thinks it's all fine and dandy for their "elected representatives" to raise their taxes anytime they choose. Maybe you think that's OK, but I doubt it. Missouri has allowed citizen-led initiative petitions for nearly 120 years (presumably a lot longer than you or anyone you know has been a Missourian). The state constitution has been amended 29 times through citizen-led initiative petitions. (An additional 133 amendments began as ballot question proposed by the legislature.) Some of those changes were proposed by conservatives and some were proposed by liberals. In every case THE PEOPLE took matters into their own hands when they felt their elected officials were not responsive to their concerns. The initiative petition process is a powerful tool that gives THE PEOPLE of Missouri some measure of control over their government. Again, people of either political persuasion have used it with success. They've also failed in their efforts (more often than they've succeeded in fact). Amendment 4 was an attempt by the legislature to prevent citizens from imposing their will in the future. It was a legislative power grab, nothing more. The people considered voluntarily giving up their power and decided they were not willing to do that. Maybe if there were a proposal to make MODEST changes to the initiative petition process the people might approve that. Amendment 4 was not a modest proposal, however. As things stand, IP is democracy in action. As our founding fathers knew and designed against Republic > Democracy IP methodology in MO as it stands is inferior. It is that simple. |
|
Originally Posted By Deuskid: As things stand, IP is democracy in action. As our founding fathers knew and designed against Republic > Democracy IP methodology in MO as it stands is inferior. It is that simple.  Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man. |
|
It was also the opinion of our Founding Fathers. |
|
Originally Posted By Deuskid: It was also the opinion of our Founding Fathers. I wasn't aware the Founding Fathers had strong opinions about how states did things within their own borders. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution suggests otherwise. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: I wasn't aware the Founding Fathers had strong opinions about how states did things within their own borders. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution suggests otherwise. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You deviated from the topic. Which form of gov't. The discussion was regarding if they thought that a republic was superior to a democratic form of gov't. They also had strong opinions of individual rights, states' rights and those enumerated specifically to the federal gov't. They delineated them specifically in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution including the 1st ten amendments. The founding fathers chose a republic over a democratic form of gov't because they found it superior. |
|
Originally Posted By Deuskid: You deviated from the topic. Which form of gov't. The discussion was regarding if they thought that a republic was superior to a democratic form of gov't. They also had strong opinions of individual rights, states' rights and those enumerated specifically to the federal gov't. They delineated them specifically in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution including the 1st ten amendments. The founding fathers chose a republic over a democratic form of gov't because they found it superior. Originally Posted By Deuskid: You deviated from the topic. Which form of gov't. The discussion was regarding if they thought that a republic was superior to a democratic form of gov't. They also had strong opinions of individual rights, states' rights and those enumerated specifically to the federal gov't. They delineated them specifically in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution including the 1st ten amendments. The founding fathers chose a republic over a democratic form of gov't because they found it superior. I don't believe the Founders believed citizen referendums were inconsistent with a republican form of government. History and their own words suggests otherwise: Federalist #49: "As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others." The passage from the Ballotpedia website recalls the early history of citizen participation through initiatives and referendums: https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_initiative_and_referendum_in_the_U.S Various forms of I&R (initiative and referendum) have existed in the United States since the 17th century, beginning in New England, where ordinances and other issues were listed on town hall meeting agendas. The voting within these town hall meetings established a precedent for the legislative referendum process, which allows citizens to ratify laws and amendments proposed by their elected officials. Legislative referendum was proposed by Thomas Jefferson in 1775, for Virginia's state constitution. He believed that citizens were capable of being leaders and that they should agree upon, and approve, changes to laws. Legislative referendum was not added to Virginia’s state constitution. Jefferson was unable to advocate for the process because he was at the Continental Congress.[1] One year after legislative referendum was proposed to Virginia delegates, Georgia’s delegates gathered in Savannah to draft a new state constitution. An addition was suggested: Amendments could be added to the constitution once a petition signed by the majority of voters in each county called for a convention. Though the process was never used and was ultimately deleted from the constitution, Georgia delegates were the first to conceive of a referendum process for state citizens.[1] In an essay, "Federalist No. 49," James Madison wrote: “ As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority ... whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government.[2] ” —James Madison Massachusetts was the first state to hold a statewide legislative referendum; citizens ratified the state constitution in 1778. New Hampshire followed in 1792.[1] Other early adopters of the referendum process were Connecticut (1818), Maine (1819), New York (1820) and Rhode Island (1824).[1] Congress eventually made the process of legislative referendum mandatory for all states entering the union after 1857.[1] Today, legislative referendum is exercised in every state. |
|
