posted
Right now I'm voting: 1-Yes 2-Yes (Anything that makes it harder for new amendments is good.) 3-Yes 4-Leaning no. 5-Mixed feelings, haven't decided but I definitely hate the "Vote no on 5" commercial. 6-I can't believe there are people who actually want to keep the bullet train so that's a big YES to repeal. 7-Leaning no because I think its going to give too much power to lawyers. 8-Leaning strongly no because we're going to have too many settlements by doctors who are interested in avoiding the black mark.
So what do other Floridian voters think, I know there are few of you out there, and why can't we repeal the pig amendment?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
do you have more info on the amendments...some of them I know a lot about (ie: the moronic bullet train) but others I have not seen much info on (except for the biased ads you see that don't really tell anything)
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Miami Herald thought most of the amendments were basically "larding" the ballot. They recommended voting No on all of them except for 2 and 6.
quote:On Nov. 2, Florida voters will be asked to participate in what has become an Election Day ritual -- larding the state Constitution with inappropriate amendments that have no place in the document. Voters should refuse to go along. They should reject all of the amendments except two that help the Constitution, not clutter it.
Voters should say Yes to Amendment 2, which would require more time for consideration of citizen initiatives; and Yes to Amendment 6, which would remove the previously passed bullet-train amendment from the Constitution.
posted
The first thing that popped into my head when reminded of the bullet train was, "Monorail, monorail, monorail!"
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd vote to keep the bullet train if they called it Blaine the Pain in tribute to the ending of the Dark Tower series...but since that is not part of the plans...I'm going to have to vote to cancel it.
posted
I actually voted for it the first time around, but it turns out the state doesn't have anywhere near the amount of money it would take to finance its construction.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm against it because when we rank 49th out of 50 in education and still have to pay for reduced class sizes we don't have 20 to 25 BILLION dollars to spend on a bullet train that benefits very few people directly.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of wastes of money. I live in a city of 14000 people that has 8 months of winter weather, and they want to spend 20 million on an outdoor public pool. Or should I say, on outdoor public ice cube.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
1: Parental notification for abortions? Is that really something that requires changing the state constitution? Besides, doctor patient confidentiality is there for a reason.
2: get back to that
3: Hmm, seems to me that this will just encourage people seeking larger settlements. Also, this kind of cap may make it harder for people of limited means to find representation in cases where they are seeking modest compensation. That aside, does this really need to be an amendment?
4: Seems solid. Still, why can't this just be a statute?
5: Ok, you've lost me. Amending the constiution to get fast trains, then amending it to scrap the idea? Are there amendments to change bus schedules?
6&7: One medical tort reform amendment per ballot please.
back to 2: Oh yes, for the love of god!
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chaeron, the reason we in Florida keep getting these amendments is that things that need to be done aren't getting done the right way in the minds of many voters. Currently, you only have to get a certain number of signatures on a petition to get an amendment on the ballot. It's way too easy.
During the last election, we even got to vote on the living conditions of pigs.
When the bullet train was on the ballot, the people who funded that initiative never really brought how much it was going to cost. The people against it should have made that well known, but they didn't.
BTW, I think I'm voting the same way you are nfl, but I'm looking into #3, 7, and 8 a bit more.
Ela, how do you feel about #4 since that seems to affect you more.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't there a better way to get things done than a constitutional ammendment? We had issues like these on the ballots in MD every election, but they weren't ammendments to the State Constitution. If I were a Florida voter, I'd be all over #2.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sheesh, Karl. What better way to get things like trains and pig stalls taken care of than to change your state's most important document?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Statutes would make more sense, but currently Florida law doesn't provide for legislating, just voter amending of the state constitution. This means the only thing we can get done as voters to approve the constitutional amendments that act more like statutes. Still I can't imagine going to see the US Constitution and seeing anything about approving two specific counties to have a referendum on slot machines, anything involving pigs, or a bullet train.
As far as small claims being essentially blocked out by #3, it still provides for a maximum of 30% of restitution to go to the lawyer. That's still a lot of money if you ask me.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The greatest thing about the pig law is that it only affects like two farms in all of Florida and it actually hurts the pigs who with too much room are actually liable to accidentally kill their fetuses.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pig amendment was done with other states in mind. As you said, it doesn't really affect much in Florida, but it was easy to get on the ballot and easy to get passed. The fact that it is now on the books in Florida will make it easier to get it done in other states.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really like anything that makes it so I don't have to drive, so I'm voting for the train.
I think the 25 to 30 billion price tag is debatable, depending on whether a group is for or against the train.
So:
1-No for reasons given in Ela's newspaper article.
2-Not sure. On the one hand, I get the article's logic, but on the other hand, it decreases the amount of time that people working on the petition drive have to get signatures.
3-No way.
