Measure 1 Yes/No

[RyanN]

If you can, explain to me why we would want 60% of vote in order to change/amend ND Constitutional law.

If the majority wants something, isn't that what should happen?

To me, the issue isn't the majority. It's people that don't vote that hurts when those type of things are voted on. Simply put, the majority of ND is conservative, and if everyone voted, there would be no issue. Going to 60% is a slippery slope, especially if ND slips the other way as far as conservative/progressive.

Doesn't 60% cut into democracy and the way it's supposed to work?

I'm as open minded as they come, so let me know why I should vote yes...or no.

 

[Sluggo]

My thought is a change to the state constitution should require a "strong" majority not just 1 over half. I have heard that argument about not getting a good turnout for elections but I still think that 60% approval is better than 50.1% for a constitution change.

 

[savage270]

75% of states are required to ratify a change to the US Constitution. Do you believe that number should only be 50% +1 (26 states)?

 

[Allen]

IMHO, a constitution is meant to contain rights and responsibilities. Whether one is in favor of free lunches for students is irrelevant to me, that topic doesn't belong in the constitution. In that sense, I like measure #1 because it does make the constitution more difficult to change with some kind of a super majority requirement.

The U.S. Constitution requires ratification by 3/4 (38) of the states.

 

[ale]

The way I see it, it should stay the way it is. It’s been that way for a century and we haven’t been taken over by lgbtq Somalians and we are not on the verge. Look at property tax relief. The elected elite obviously don’t want to do anything about it. A proposed constitutional amendment to cap property tax at the price of sale could probably get 50+1% and force our hand. I doubt you could get to 60%. The constitution has been amended over 100 times. The biggest change you’d see is the amount of out of state cash spent on these measures because of the increased number of required votes. Don’t forget we may not always be a conservative majority so if that’s your reason it could bite you in the ass.

 

[savage270]

we haven’t been taken over by lgbtq Somalians

Not likely to happen no matter how we change the constitution. Somalians practice islam, under which the penalty for being gay is death.

 

[Sluggo]

Other reasons I lean towards Yes on Measure 1.
Armstrong is for it, I trust him more than I distrust him.
The commercials on TV to vote No on 1 are very shady. They imply it could impact gun rights, implies more power going to the legislature, implies the minority rules. All spin and the gun rights one is flat out a scare tactic directed at the ill-informed. Plus someone is spending a ton of money on them as they are constantly being shown. Also makes me suspicious.

 

[KDM]

When politicians make motions, take actions, and attempt to gather support to REMOVE a barrier standing in the way of political agendas.....that barrier is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to do. Prevent knee jerk emotional reactions based on one time popularity. Keep that in mind folks.

 

[Greenhorn]

We are not a democracy, we are a republic, and I don’t think you want to be a true democracy. The founders feared mob rule (51%). Government is supposed to be small and gridlocked in favor of self-governance.

60% vote would prevent the latest crazes from being enshrined in the state constitution.

 

[RyanN]

75% of states are required to ratify a change to the US Constitution. Do you believe that number should only be 50% +1 (26 states)?

That's a legit take and a good point.

 

[RyanN]

The way I see it, it should stay the way it is. It’s been that way for a century and we haven’t been taken over by lgbtq Somalians and we are not on the verge. Look at property tax relief. The elected elite obviously don’t want to do anything about it. A proposed constitutional amendment to cap property tax at the price of sale could probably get 50+1% and force our hand. I doubt you could get to 60%. The constitution has been amended over 100 times. The biggest change you’d see is the amount of out of state cash spent on these measures because of the increased number of required votes. Don’t forget we may not always be a conservative majority so if that’s your reason it could bite you in the ass.

Your last sentence is very, very true.

 

[Greenhorn]

and we haven’t been taken over by lgbtq Somalians and we are not on the verge.

lol have you been to Fargo recently?
I bet MN didn’t expect that either 20 years ago

 

[scrotcaster]

This measure should require a 60% to pass. Pretty hypocritical for this to be passed by anything less.

