Const. Convention rejected big time!

[NewJeffCT]

Yeah - we don't join California in having to vote on 50 different pet issues every year like banning gay marriage.

[calico1]

1. I was very happy and very relieved to hear that!

I voted no, of course. I am glad most people understood what voting "yes" would mean.

I did vote "yes" on the question #2...allowing 17 year olds who will turn 18 at the time of the election to vote in primaries. I think that is a good thing.

[Throckmorton]

2. Same here

Direct Democracy is a fool's errand. I think Connecticut's Constitution is just fine the way it is.


I also vote Yes on 17 year olds voting in the Primary, as I see it, it can't hurt.

I also like our closed primaries, I don't want any Rush Limpball's induced operation "ciaos" candidates here.

[CTyankee]

3. How did we do it? The ad that the Catholic religious group put up made the CC sound like

an expansion of democracy and I was afraid people would fall for it.

My hubby is an AFSME member and we got plenty of info about it through them.
But I'm wondering how most voters got the message?

[calico1]

4. I thought the ad against it was pretty effective.

They stated straight up Question 1 is anti abortion, anti gay rights. That jumps out, I think, whether you are pro or against.

I think that a lot of people might have thought "hey wait a minute. I don't want abortion or gay rights banned." (I hope that's what a lot of people were thinking). Plus the ad also pointed out that this would favor big business and hurt workers.

I was nervous about it. I am sooo glad it got rejected. And not by a few votes either.

In spite of Lieberman, we are a pretty good state!

My rep, Joe Courtney got reelected and this time it wasn't by a few votes. And we now have all 5 Democratic reps in the House. If we can just get rid of Lieberman we can really have totally Democratic representation in Congress.

[CTyankee]

5. I hope so! n/t