It's almost like the GOP has unpopular policies
The 60% part I think world have been a good thing (look at brexit) 51% deciding things is not necessarily great. It's the rest of the initiative that was bonkers.
You can't get 60% of Americans to agree on anything politically, not in a large population sample anyway.
That number was specifically chosen so that nothing in the future would ever pass.
Can we agree on 55%?
In other circumstances, I would agree with you, but given the severity of the situation vis-a-vis abortion, we need to accept any victories we get to save innocent people from what is a blatant attempt at sparking a political civil war.
Which is one of the things that is so troubling about the situation. Fundamental questions about our democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of protecting our most basic rights from fascists. That should terrify everyone.
The Franklin County Board of Elections had this lovely flier in the line for everyone to see and is such a blatant bit of bias I can’t help but laugh at it 
I mean this is ridiculous for so many reasons but maybe the saddest/funniest part is that a “no” vote will “end majority rule” or “destroy citizen-led ballot initiatives as we know them” since a “no” vote on Issue one literally just maintains the status quo. It is literally maintaining citizen-led ballot initiatives as you know them.
It's the argument against the amendment. It's stating that if the amendment passes it would "end majority rule." It's poorly written.
The federal government and constitution put some guardrails around what states can do, so I'm a bit more okay with states being able to change without the same supermajority as the constitution.
California also has the 50%+1 threshold for constitutional amendments. I hate it. With that kind of margin, why not just make everything a constitutional amendment instead of an ordinary proposition?
Because you can end up in a situation where legislatures want to do things that are not supported by a majority. A proposition that changes statute is ripe for reversal, while a constitutional amendment is not.
What the Ohio GOP was angling for was "hey, we know a majority doesn't support us, but we have that handled by gerrymandering, so now we need to make sure we enshrine minority rule by allowing 40% of voters to control the democratic process." They know they can keep 40% gaslit and brainwashed, but getting to 50% is a challenge that requires policy instead of bombast.
And it was done precisely because a popular (by polling data) amendment is coming this fall that takes away the GOP's power to control people's bodies.
Thus, this election brings into specific relief why 50% + 1 is the only way to protect voters from legislative overreach. Now, and going forward.
I was being mostly sarcastic with my "why not just..." remark. While 50%+1 may prevent legislative overreach (as with any voter-passed initiative), it's still a terrible barrier for a constitutional amendment because I have no faith that a simple majority will vote to protect or expand the rights and privileges of a minority. e.g. California's Proposition 8 (an amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2008) passed with 52%.
My point was that, if the amendment threshold were 50%+1, it seems in the interest of anyone seriously wanting to pass an initiative through the voters would want to make it a constitutional amendment simply to prevent it from being declared unconstitutional by the court. That's basically what happened in California -- Prop 22 (an initiative banning same-sex marriage in 2000) was struck down in May 2008, then Prop 8 was introduced in June with essentially the same language at the constitutional level.
Granted, Prop 22 passed with over 61% and support for the ban dropped about 9 points in the 8 years in between, and some of that may have been because of the difference between statute and amendment. But I still feel we need better protection of minorities than "majority rule", especially when called out so specifically in cases like this.
I would support a system in which enshrining rights in a constitution takes 50% + 1 but taking rights away requires a supermajority. Unfortunately, that's not in the cards.
Semantics. It's too easy to rephrase taking away a right as granting another right (or not mentioning rights at all).
And thus, which is the safer place to land? 40% of voters or a majority?
Constitutions are supposed to reflect supreme will of the people, not by just a bare majority. Amendments should be hard to pass for that reason. I favor 60% to pass an amendment.
That said, I'm arguing only the percentage threshold -- the will of the people, all people in the jurisdiction considered equally for this purpose. The "signatures from all counties" portion of this Ohio issue violates that by giving greater weight (and impedance) to rural communities where organization is hard and populations are smaller. It would take only one county with low turnout to block serious consideration of meaningful issues that affect the entire state.
Heh, well as a nice twist, the will of the Ohio populace is that the constitution is not intended to be the "supreme will" of the people.
None of this would even matter if this country wasn't infested with rabid misogynists. This is a victory, but only a small one.
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.