 

[johnr]

Imagine if you will western MT. Which years back was as conservative as western ND. Well its truly Gods country over there, and low tax, affordable, and fairly unrestricted.

Well now today western MT is primarily occupied by the Californians that fled the commie state to Eff up WMT. Guessing these commies would not vote the way Montanans would, to the point where they would change the rules, and completely ruin that state too.

60% is what would prevent that, or at least make it more difficult to screw the entire state with commie policy changes.

 

[RyanN]

This measure should require a 60% to pass. Pretty hypocritical for this to be passed by anything less.

Exactly...

 

[RyanN]

Imagine if you will western MT. Which years back was as conservative as western ND. Well its truly Gods country over there, and low tax, affordable, and fairly unrestricted.

Well now today western MT is primarily occupied by the Californians that fled the commie state to Eff up WMT. Guessing these commies would not vote the way Montanans would, to the point where they would change the rules, and completely ruin that state too.

60% is what would prevent that, or at least make it more difficult to screw the entire state with commie policy changes.

Maybe people just realized how many more options were in western Montana compared to Cali.

Break down of western Montana pop according to the 2025 Montana Department of Labor report, based on the 2023 Census migration data:
California - 15.2%
Washington - 14.2%
Oregon - 7.4%
Texas - 6.6%
Idaho - 6.4%

To me, maybe Montana should have done something earlier if they didn't want all those people moving in. But I bet a lot of the tourist spot owners love it.

My point: - it wouldn't have matter - eventually western Montana was going to be run over with people with money -

 

[eyexer]

Maybe people just realized how many more options were in western Montana compared to Cali.

Break down of western Montana pop according to the 2025 Montana Department of Labor report, based on the 2023 Census migration data:
California - 15.2%
Washington - 14.2%
Oregon - 7.4%
Texas - 6.6%
Idaho - 6.4%

To me, maybe Montana should have done something earlier if they didn't want all those people moving in. But I bet a lot of the tourist spot owners love it.

My point: - it wouldn't have matter - eventually western Montana was going to be run over with people with money -

Those people moving there has been going on for quite some time. It isn’t a new trend. Jackson Hole WY is the same way.

 

[ale]

Boy I can tell you don’t spend time in Montana. You can’t believe everything on the internet. I grew up in Montana and while it’s way more expensive now, it hasn’t become a doom and gloom liberal enclave. There’s like 3 city blocks in Missoula where you’ll see gay bumper stickers and rainbow flags and there’s always been hippies and van dwellers there. Still trump flags all over. I’d say the town is still 50-50 red and probably more red if you exclude the university. The real problem is the ultra rich blowing up the real estate market but that’s another topic.

Having a 60% amendment requirement wouldn’t have stopped the demographics from changing but it would sure screw over the conservatives if they were the minority.

 

[Traxion]

50 % to get it to 60 %. Same thing in SD. The bigger problem is that it is easy to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Given the current paradigm, I say leave it. If the majority want it, great. If the majority change it later, fine. But either way so much outside money trying to sway our little states. It’s just money pushing issues, typical political BS.

 

[labhunter66]

We are not a democracy, we are a republic, and I don’t think you want to be a true democracy. The founders feared mob rule (51%). Government is supposed to be small and gridlocked in favor of self-governance.

60% vote would prevent the latest crazes from being enshrined in the state constitution.

Best answer yet. The founders absolutely didn't want a democracy because they feared the tyranny of the majority, especially a small majority. That is why we have the electoral college, that is why it takes 75% of states to ratify an amendment to the federal constitution, and that is why we have a senate where each state gets the same say. I said this in the lunch program thread but I'll say it again here, just imagine what this country would look like if we were a straight democracy with a 50% +1 rule. It would be a scary place and you would have virtually no rights.

Some have said we need it because they believe we have a crappy legislature. Well, it only takes a majority to vote someone out of office and you have that chance on Tuesday, so if you don't like your representation, go vote for someone different.