Submitted by DietCokeMachine t3_yop5oa in newhampshire
The 2nd Constitutional Amendment Question on tomorrow's ballot asks "Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the constitution?"
I am just curious what your thoughts are on this. Are you going to vote for a convention or against it? Why?
This is a question which simply must be asked every 10 years by law.
I'm gonna be honest here. I must have read both those questions 10 times over. Yet, the blatantly convoluted syntax made it all but impossible for an average joe like myself to even begin to comprehend what the hell it means.
From what I gather, they're attempting to amend....something. With The Constitution, no less. If that's the case, it's a hard 'NO' for me. That's about as far as I got.
If voters decide they want a constitutional convention then they would be tasked with choosing delegates to the convention at the next election, similar to the process for choosing state representatives.
Then, if three-fifths of those delegates agree on changes to the state constitution, the final changes would be put before voters at the next biennial election.
The constitutional convention vote is required to happen every ten years, and will likely fail, since it failed by a mile last time and I know of nobody that is campaigning for or against it.
Even if it passed, any proposed changes would have to be approved by 2 thirds more of the New Hampshire voters.
On the other constitutional question, the Register of Probate constitutional question eliminates an elected office that no longer has any duties or powers - all those duties have been transferred to different state agencies.
Try Googling the questions you don't understand. Use many different sources and eventually you will understand what it means. Don't just blindly vote or make assumptions, that's more harmful than not voting at all. Either take the time to understand the question or skip it.
Voting against this actually ensures that only the legislative body can propose constitutional amendments.
I am voting against it anyway because it's not needed, but I wanted to point out that your reason is inconsistent with your vote plans.
2022 Ballot Questions Explained
The League of Women Voters was created to assist people who were unfamiliar with enfranchisement to understand the system they are part of. They still do that.
I already voted 'No'.
I'm voting no, because I don't feel like we need a convention, and if we did, I don't want the current crop of morons we have in the legislature in charge of it.
The wording is complicated because they need to amend it in multiple spots to accomplish the goal.
/u/Selfless- 's link is also a good one.
But for a simple explanation:
The Register of Probate for your county no longer has any responsibilities or functions. This eliminates it as an elected position and gets rid of the multiple references to it in the state constitution.
It's getting rid of an archaic office that again, no longer does anything.
You currently get asked to elect someone to a completely pointless office. After this, you wouldn't.
There's basically no reason for anyone to vote against it unless you've got some strong opinions against the court/probate reforms from over a decade ago and want functions to go back to that office.....I don't know of anyone who actually holds an opinion about that.
I agree it's obvious to me that both those questions are so convoluted on purpose by Republicans. It sure seems nefarious to me. No on both questions for me.
The second question is required by law to be asked every 10 years. Neither party has anything to do with it......
It's not what you think it is.
I’m voting no simply to not have to worry about any potential negative changes to the constitution.
Its damn republicans at it again!
Amazing context Sasquatch!
Thank you for the reference! Certainly more useful than some comments I've seen throughout this thread.
>I don't know of anyone who actually holds an opinion about that.
Well, nearly everyone (in this subreddit, anyway) seems to have a strong opinion about...something. Perhaps not specifically this, though there are some who appear to have strong opinions on everything political.
It may just be contentious rhetoric from a select few. But that's what I've seen whenever someone asks a political question on Reddit.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
[deleted]
Wrong constitution
I'm voting NO as well. Too much potential for the crazies of the vocal minority to get their way.
Voting no for many reasons. Political tumult. Also constitutional amendments require a 60% majority so it would be a waste of time and state resources. Please vote no if either of those points resonate with you!
I admit I'm not too familiar with this law.
Yet you assumed it was something nefarious orchestrated by Republicans.
Man the bias and propaganda is so inherently baked into people now.
I’m voting no. I see no reason for change. And I also feel like this is not the political climate to do such things.
[deleted]
Hell no. The Founders called a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation and came back with an entirely new constitution. Give these people an inch and they'll fuck you for a mile.
These days? No way. Much more could go bad than good at this point.
Agreed. The current New Hampshire constitution is wildly out-of-date. It starts by referring to humans as "men" or - in the more common interpretation - of only referring to the male sex (Source). The Bill of Rights also only protects religious people, but not atheists.
New Hampshire has one of the world's largest Houses of Representatives, even though it's one of the world's smallest democracies (by population). There is no reason we could not trim the number of representatives down by a reasonable number, and then increase the salaries of those remaining so that our representatives need not be independently wealthy or retired (Source).
I could go on, but I don't think any reasonable person would object to those two suggestions being on the ballot, even if they don't agree with the ideas themselves.
The current constitution is sexist and enables NH, a state of 1 million people, to have one of the world's largest parliaments. You don't think anything needs changing?
They wouldn't be...
Nope. But thanks for asking.
That's not quite right. I am voting no because it seems both parties agree there is still a role for the holder: https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2022-11-04/two-ballot-questions-await-voters-on-election-day-heres-what-they-mean
This has an unbiased summary of the first question especially: https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2022-11-04/two-ballot-questions-await-voters-on-election-day-heres-what-they-mean
When I first read your reply, I thought you were being rude!
Nope.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Larger parliament means we are way better represented
They already do all that shit right in front us then run our noses in it. We have constitutional rights…until they say F that we’re just gonna do this. And by they I mean both sides. They both suck and they are NOT here to help you and I.
Bullshyt. It just means more bloated govt that can’t actually do anything except spend money on useless shyt we don’t need while our schools decline our health insurance premiums skyrocket, our energy costs are ridiculous, & our roads are a mess.
But hey well be better represented by more morons who don’t give a toss about you and I.
