What are your reasons for voting for or against ConCon?

[Mike]

Our problems in Hawaii are as obvious as they are relevant. Grossly expensive housing, drug epidemics, a local economy dependant on tourism, traffic, and etc. These issues must be addressed seriously. So I believe we do need to have a ConCon. But I am not convinced that it will solve anything. Our elected representatives tend to disagree as much as we do (fittingly). It seems like any time we attempt to progress forward we are met with opposition and disbelief.
Nobody likes spending 90+ minutes in traffic but we cant agree on rail.
We hate seeing the homeless on the beaches but we dont wont them housed in our neighborhoods.
In the midst of the ice epidemic we are still not educating children enough about the dangers of drugs w/o lying to them.
Im voting against ConCon because from what I see Hawaii is not willing to make a firm decision on anything. And I dont want to waste all that money so that over paid politicians can waste it arguing.

[Kaunaloa]

actually, isn't ice use finally declining? and frankly, my kids get precious little out of their classrooms, but they darn sure can reflexively explain to you the horrible dangers of: not wearing your seat belt, using tobacco, consuming alcohol, and even THINKING about ice.

anywho, i don't share the depth of your cynicism, hence i plan to vote FOR having a concon to give citizen delegates a real, live chance at improving some of the more glaring shortcomings that exist within our state government.

[Curtis Muraoka]

The main reason for a Con Con is to give citizens a shot at changing the Constitution (OUR Constitution). PERIOD.

Without a Con Con, the only policy avenue must first pass through career politicians, unions, vested interests, lobbyists, lawyers, bureaucrats, the wealthy, the connected, the crooked, or the politically motivated.

That's just no way to run government. PERIOD.

[redmt69]

With what has been happening in our courts, I'm voting for Con Con in the hope that the Judges in the state can be elected. It seems that the Judges belive that they can rule on anything anyway they please. With the " old boy " network once on a bench always on the bench. I want to elect the Judges and let them know ,do it right or we'll get someone else.

[Kaunaloa]

having lived in a state where judges are elected, i can assure you it is slightly better than having all judicial appointments -- emphasis on the slightly ...

[Christian and Nalu]

It's true. Even though we are definitely educating children about drugs through various programs such as D.A.R.E . I don't believe in con con because what's the point? Citizen delegates will disagree about these problems just as much as the politicians and in the end it will come down to what they want because it always does. People are doing nothing about the homeless problem but pushing them more towards the side away from the rest of society. We can always talk a big game saying that we can come together and change something but no one takes the effort to step up and take charge.

[Richard B]

Its true that a con con can potentially change life in Hawaii for the better but it can also give more power to those who are already abusing the power. Who exactly will be on the con con commission? The same people in power positiions right now? The same people who voted massive raises for themselves during a time when they are threatening to pull more money from our education system? Sure, the people get to vote on the issues in the end, but who decides what issues will be voted on? I admit, my cynicysm is running rampant right now but I need to know that whatever my vote is will be the right one for me and my family.

[Curtis Muraoka]

Richard B said:

Its true that a con con can potentially change life in Hawaii for the better but it can also give more power to those who are already abusing the power. Who exactly will be on the con con commission? The same people in power positiions right now? The same people who voted massive raises for themselves during a time when they are threatening to pull more money from our education system? Sure, the people get to vote on the issues in the end, but who decides what issues will be voted on? I admit, my cynicysm is running rampant right now but I need to know that whatever my vote is will be the right one for me and my family.

No one has pointed out that in all likelihood a Con Con is a no-lose situation.
All voters should note that no matter what comes out of the Con Con, the proposals still must be accepted by a popular vote (that shoots down the "special interests will take over" argument).
No matter what is accepted by the popular vote, it can still be changed back to former status quo by the legislature (which inadvertently ties in well to the Vote No assertion that the legislature can change the Constitution when it has the will of the People in mind--except that it is the opposite of the Vote No's desired effect).
The flat out wrong-headed notion that a Con Con will be too expensive assumes that there needs to be a full bore 102 delegate Con Con that is a redux of 1968/1978 .
If you take a look at what the Hawaii Alliance/Hanabusa/Hooser is saying, the logic fails by becoming an If/Then loop:
*A Con Con is too expensive.*
So then, we DO have problems that need addressing, but don't have the money.
*No, we don't need a Con Con.*
What about a scaled back Con Con? Maybe one with 25 delegates and utilizing virtual caucuses like this Ning site, open to viewing publicly so as not to run afoul of Sunshine Law.
*If we have a scaled back Con Con, then we don't really need a Con Con.*
But you just acknowledged that there are problems because the Con Con would be too expensive--which implies that we need to hold a full-blown Con Con, but just don't have the money.
*Yes, now you get it. A Con Con is too expensive.*
But we do have problems, just no money.
*No, we don't need a Con Con. Go back to your business, citizen.*
Do we have problems or not?
*A Con Con is too expensive.*
And 'round and 'round it goes.
If you really want to take care of your kids, and their kids, vote YES and get involved.
This is a citizens' right. We should not be denied AGAIN.