4-Have no idea what a parimutual is. So, the basic question for me is--do I want more slot machines in the state. From the commercials on tv, I gather that the state benefits from these machines via some kind of tax. I guess my thought is that, given the places on the web now where people can gamble their lives away, the state might as well get some benefit from their stupidity. So, I'll vote yes.
5-Not sure, quite honestly.
6-No
7-Hell, yes.
8-Yes. I think this one makes far more sense than 'tort reform'. It's the few bad doctors that drive up the costs for the other doctors.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't plan on living in Lake County forever, praise Bob. And in any case, while I personally would enjoy it, my general belief is that anything that gets more people off the road and reduces congestion is a good thing.
For 3, as Ela's article states
quote: Doctors support Amendment 3, which would reduce the amount of money a lawyer could earn from a malpractice award. This might curtail some frivolous lawsuits but patients with legitimate claims would find it difficult to find lawyers to take their cases. Studies show that in states where such limits are in place, lawyers have been reluctant to take on cases involving the young, retired people and stay-at-home mothers. Those who can't recover loss of income become less attractive clients.
posted
Zan, in answer to your question, I am voting against #4.
In fact, I am voting against all of the amendments, except for 2 and 6, as recommended by the Miami Herald.
Storm, by parimutuels, they mean race tracks and jai-alai, according to what I've read in the paper.
And the Herald did give a reason for rejecting #1:
quote:Amendment 1, which would require parental notification before a doctor terminates the pregnancy of a minor. With this measure, lawmakers are seeking voter approval of what they couldn't get done legislatively. The state Supreme Court rejected the Legislature's earlier parental-notification law as an unconstitutional violation of privacy.
So, basically, they are trying to sneak in the back door with a measure previously judged unconstitutional.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It still mystifies me that parental notification of an abortion is deemed unconstitutional, but a minor still has to get parental consent to get a tattoo.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
1. No. Fight this one out in the legislature, guys, it shouldn't be decided by emotional appeal. If they'd ever try working up a rational parental notification bill, one that allowed for judicial or guardianship approval in cases of abuse (and not just because the kid doesn't want to tell), they'd have more luck. Neither side seems interested in the compromise.
2. No. I agree that the conditions for amending the Constitution need to be changed, but this suggestion favors special interests over private citizens. Try restricting amendments to actual governing (as opposed to regulations) and I'm right there with you, but this amendment will cause more damage than help. The "pregnant pig" amendment is used as the evil example, but that same year the electorate passed the class-size amendment when the legislature refused to do anything about it. Sometimes the lege needs to know the public is serious about what it wants.
3. No. People will not get more money in cases, as was suggested. They just won't be able to find lawyers for anything besides the big ticket cases. Note that the sponsors of the amendment are afiliated with the Florida Medical Association.
4. No, no, no. The Lotto was supposed to help the state, too. Instead the money that was earmarked for education was used for something else, since "lotto money" was taking its place. Sponsor affiliates for this amendment: Calder Race Course, Inc, Flagler Dog Track, Hollywood Greyhound Track, and Pompano Park, Inc. Public-spirited people, all.
5. I'm torn on this. Raising minimum wage will hurt businesses, sure. But minimum wage hasn't moved in 7 years and housing costs and gas prices don't seem to be coming back down. We didn't suffer too badly after the last minimum wage increase, despite dire warnings. And I notice the governmental bodies don't seem to have a problem voting themselves cost-of-living raises every year or two... The main thing holding me back is the bit about additional raises tied to inflation thereafter. Which index? How much warning do the businesses get before each raise goes into effect? I think they'd be better off with a flat raise, to be re-examined at appropriate intervals.
6. Yes. But I think the government better look long and hard at the traffic situation. Just because I agree that this is a waste of money does not mean they're off the hook for traffic control. There's a serious problem, as anyone who's ever driven through Orlando knows very well.
7. No, but only because the amendment is sloppy. I like the idea of full disclosure but this adds too much potential liability for hospitals. We need one that works with them.
8. No. Again, I like the idea, but the amendment doesn't distinguish between trivial and serious cases, or cases settled previously or out of state. Amendments 3, 7, and 8 are the medical community, the insurance companies, and the legal profession fighting their battles outside of the proper channels.
Mostly, I don't want regulations in the Constitution. It should stick to governing.
[ October 20, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This makes me think of Rossanne Rosanna Danna.
"How come those miners are always being picked on?!? Miners can't drink beer if they want. Miners can't watch the movies they want. It's prejudice, I tell you, pure and simple. Those fellas work hard to dig up our nation's minerals and they should have every right that every other citizen of the United States has."
