Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

[IslandBeef]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

I'll drop in a few comments... First thing to look at is that A LOT of politicians that were and are in office from 1978 to today were in that 1978 Con-Con (from the leg, govs, mayors, congress, OHA, BOE, council, etc.). A Con-Con brings a lot of people not usually involved in politics into the mix to add points of views outside of the norm. To me, this is a benefit as we have a leadership void and the value to this one little thing is far greater than any cost as it provides for the future... and we need it.

Another thing to point out is that it is NOT a Dem vs. Rep issue. There are people on both sides on both sides (although admittedly skewed). Della Au Belatti, D rep from district 25, is a pro Con-Con person. She's actively involved in http://www.hawaiiconcon.org/.

Finally, the argument that we don't want "crazies" and "special interest groups" messing with the constitution... All constitutional admendments, whether through the legislature or through a Con-Con, would need to be passed by the voting public and would need the 50% + 1 rule with blank and over votes counted as "no" votes (pretection of the status quo). AND all delegates are voted in to represent their districts.

[salmoned]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

OHA represents the destruction of any semblance of equal protection under the law for citizens of the state of Hawaii.

[timkona]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

Equal protection is lofty goal in a world where some folks believe they are naturally inferior by their own admission and desire.

Takes a ton of propaganda, served up in a delicious way, to convince a whole group of people that they cannot possibly cut the mustard based upon their own merit. They must have separate consideration, because in their own minds, they honestly believe that they are somehow not able to compete fairly.

Imagine the conversation in a home, where a parent says to a kid....

"You are X(insert ethnicity of choice). Because you are X, you will not be able to do as well in life as others. That is why you need special consideration, special circumstances, a handout, a free lunch, a break, a bonus, and some social program that addresses your inadequacy."

To some, that is considered child abuse. To liberals, it is life training.

[TuNnL]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

A LOT of politicians that were and are in office from 1978 to today were in that 1978 Con-Con (from the leg, govs, mayors, congress, OHA, BOE, council, etc.). A Con-Con brings a lot of people not usually involved in politics into the mix to add points of views outside of the norm ... All constitutional admendments, whether through the legislature or through a Con-Con, would need to be passed by the voting public and would need the 50% + 1 rule with blank and over votes counted as "no" votes (pretection of the status quo). AND all delegates are voted in to represent their districts.

Again, these are all concerns that can be addressed through the legislature. “People not usually involved in politics” don’t need a Con-con to be added to “the mix.” If you’re not involved, get involved, and do it right quick. Otherwise, STFU.

To me, this is a benefit as we have a leadership void

...which can be solved by simply “voting the bums out.” Sometimes things have to get worse, for them to get better. Having a ConCon will only, in the words of Mufi, “delay the inevitable.”

we don't want "crazies" and "special interest groups" messing with the constitution...

Exactly.

[Random]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

Finally, the argument that we don't want "crazies" and "special interest groups" messing with the constitution... All constitutional admendments, whether through the legislature or through a Con-Con, would need to be passed by the voting public and would need the 50% + 1 rule with blank and over votes counted as "no" votes (pretection of the status quo). AND all delegates are voted in to represent their districts.

I think a blank vote shouldn't count as "no" or "yes." Make the voter fill in his answer or his vote don't count.

--sick of filling in boxes but not a lazy voter.

[GregLee]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

Does everybody here support a Con-Con? Or not.

Not. Last time, I had no idea how to vote for delegates. For a time I saw lots of people on carrying signs. Then I followed news reports about what the convention was deciding. That was it. I had no connection with what the convention was doing -- no representation on it. This was just totally different from the normal selection and operation of a legislature. I hated it.

[IslandBeef]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

Not. Last time, I had no idea how to vote for delegates. For a time I saw lots of people on carrying signs. Then I followed news reports about what the convention was deciding. That was it. I had no connection with what the convention was doing -- no representation on it. This was just totally different from the normal selection and operation of a legislature. I hated it.

Sadly... This is a fact for most elections, eh? Most people don't know what the smaller candidates stand for, especially for things like BOE. Education the public? How do you do that?

[IslandBeef]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

[quote=TuNnL;211077]Again, these are all concerns that can be addressed through the legislature. “People not usually involved in politics” don’t need a Con-con to be added to “the mix.” If you’re not involved, get involved, and do it right quick. Otherwise, STFU.

Ah, but I disagree (sort of)... People not usually involved in politics is not the same as people that are not political. Not everyone knows what the process of running for office is but are educated on politics and are "involved" from the outside, but are not candidates. The majority of people in the past Con-Con were NOT standing elected officials. This means it can breed a new stock of "politicians" that are not politicians now. I think this fact scares the standing power people more than anything. Having control of who is in office carries a lot of weight. Just getting involved does not change the power base...

...which can be solved by simply “voting the bums out.” Sometimes things have to get worse, for them to get better. Having a ConCon will only, in the words of Mufi, “delay the inevitable.”

"Voting the bums out" is easier said than done. Elections are popularity contests and coverage is key to success. A ConCon does just that, give exposure to points of view outside of the staid political power base that sits at the capitol. If people aren't exposed to the alternative... Why would they want it?

This is not a personal attack, so please don't read it as so. But if you are a Ron Paul supporter, I'd think you'd see the ConCon as a way to make change from within as trying to walk in the front door doesn't work. There is only so far he can move and his "revolution" cannot happen without more people "in power" to have his point of view.

