This short video does a decent job of explaining the measure itself, but gives none of the real nuance of the history behind how it came about. Its agenda is partisan advantage and is short-sighted. "The measure could also hand inordinate power to the house speaker and senate president ... who decide which absences count as excused." The rest of the proposal seems pretty reasonable. But this is the sticking point that was entirely glossed over by canvassers and in the voter's pamphlet. And it indicates the underlying purpose - for Dems assumed to maintain majority or supermajority status to get to expel Repubs who won't comply with an urban agenda shoved down rural Oregon's throat. The 'permission' or 'excuse' needs to be determined by an independent person without an agenda driving their decision. As proposed, this rather dramatic constitutional change would have minority party members going to their legislative overlords and begging - just the way Kotek and Courtney like it so long as their party is in charge. I'm an urban socialist who has no allegiance to either of these parties - and I'm sick of them and their hypocritical tactics. I want legislators who listen to their constituents and do what is best for Oregonians, not any political party's national agenda.
This about just oregon. This is a power grab by oregon democrats. The only power republicans have in the state have is to walk out. If they stay their votes do nothing and it passes anyways because they are such a small minority. Why bother with two parties at that point or any other parties.
Name one policy any republican has that is congruent with your policy beliefs. Let me help you - there are none. About the only thing the gop has to offer is to say the 2020 presidential election was 'stolen'.
The reason for this is one party in oregon controls everything and the other party can only walk out to stop things they find unreasonable. Oregon Is mostly a one party state and 113 will just give more power to the dominating party. Over 30 years we have on party rule and if they stay in power and pass 113 will allow them to pass anything they want.
So if democrats in say red state Alabama or Oklahoma were able to do the same thing and block the republicans from passing legislation with walk-outs, would that be okay? Republicans have supermajorities in many red states, so it wouldn't really work, but let's say it could. In all 50 states, it's pretty much majority rules. Legislation doesn't have to pass a filibuster. I'm sure democrats in Tennessee are frustrated that they've become irrelevant, but I don't see them walking out. The truth is, republicans are more likely to pull outrageous stunts. They do it time and again. The North Carolina GOP. The Wisconsin GOP. Etc. And the republicans in congress refused to give Merrick Garland even a hearing for the Supreme Court seat. Republicans are more ruthless than democrats. Democrats hold much less power in this country than republicans. Especially during the Obama years, my god. But republicans are upset that democrats actually control some states. Republicans want all 50.
@@brandoncameron2686 Why bother having republicans in this state at all. Is oregon better in the last 36 years? No. Pers , high taxes, measure 110, schools in the bottom for the nation. Oregon is worse off because one party does what it wants with out any push back. Maybe instead of pushing a progressive work for all of oregon not just the antifa,lgbtq,BLM anti car groups. Dems are quick with the freebies and quick to take rights away.
@@Slax15 I just remembered, democrats did do a walk out in Wisconsin once over an anti-union bill I believe it was. That was during the Scott Walker years.
Sounds like that should never have been a loophole, and should have been corrected after first time used.
Get rid of the annoying background music. It's not needed and distracts.
This short video does a decent job of explaining the measure itself, but gives none of the real nuance of the history behind how it came about. Its agenda is partisan advantage and is short-sighted.
"The measure could also hand inordinate power to the house speaker and senate president ... who decide which absences count as excused."
The rest of the proposal seems pretty reasonable. But this is the sticking point that was entirely glossed over by canvassers and in the voter's pamphlet. And it indicates the underlying purpose - for Dems assumed to maintain majority or supermajority status to get to expel Repubs who won't comply with an urban agenda shoved down rural Oregon's throat. The 'permission' or 'excuse' needs to be determined by an independent person without an agenda driving their decision. As proposed, this rather dramatic constitutional change would have minority party members going to their legislative overlords and begging - just the way Kotek and Courtney like it so long as their party is in charge. I'm an urban socialist who has no allegiance to either of these parties - and I'm sick of them and their hypocritical tactics. I want legislators who listen to their constituents and do what is best for Oregonians, not any political party's national agenda.
This about just oregon. This is a power grab by oregon democrats. The only power republicans have in the state have is to walk out. If they stay their votes do nothing and it passes anyways because they are such a small minority. Why bother with two parties at that point or any other parties.
Well articulated
Name one policy any republican has that is congruent with your policy beliefs. Let me help you - there are none. About the only thing the gop has to offer is to say the 2020 presidential election was 'stolen'.
it seems that BOTH sides have used this for political purposes ..... says more about the politicians then the process of state government
No on all measures...👎
The reason for this is one party in oregon controls everything and the other party can only walk out to stop things they find unreasonable. Oregon Is mostly a one party state and 113 will just give more power to the dominating party. Over 30 years we have on party rule and if they stay in power and pass 113 will allow them to pass anything they want.
So if democrats in say red state Alabama or Oklahoma were able to do the same thing and block the republicans from passing legislation with walk-outs, would that be okay? Republicans have supermajorities in many red states, so it wouldn't really work, but let's say it could. In all 50 states, it's pretty much majority rules. Legislation doesn't have to pass a filibuster. I'm sure democrats in Tennessee are frustrated that they've become irrelevant, but I don't see them walking out. The truth is, republicans are more likely to pull outrageous stunts. They do it time and again. The North Carolina GOP. The Wisconsin GOP. Etc. And the republicans in congress refused to give Merrick Garland even a hearing for the Supreme Court seat. Republicans are more ruthless than democrats. Democrats hold much less power in this country than republicans. Especially during the Obama years, my god. But republicans are upset that democrats actually control some states. Republicans want all 50.
@@brandoncameron2686 Why bother having republicans in this state at all. Is oregon better in the last 36 years? No. Pers , high taxes, measure 110, schools in the bottom for the nation. Oregon is worse off because one party does what it wants with out any push back. Maybe instead of pushing a progressive work for all of oregon not just the antifa,lgbtq,BLM anti car groups. Dems are quick with the freebies and quick to take rights away.
@@Slax15 I just remembered, democrats did do a walk out in Wisconsin once over an anti-union bill I believe it was. That was during the Scott Walker years.