Ohio voters just took firm positions on abortion and reproductive rights and adult-use recreational marijuana Tuesday, but gerrymandered Ohio lawmakers are already planning to flout, ignore, challenge, and abuse the voters’ wishes. This is what gerrymandering brings. This is why it’s a fundamental poison in the lifeblood of our republic.

Mere hours after Ohio voters passed the Issue 1 reproductive rights amendment with 56.62%, according to unofficial results, and the Issue 2 recreational marijuana law with 57% (both getting nearly 2.2 million votes), Ohio Republican legislative leaders signaled they would not respect the will of the people.

  • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 个月前

    You’re so incredibly pessimistic. Then how did Ocasio-Cortez beat Crowley in 2018? He had been in Congress for twenty years and was the chair of the House Democratic Caucus! If “the party” controlled the primary why would they “let” her win? The only way things can ever get better is by voting.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 个月前

      Then how did Ocasio-Cortez beat Crowley

      A rare and momentous triumph. That someone exceptional like AOC with an exceptional grassroots organisation behind her can do it once doesn’t mean that it’s easy or even, in most cases, possible for others.

      The only way things can ever get better is by voting.

      Odd thing to keep repeating on a post about people betrayed by the very people you advocate voting for as “the only way” 🙄

      • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 个月前

        Wait first it was:

        The primary controlled by the very party actively fighting progressives.

        Then it became:

        A rare and momentous triumph.

        Does “the party” determine the primary or do the voters? It’s one or the other.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 个月前

          It was a rare and momentous triumph for AOC to win a primary that was controlled by the very people actively fighting progressives.

          Which part don’t you understand?

          • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 个月前

            If the party controlled the primary then Crowley would have won. I don’t like arguments where everything is X but if Y happens that just proves X. I see it as flawed logic.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 个月前

              You’re conflating the impossible and the improbable/exceptional.

              You’re acting like either there’s no control from the party or there’s total control. It’s the kind of flawed logic called a false dichotomy.

              Think of it like this: if one runner is chained to a post and the other is unhindered, the first runner has no chance. That’s what it’s like if the Democratic Party has TOTAL control of the contest.

              Imagine, on the other hand, one runner has weights on her wrists and ankles totalling 4 pounds and the other is unencumbered. While it’s not impossible for a MUCH better runner to win, it’s not a fair competition and only exceptional runners will overcome the unequal treatment and still win.

              The latter example is how Democratic Party primaries are. Progressive candidates are wearing the weights, even incumbents.

              • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 个月前

                My whole argument has been that more people should vote. That more people should engage politically. Meaning they educate themselves and they vote in every election they can. Do you sincerely think that if voter participation rose from 2022’s 46% to 60 or 70% that we would have better politicians or worse politicians? I think we’d have better people running for office and being elected to office. That’s the bottom line of my argument.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 个月前

                  And the bottom line of MY argument is that, while we should definitely vote, voting alone doesn’t fix the broken system that lead to the perpetual lesser evil choices in most general elections.