What better opportunity to change that than to see the ideas of the public through political outsiders that have the potential to become the next crop of political insiders. ConCon = Change. And remember, no changes will happen to the Constitution unless it is voted on by the people.

[IslandBeef]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

I think a blank vote shouldn't count as "no" or "yes." Make the voter fill in his answer or his vote don't count.

--sick of filling in boxes but not a lazy voter.

It protects the status quo. Some people think that's to further entrench the established power base... But in reality, it is a safeguard against chnages being made without adequate education on the subject.

Imagine if voter apathy got worse (can it get worse?) and special interest groups throw out a bunch of amendments with crazy wording. People are confused, they leave it blank... Oh oh, crazy things pass.

It places the burden of large scale change onto the public, where it should be.

[TuNnL]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

Again, these are all concerns that can be addressed through the legislature. “People not usually involved in politics” don’t need a Con-con to be added to “the mix.” If you’re not involved, get involved, and do it right quick.

Not everyone knows what the process of running for office is but are educated on politics and are "involved" from the outside, but are not candidates.

And that tells me they are making a conscious choice. Because even if they didn’t want to be a candidate, they could still be a campaign chairperson, treasurer, community organizer, etc. and thus become an “insider.” For you to connect the ConCon as the “missing link” for these people is really a stretch. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, including by you, ConCon participants are elected delegates, placing them in the same pool as any other elected official. Period.

This means it can breed a new stock of "politicians" that are not politicians now.

Again, you are making a huge leap here. Just because that’s what happened in ’78, doesn’t mean it will happen again. ’78 was the birth of the native Hawaiian renaissance including the infamous Eddie Aikau incident (“Eddie Would Go”), which had as much to do with galvanizing a “new breed” as the ConCon did.

Elections are popularity contests and coverage is key to success. A ConCon does just that, give exposure to points of view outside of the staid political power base that sits at the capitol.

Not necessarily. Converage is a double-edged sword as far as its effect in Hawai‘i elections. Take Ron Menor, for instance. All of the coverage was on him. He was the incumbent. I didn’t even know what Michelle Kidani looked like until Election night. She still beat him. Example #2: City Council Race District 7, also known as Aunty Lynn vs. Romy Cachola. Of Cachola’s two challengers, Lynn got t.v. news coverage on a major station. Lillian Hong did not. Hong got 18% of the vote, compared to Lynn’s 14%.

if you are a Ron Paul supporter, I'd think you'd see the ConCon as a way to make change from within as trying to walk in the front door doesn't work.

This is the cheapest fallacy you have circulated. Ron Paul walked into the front door of the U.S. House of Representatives and is currently serving his 10th term in office. He has never had to rely on cheap gimmicks like ConCons, and instead has published a bestselling book, ran twice for president, and deployed exhaustive internet marketing (setting a single-day fundraising record in the process) as a means of “gaining exposure.” Seems to be working great for him.

If you want to promote the ConCon, do it on the merits of its purpose, not its unintended consequences. Sorry to sound like I'm lecturing you, but being a “political outsider,” is a choice, and one that can change at a split second, ConCon not withstanding. The sooner people understand this, the sooner they will end their apathetic ways and get involved.

[IslandBeef]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

"Cheapest fallacy?" How dare... Kidding. It just surprises me that someone that supported Ron Paul wouldn't want to start a revolution rather than evolution.

Looking at the ConCon, I see the opportunity for a revolution of sorts. And fear of that, while expected, just keeps things the way they are. People yell and scream for change... Why not with a ConCon? Without it, it's just the same people, doing the same thing.

Ever seen a bright-eyed, young politician become part of the machine? Or their voice taken away from them by the majority of the majority? I have... too many times.

I'm not as optimistic that things will change with the people and motivations we have in office (and administrations) now. And I don't see the risks as being so great. But I have no vested interest to keep things the same. And no $ is too great to fix something that, at least I think, is broken and so important for all of our futures..

So let's bring this back to topic... "Why are the Dems against the Con-Con?" Who has a vested interest in keeping things the same with the same people? Why would you want change that isn't to keep the power base where it is?

And just wait to the mass advertising. I have a feeling pro Con-Con PACs won't have close to the funding anti Con-Con PACs will...

[sansei]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

hi this is sansei and for now im undecided on con con is when i see the commericial's on Con con saying to vote no,i myself is a bit confused and i've read the transcript's on Con con when you go to Yahoo and put in constitutional convention and you'd click on the hawaii's one and it take's you to that site and im not positive on voting on this,

when i read this on Con Con,it somewhat say's if im correct that it would help the hawaiian population to vote no and if you vote yes,it wouldnt help them so i myself is confused on voting on this.may someone respond so i'd understand this bill better,please?

Well thank's for your time

[escondido100]

Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

i am noticing that the people that are against a con/con are the ones that benefit by things staying just the way they are. While anecdotal in nature my observations are the people i know that are educated outside of the public system, have a lucrative source of income from a major corporation or have ties to the government in any way as well as a way to travel freely about the state and country are against the change that a con.con could bring. it threatens the status quo. basically they have theirs and the system the way it is has worked quite nicely for them thankyou and to heck with those that may benifit from a change.
did you see the tv ad where a respected hula kumu was featured saying that hawaiians might lose their language or their collection priviliges, or that OHA may be disbanded.....this is playing on the uneducated fear that they think hawaiians have....they believe it because they think they have created it by the current system.
do we really think a con con would eliminate the hawaiian language? or the ability of the hawaiians to collect? now maybe a new OHA that actually gets something done for the hawaiians couldbe a good thing.