I’m talking about both sides. We need a viable 3rd party more than ever. Just think if we’d elected 2 senators that were truly independent & represented the people of NH (or any state that could get a 3rd party candidate elected) instead of a party agenda they would’ve been able to hold up almost every bill that passed through congress.
That is handing some power back to the people.
Our experiment in a small, limited government has been an epic failure since WWI. Both Eisenhower & Kennedy warned us repeatedly about unelected bureaucrats seizing power bc leaders come & go while they seize more & more actual power.
[deleted]
Thanks for posting this. Pretty clear and simple. Now I feel informed about my decisions tomorrow.
Nope
I’m voting yes. It should be in our state constitution that fake maple syrup is made illegal. Any company/institution selling, manufacturing, promoting, etc… fake maple syrup should face life in prison and potential execution for treason. Only half /s
Apparently all humans are men then.
Thanks for posting. I’m still a bit lost on question 1 but this helped with question 2.
Nh not US
The constitution was better than the articles tho
Yes, but still. Same point stands.
True, but New Hampshire isn't amidst a crisis of government
The Constitution was a Federalist coup.
Knowing how little research most voters do on the candidates, I still don't think it's worth the risk of voting for delegates who would seize the opportunity to try to make drastic changes.
Against this would be the most fucked time ever to let some of these idiots have access to changing the state const
They are synonymous in the constitution are they not? what would you replace?
I'm not going to get too deep into my own political beliefs. But I believe changing "All men" to "All people" is very appropriate. It's not even a woke issue just very old outdated terminology of a document written WAY before women had the right to vote. However I will still be voting no. Who know what other bullshit EITHER party would try to pull and with the current political climate of the nation no fucking way is it worth the risk. Synonymous can also be subjective.
I'm what way dude lol
I kind of want to vote yes so the politicians will waste their time trying to figure out what to amend rather than screwing over anything else, but I probably won't.
I would only answer "yes" to this if I knew what one thing they wished to amend. And then only if they were legally compelled to change only that one thing.
Otherwise,I don't trust them not to do something bad.
Any amendment requires a 2/3rds popular vote. Not sure what the concern is.
Any amendment requires a 2/3rds popular vote be added. We've already lost if you think 2/3 of all NH voters will vote for something horrible.
In the NH constitution or the US constitution?
Based on some quick googling, there are two ways to amend the NH constitution - the first, by convention, requires a vote by delegates. It doesn't mention if a super-majority is required. This seems to be the method proposed on the ballot.
The second (legislatively) requires a 60% vote by legislators, and then 2/3 popular vote.
https://www.nhlawoffice.com/blog/2018/november/how-do-you-amend-the-new-hampshire-constitution-/
Both require a supermajority paragraph 5 in you link is ambiguous about it but applies to both methods. This link more explicitly says both methods of amending require a supermajority of voters.
Uh, what are you talking about?? This is the state constitution, not the U.S. constitution.
. Between 1894 and 2012, New Hampshire voters approved eight constitutional convention questions and defeated five.
Article 100 the section title "Oaths and Subscriptions Exclusion from Offices, Etc.," of the New Hampshire Constitution governs the constitutional convention question.
HEY. Ya' learn something new every day.
NH. New Hampshire Constitution. The ballot question today is for calling a convention to change the NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE Constitution.
Ok, your link makes it more clear.
George Washington was in favor of passing a Constitution. Wasn't George a Founder?
Says you.
Yes!!! Finally, some sanity.
Think of it this way. The more state reps, the more gridlock, the more nothing ever changes. Most Republicans LOVE this.
Adeling79 I wanna be your friend!!!
YES. This is just how I feel. I feel much better knowing I'm not alone.
What matters is that whatever changes the delegates come up wiht MUST BE PUT BEFORE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. Either you trust democracy or you don't. Which is it?
Right!!! Remember the 18th Amendment?? Definitely a bad idea. :-)
Wants to be created equally, but doesn't want to break a nail in construction jobs.
The current crop of morons Thank You for your 'no' vote. The rest of us, not so much.
Um, the founders actually said the constitution should be ever evolving and it does not make sense for it to not change every certain number of years. They were smart enough to realize laws passed 40+ years ago were voted on by people who are now dead and gone and the currently living people who would be affected by laws should have the right to change them. Read up your history and do some logical thinking. There is always a need to revise everything.
Wants to be superior but doesn’t deal with a period every month hormonal shifts and popping kids out of them. But you pop off king. You dropped this 👑
That's your rebuttal 😂😂😂. I can assure you more men bleed daily than women.
Not sending a real rebuttal because an internet stranger isn’t going to change your mind. Not worth the effort. I feel sorry for the women in your life.
Oh I didn't see that response coming 😂. I'll let them know you're sorry for them.
Yeah I’m afraid you’re in the wrong place for fair & balanced…Reddit is heavily slanted to liberal viewpoints, which is fine but a lot of reasonable viewpoints get shredded on here bc it says something negative about a liberal politician or viewpoint.
If a constitutional amendment is as vaguely worded on the ballot as today's questions, then I would absolutely be concerned how people would vote on it.
Yeah, then no. Thanks for the info.
Yeah. Especially the one about 'registers of probate' what the Heck!!
Yeah, but I though NH wasn't as liberal as other New England states (formerly from MA).
No NH is quite independent & traditionally has been the outlier of the NE states. Recently I have seen a shift to a more liberal state but it’s extremely tight.
The coast is extremely liberal as well as southern nh & parts along the act border.
I moved here from MA as well in 2015. It amazes me how so many people complain about the terrible politics of Mass (& the lack of affordable housing) as prime reasons for leaving yet they continue to vote a straight Democrat ticket thinking somehow things will get better.
goddammnick t1_ivf67vj wrote
Im voting against this - with the current legislative body in office, I do not trust them to amend anything in good conscience.