[Curtis Muraoka]

Christian and Nalu said:

It's true. Even though we are definitely educating children about drugs through various programs such as D.A.R.E . I don't believe in con con because what's the point? Citizen delegates will disagree about these problems just as much as the politicians and in the end it will come down to what they want because it always does. People are doing nothing about the homeless problem but pushing them more towards the side away from the rest of society. We can always talk a big game saying that we can come together and change something but no one takes the effort to step up and take charge.

Oliver Cromwell said: "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
In other words, voting NO to Con Con is like totally banning wine because some men may become drunkards.

[Richard B]

I agree that "cost" is a poor excuse to vote no. I guess I need to be a little more specific. Part of the NO argument is that the legislature can use due process to add amendments and part of the YES argument is they haven't come up with permanent solutions for our problems yet. Both true statements but if the measure passes and we get a YES majority, who will be on the comittee? Who will represent us and what changes we want? Other people have hinted that we would just be trading one set of politicians for another with their own personal agendas rather than whats best for everyone. How do we prevent something like that happenning? Also, how do we get certain issues on the ballot and who chooses what issues to vote on? It would be a shame to go through all these steps just so we can vote on worthless issues. I agree that there are some changes that desperately need to happen but taking into account our past voter turn-out numbers (yes, I am guilty of not voting in the past) can we be sure that what is best for everybody will be voted on by everybody?

[Curtis Muraoka]

Richard B said:

I agree that "cost" is a poor excuse to vote no. I guess I need to be a little more specific. Part of the NO argument is that the legislature can use due process to add amendments and part of the YES argument is they haven't come up with permanent solutions for our problems yet. Both true statements but if the measure passes and we get a YES majority, who will be on the comittee? Who will represent us and what changes we want? Other people have hinted that we would just be trading one set of politicians for another with their own personal agendas rather than whats best for everyone. How do we prevent something like that happenning? Also, how do we get certain issues on the ballot and who chooses what issues to vote on? It would be a shame to go through all these steps just so we can vote on worthless issues. I agree that there are some changes that desperately need to happen but taking into account our past voter turn-out numbers (yes, I am guilty of not voting in the past) can we be sure that what is best for everybody will be voted on by everybody?

Peter Kay (and also Jim Shon et al) floated the idea of using technology to enhance a Con Con. I see that. If there were a virtual component to a Con Con, say, one where you had to register with a true and verified identity in order to comment, and all caucuses were held much like the Advertiser's Mayoral debate, wouldn't that be just the coolest political debate ever held on Planet Earth?
If it looked something like this Ning site we are on, wouldn't that go very far in archiving the exchange of ideas?
Wouldn't observers be able to scrutineer participants by Googling them, thus knowing better who they are and what they stand for?
Personal agendas would wither under real time scrutiny, as opposed to what happened in 1978 where reporters had to pretty much be the filter and filer of outcomes in the morning editions.
Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I think a NO vote misses an opportunity for Hawaii to take the "Virtual Town Hall" into the new Century in a really meaningful way.

But to answer your most deeply felt question of whether what is best for everybody will be voted on by everybody, all I can say is democracy is messy. It is the People who now have another chance to clean it up.
Or, if we mess it up, at least it will be OUR mess.

[T.]

It is time for change and it will only happen if we have a ConCon. Our society has declined in the past 30 years and it is not getting any better. Education, housing and finances are suffering with no positive outcome in sight unless we make changes soon.

Why did the BOE increase the graduation requirements knowing full well that over 60% of our registered students barely pass with the minimum requirements of 22 credits? Why would we allow more high rise/condo projects be built when our people havent occupied the other 75 buildings that remain unoccupied around the state? Why would we build homeless shelters when we need more affordable low income properties instead? Why would we drug test only teachers when the people receiving public assistance should be drug tested too before they receive assistance, perhaps that would decrease the drug/alcoholic issues our state currently has? Why would we have budget cuts in areas that need it the most (like education, housing, and social services) instead of from the pockets of the people who are no longer working for the betterment of the people of Hawaii, but for themselves?
What is our elected goverment officals afraid of? The people not havimg to rely on them completely.

We need change and we need it now. If not for us, then for the next generation. What STATE will we be leaving them?