Dueskid, We can keep arguing this, but the bottom line is that Missouri's constitution allows for citizens to propose statutory changes and constitutional amendments through initiative petitions. That process has been part of Missouri’s constitution since 1904 and was included in our current constitution when voters ratified it in 1945. The people have been asked to amend that process five times and only once did they make any changes (and that was only to increase the lead time for submitting petitions). The people of Missouri have spoken on this issue. Seems like they spoke pretty damn loudly Tuesday night. Constitution of Missouri Article III, Sections 49-53 INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM Section 49. Reservation of power to enact and reject laws.—The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided. . . . |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Dueskid, We can keep arguing this, but the bottom line is that Missouri's constitution allows for citizens to propose statutory changes and constitutional amendments through initiative petitions. That process has been part of Missouri’s constitution since 1904 and was included in our current constitution when voters ratified it in 1945. The people have been asked to amend that process five times and only once did they make any changes (and that was only to increase the lead time for submitting petitions). The people of Missouri have spoken on this issue. Seems like they spoke pretty damn loudly Tuesday night. It being around since 1904 doesn't make it right. The people have spoken but that doesn't make what they said right. "The majority is always wrong, the minority is rarely right" Ibsen You have yet to acknowledge that the Founding Fathers chose Republic rather than a Democracy as their preferred form of gov't. This recent exercise in trying to amend MO constitution is a perfect example. When society votes selfishly rather than duty bound its fabric is weakened. |
|
Originally Posted By Deuskid: You have yet to acknowledge that the Founding Fathers chose Republic rather than a Democracy as their preferred form of gov't. . There is no argument on that point. Our Founders clearly choose a republican (small R) form of government for the federal government. But within that system, they allowed states to choose what level of citizen participation was appropriate within their own borders. They didn't view referendums and citizen input on the state level as inconsistent with the republican model on the federal level. Quite the contrary, there were examples of and opportunities for direct citizen democracy at the time of the founding. The Founders did not speak out against citizen referendums then, and I highly doubt they would oppose Missouri's system now. There might be a level of direct democracy that they would oppose but I don't believe we've ever seen anything approaching pure democracy in Missouri. It is disingenuous at best to suggest there are only two points on the democracy continuum and that Missouri's initiative petition process somehow is akin to pure democracy. Frankly, your view about this strikes me as absurd. But you are entitled to your opinion. I think you're wrong, but you are free to believe what you want to believe. Your steadfast belief doesn't change the reality as it exists in Missouri however. Missouri allows initiative petitions. Full stop. Get over it. If it's any consolation, I'm on record as stating I agree it's a bit too easy to change Missouri's constitution. If the legislature proposed increasing the threshold for passage SLIGHTLY, I might support that. I will never support eliminating (or effectively eliminating) the right of Missouri citizens to exert their ultimate authority over state government however. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: There is no argument on that point. Our Founders clearly choose a republican (small R) form of government for the federal government. But within that system, they allowed states to choose what level of citizen participation was appropriate within their own borders. They didn't view referendums and citizen input on the state level as inconsistent with the republican model on the federal level. Quite the contrary, there were examples of and opportunities for direct citizen democracy at the time of the founding. The Founders did not speak out against citizen referendums then, and I highly doubt they would oppose Missouri's system now. There might be a level of direct democracy that they would oppose but I don't believe we've ever seen anything approaching pure democracy in Missouri. It is disingenuous at best to suggest there are only two points on the democracy continuum and that Missouri's initiative petition process somehow is akin to pure democracy. Frankly, your view about this strikes me as absurd. But you are entitled to your opinion. I think you're wrong, but you are free to believe what you want to believe. Your steadfast belief doesn't change the reality as it exists in Missouri however. Missouri allows initiative petitions. Full stop. Get over it. If it's any consolation, I'm on record as stating I agree it's a bit too easy to change Missouri's constitution. If the legislature proposed increasing the threshold for passage SLIGHTLY, I might support that. I will never support eliminating (or effectively eliminating) the right of Missouri citizens to exert their ultimate authority over state government however. Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Originally Posted By Deuskid: You have yet to acknowledge that the Founding Fathers chose Republic rather than a Democracy as their preferred form of gov't. . There is no argument on that point. Our Founders clearly choose a republican (small R) form of government for the federal government. But within that system, they allowed states to choose what level of citizen participation was appropriate within their own borders. They didn't view referendums and citizen input on the state level as inconsistent with the republican model on the federal level. Quite the contrary, there were examples of and opportunities for direct citizen democracy at the time of the founding. The Founders did not speak out against citizen referendums then, and I highly doubt they would oppose Missouri's system now. There might be a level of direct democracy that they would oppose but I don't believe we've ever seen anything approaching pure democracy in Missouri. It is disingenuous at best to suggest there are only two points on the democracy continuum and that Missouri's initiative petition process somehow is akin to pure democracy. Frankly, your view about this strikes me as absurd. But you are entitled to your opinion. I think you're wrong, but you are free to believe what you want to believe. Your steadfast belief doesn't change the reality as it exists in Missouri however. Missouri allows initiative petitions. Full stop. Get over it. If it's any consolation, I'm on record as stating I agree it's a bit too easy to change Missouri's constitution. If the legislature proposed increasing the threshold for passage SLIGHTLY, I might support that. I will never support eliminating (or effectively eliminating) the right of Missouri citizens to exert their ultimate authority over state government however. I imagine if the Legislative hadn't tried to take such a big bite but instead done something akin to making the Constitutional Amendment process a 2/3rds vote (66%) they'd have had a lot more support. Even I didn't like this amendment as it gave the Legislative a lower threshold than the people for getting a Constitutional Amendment passed. |