Proposals On The Ballot 2012 You Decide

[_abbenormal]

hello all

 

read the whole thing then go back and think about what you feel the people need... i think were seeing miss leading ads about these proposals... if you feel the need at the end us a x to mark how you feel yes or no... then if you also feel why you feel it is a yes or no vote on the proposals... so we can understand why we should vote yes or no... when you dont know how to vote sometimes it helps hearing from others...

 

http://www.mlive.com..._appear_to.html

 

LANSING, MI — Recent polling shows general support for five ballot proposals to amend the Michigan constitution.

Lansing-based Marketing Resource Group conducted a phone interview of 600 likely voters from Sept. 10-15 to gauge support for proposals that would enshrine collective bargaining in the constitution, raise the renewable energy mandate, provide collective bargaining for home health care workers, attempt to block a proposed bridge between Detroit and Windsor, and require a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature to raise state taxes.

Proponents of the renewable energy, or 25 by 25 proposal, paid for that question in the poll, while the rest of the questions were conducted for Inside Michigan Politics.

 

The poll questions closely mirrored the actual ballot proposal language.

EPIC-MRA in Lansing conducted a similar poll of 600 likely voters from Sept. 8-11. It was commissioned by the Detroit Free Press and four TV news stations.

 

• Proposal 2 would enshrine collective bargaining rights in the constitution and undo more than 80 union-related laws. The MRG poll found 48 percent support the proposal, while 42 percent are against it. The EPIC-MRA results were similar, showing 48 percent support and 43 percent against.

 

• Proposal 3 would require Michigan electric utilities to derive at least 25 percent of their energy from clean renewable sources by 2025. MRG found 58 percent in support and 31 percent opposed, while EPIC-MRA showed 55 percent for and 34 percent against.

 

• Proposal 4 would re-establish a statewide registry of home health care aides and lock their collective bargaining rights into the state constitution. MRG reported 59 percent in support and 31 percent opposed, while EPIC-MRA showed 55 percent for and 27 percent against.

 

• Proposal 5 would require a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature to raise state taxes. It received the largest support in the MRG poll, with 64 percent of respondents in favor and 29 percent against. EPIC-MRA showed 53 percent in favor and 37 percent opposed.

 

• Proposal 6 would require a public vote for any international bridge project not completed by the end of the year. It’s aimed at blocking construction of a new government-owned bridge connecting Detroit and Windsor. MRG, whose president Tom Shields is the spokesman for proposal opponents, found that 52 percent of respondents support the proposal and 38 percent do not. EPIC-MRA showed 47 percent in favor and 44 percent opposed.

Proposals generally need 60 percent to 65 percent support at the start of the campaign season to carry it into election day, said Paul King, director of research services at MRG.

“As you get closer to the election, your support tends to drop off,” he said, since the number of no votes and undecided voters increase as campaign messages spread.

Bernie Porn, president of EPIC-MRA, said proponents like to see support in the high 50s or 60 percent because people who are uninformed or unsure about a proposal usually vote no.

Advertisements pushing for “no” votes on multiple questions have had an impact on polling results, Porn said.

 

Gov. Rick Snyder also urged voters to reject the five constitutional amendments.

He wants a “yes” vote on Proposal 1. The referendum would repeal the emergency manager law, and a “yes” vote would keep the law in place.

 

MRG showed 48 percent want to repeal the law and 45 percent want to keep it. EPIC-MRA reported 46 percent support a repeal and 42 percent want to keep the law in place.

 

Related: Poll: Michigan emergency manager law losing support ahead of November referendum

Email Melissa Anders at manders@mlive.com. Follow her on Twitter: @MelissaDAnders.

 

 

proposal 1

yes=

 

no=

 

proposal 2

yes=

 

no=

 

 

proposal 3

yes=

 

no=

 

 

proposal 4

yes=

 

no=

 

 

proposal 5

yes=

 

no=

 

proposal 6

yes=

 

no=

[Restorium2]

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

4. No

5. ??

6. Yes

[pic book]

putting anything in the constitution of an ephemeral nature seems to needlessly enshrine the temporal: where's the proposal to require a pooper-scooper be carrried by those walking cats? and one requiring sunglasses be worn by pedestrians? and count-down meters at intersections? what issues rises to the level of constitutional law? everything?

[+Malamute]

Proposal 5 is generally bad.

 

Refer to California.

 

My personal preferences:

 

1. NO- Emergency mgr law

2. YES- Workers rights

3. YES- Renewable Energy

4- YES- Home Health Care

5- NO- SuperMajority Tax Increase

6- NO- Bridge Privatization

[t-pain]

can you explain why 5 is bad? its kind of confusing what the rammifications are.

i guess it would mean that if the repubs didnt want taxes, they could just vote no on any new taxes?

 

 

but yeah i agree with and will vote the same as malamute.

 

restorium2: why voting yes on 6 aka bridge blocking??

theres a million reasons to vote no on 6.

the only reason to vote yes is if you really like billionaire matty moroun and want him to build a bridge and flower up mexicantown. and canada isnt agreeing with his bridge location, so it will never get built!