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think the government better look long and hard at the traffic situation. Just because I agree that this is a waste of money does not mean they're off the hook for traffic control. There's a serious problem, as anyone who's ever driven through Orlando knows very well
They are and not just in a add-another-lane-to-the-interstate way. The urban sprawl throughout Florida has made that a very difficult one to answer, though.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:2. No. I agree that the conditions for amending the Constitution need to be changed, but this suggestion favors special interests over private citizens. Try restricting amendments to actual governing (as opposed to regulations) and I'm right there with you, but this amendment will cause more damage than help. The "pregnant pig" amendment is used as the evil example, but that same year the electorate passed the class-size amendment when the legislature refused to do anything about it. Sometimes the lege needs to know the public is serious about what it wants.
I disagree, Chris. The Herald gave good reasons why Amendment 2 would favor voters, and that's why I'm voting for it.
quote:Amendment 2 would increase the time that voters have to consider an amendment by requiring signatures to be filed by February 1. Currently petitions must be filed by August 1, which doesn't allow enough time for voters to become familiar with proposed amendments. An informed voter makes a better choice, so we recommend a Yes vote on this amendment. It helps make citizen initiatives a more-rigorous process.
posted
Chris while I too am leaning against #4, it should be pointed out that the money would have to "supliment" education not replace. Although I have no doubt that the legislature can find a loophole somewhere.
As far as #2 is concerned, it doesn't really give less time so much as it prevents last minute additions which prevent adequate time to determine the validity of an amendment.
As fas as #3 is concerned it should also be pointed out that health care costs will be lowered as malpractice insurance premiums are lowered.
Storm, you might be dead by the time that bullet train is actually built, especially since every year there's going to be another amendment
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 5. I'm torn on this. Raising minimum wage will hurt businesses, sure. But minimum wage hasn't moved in 7 years and housing costs and gas prices don't seem to be coming back down. We didn't suffer too badly after the last minimum wage increase, despite dire warnings. And I notice the governmental bodies don't seem to have a problem voting themselves cost-of-living raises every year or two... The main thing holding me back is the bit about additional raises tied to inflation thereafter. Which index? How much warning do the businesses get before each raise goes into effect? I think they'd be better off with a flat raise, to be re-examined at appropriate intervals.
It's worth noting that something like one percent of Florida's workers make minimum wage. (I might be off, but it's certainly in the single digits.)
1 - Not certain. Leaning yes. 2 - Not certain. Leaning yes. 3 - Not certain. Leaning yes. 4 - Not certain. Leaning yes. 5 - No. 6 - Not certain. Leaning toward abstain. 7 - Not certain. Leaning yes. 8 - No.
So, convince me to vote no on all those yesses. I have long agreed in theory with the complaint that we lard our constitution, and yet . . . Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ended up voting yes on number 3 (in addition to voting yes on 2 and 6). I became convinced by what I heard on a local NPR call-in show, which interviewed individuals on both sides of the issue, and by a discussion my husband and I had with a doctor outside the polling place.
I voted no on all the other amendments.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ended up voting: 1-y 2-y 3-y 4-n 5-y 6-y 7-n 8-n
As far minimum wage is concerned I ended up changing my vote and breaking with party lines because I decided minimum wage does need to be increased and I like that it is indexed to inflation. It should also be noted that while maybe only 1% of Florida workers are paid minimum wage, more are affected by it because someone who is given a raise is given a raise over the minimum.
Ic, please vote no on 6, there are 20 to 25 billion reasons why. And it won't get built if construction starts tomorrow for something like ten years. Of course it won't get built tomorrow because the legislature isn't appropriating funds and has no intention to.
Has anyone seen the "vote no on 3" commercial where they show the "vote yes on 3" commercial and say its deceptive because "the sympathetic woman isn't really hurt." The first time I saw it I didn't see the "vote yes" commercial and I just thought it didn't prove why I should vote no. Then I did see the referenced commercial and the woman never claimed in it that she was injured, she claimed she was a nurse!
posted
nfl, did you mean to say vote yes on #6. Voting yes repeals the earlier amendment and prevents it from being built.
I have been to many meetings where the bullet train has come up. All I-4 design right now includes room for the train, whether is the bullet train or some light rail alternative. I have yet to hear ANY persuasive arguments, though, that convince me that a bullet train will decrease traffic. People are fed up with sitting in traffic and building more roads that fill up immediately and just want to do something, anything else. Light rail might help, but not a bullet train.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The people against it should have made that well known, but they didn't.
I think the people who were against it tried, but there were several million dollars spent on an ad campaign promoting it, and most people didn't look beyond that. It sounded like a good idea, its just too bad the price tag wasn't on the ballot. I voted no for the bullet train in 2000, because I HAD heard that we didn't have the money, and that it would only service a couple of areas. I'm glad they're thinking about scrapping the plan.
Of course, now I'm not registered to vote in Florida anymore, so my vote probably won't count for quite as much in this election. Posts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