 

@ pic book : i think the reason to get collective barganing into the constitution is that theres been a serious push for anti-union and 'right to work' stuff. every time a state turns 'right to work' a lot of unions dissapear and the working conditions go down.

 

more info here : http://indianarighttowork.com/

Edited September 26, 2012 by teethpain

[+Malamute]

Regards to 5:

 

WHat happens is the legislature will pass a law and then not fund it; just for an example i will say the legislature passed a law to have breakfast served at K-12 schools.

 

So the duly elected government passes said law, but are not allowed to fund the program. Its makes every law that causes need for revenue to essentially be vetoed by only a 1/3 minority. It takes 2 votes for any law that needs funding like that to pass. It just isnt how government is supposed to work. It causes all sorts of problems and is abused from both sides of the aisle. Such as as republicans would block funding for school breakfasts in schools even if the original bill passed by 100%. They can turn around and stop revenue(taxes) for the program thus killing the program. The democrats can also then block all funding for say, just as a general example, increasing pharmaceutical research funding.

 

It allows the government to be run by a 1/3 minority.

 

Even though on he surface it seems like a good idea to require supermajorities for revenue increases, it comes tangled in a web of incompetence and the inability of government to operate efficiently, if at all.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Malamute

[_abbenormal]

hello all

 

heres some others thinking on these items lots of reading to help or confuse us more... good luck... im still not sure how to vote on a few of these... because of who is backing and or pushing for them...

 

http://www.michamber.com/2012-election-guide#ballot

 

http://www.crcmich.org/

 

http://www.retailers.com/mra/legislative/2012-ballot-proposal-overview.html

 

http://www.openmarket.org/2012/09/07/collective-bargaining-mythical-right-turned-constitutional-in-michigan/

 

http://republicanmichigander.blogspot.com/2012/09/michigans-ballot-proposals-2012.html

 

http://libguides.lib.msu.edu/ballotprops2012

 

http://handsoffourconstitution.com/

 

http://lakesareateaparty.ning.com/page/ballot-proposals-nov-2012

 

abbe

[Timmahh]

My local Rep (Keven Cotter-R) is preparing a pamphlet mailer for his constituants to present and "Un Biased" point/counterpoint of each of the coming proposals.

 

There are a few, and we need to be fully aware of what the are asking, and what a yes or no vote TRUELY means toward the Proposal. Many proposals get you thinking if you vote no, it will be defeated, but in reality it passes with a no vote......

 

I ll forward the pamphlet once available....

[t-pain]

thank you malamute. i knew it was something dumb like that.

 

i've also read that 5 is matty morouns' other bill just in case his bridge proposal doesnt float.

that way they will be able to kill any needed funds for anything related to bridge work (fixing the roads so big machines can access the area, etc)

 

our government is broken enough to add yet another hurdle on tax bills.

[imiubu]

.

Edited October 27, 2012 by imiubu

[Fat Freddy]

1. no
   
2. yes
   
3. yes
   
4. no
   
5. yes
   
6. yes
   

[Restorium2]

Recap after further consideration;

1. NO- Emergency mgr law

2. YES- Workers rights

3. YES- Renewable Energy

4- ???

5- NO- SuperMajority Tax Increase

6- NO- Bridge Privatization

 

 

On 4;

I would vote yes BUT they want to do unlimited background checks with no sunset clause. I'm not so fond of them making you lose your job because of something you did 30 years ago. These background check type ideas are hurting some people that are really doing some good in the communities. I'm not in favor of any of these unlimited background checks. They cast the net too wide.

[c2288420]

What ever happen to "paying your debt to society"? Seems today that you are punished for life once you get a record.

 

1.) Proposal 1-NO Proposal 2 -Yes Proposal 3-Yes Proposal 4-No Proposal 5-Yes Proposal 6-Yes

[t-pain]

to those voting yes on 6, so you can vote on bridges, can you explain why you are voting that way?

 

i dont understand really.

 

to the background checks , those are terrible. politicians hate it when ex-cons can get jobs, or vote, or anything like that. prison is meant to be a rehabilitative place, and yet all that gets released are people who cant get jobs. wouldnt that turn them back into criminals?

Edited September 27, 2012 by teethpain

[Fat Freddy]

to those voting yes on 6, so you can vote on bridges, can you explain why you are voting that way?

 

i dont understand really.

 

to the background checks , those are terrible. politicians hate it when ex-cons can get jobs, or vote, or anything like that. prison is meant to be a rehabilitative place, and yet all that gets released are people who cant get jobs. wouldnt that turn them back into criminals?

 

I live not far from the bridge, and I can tell you it is not getting the traffic it once did. The purpose of the new bridge is so the importers can send a higher volum of trucks accross and continue to flood our markets with cheap goods from china and Korea.

Personally I do not see the need for the new bridge. As america struggles to shake off a close call to total financial collaspe, I ask you do we really need more imports or more real jobs?