Democrats and Republicans detest the process because it allows, for example, independents, libertarians, or party insurgents to compete. The D’s and R’s want voters to choose between them, understanding that most people support the ticket and not the person. More choices gum up the works.
Ohio lawmakers claim RVC confuses voters. It does, at first, because you have to learn the process. But the tax code, Medicare applications, and trying to follow the assembly instructions on that new coffee table are all confusing, and people do it anyway.
There was also blather about the vote count taking longer because RVC can go through multiple rounds since the winning candidate must have 50% of the vote. But RVC doesn’t take any longer than standard voting because the machines do the work.
Seven smart states have laws that allow RVC, and 20 including Ohio, prohibit it, and that’s a shame.
Ohio’s law serves political, not public interest, and stomps on the rights of local communities to make decisions. Frankly, introducing RVC would be challenging due to the costs of buying new voting machines. But any local municipality that wants to try RVC should be able to do so, and the state has no business interfering in their affairs.
Then, I saw House Bill 698 which would force state colleges and universities to literally investigate employees by creating a registry of those who once “performed a DEI function.” The university has to prove that employees are now in substantially different jobs, provide compensation breakdowns, and meet various levels of certification.
Does someone think these employees are part of a cabal chanting “diversity, equity, inclusion,” under a Leviathan Cross and while conquering the evil spirit of indoctrination?
Apparently. This is even sillier than SB 1, which banned DEI at Ohio public colleges and universities as a way, advocates content, to course correct historically liberal bias at the expense of conservative views.
I taught at Wright State University for a decade, and I never encountered an educator who cut off debate based on ideology. College campuses are a bastion of healthy, open debate from all voices because that makes a successful environment.
There’s an easier solution than an ill-advised, ill-defined bill. Any educator who shows intolerance of any view, even ones they find abhorrent, should be fired. Period.
Bill 698 smacks of McCarthyism, and if you think that’s hyperbole, consider what the good Senator from Wisconsin did. He based his anti-communist crusade on conjecture that ruined the lives and careers of people who were backlisted for their alleged ties to subversives.
In Ohio, we want to force universities to go on witch hunts and track down employees who might have, maybe, possibly, uttered a “DEI” idea, like, “I put cream in my coffee (diversity,)”, “I’d like a pizza with half pepperoni and sausage (equity),” and, “Want to go to lunch? (inclusion).
The bill is as silly as those examples.
Lastly, HB 661, wants to prohibit middle and high schoolers from making money off their names and images. There’s a lot wrong with K-12 sports today. Groups rank 8-year-old basketball players, and a nine-year-old signed a six-figure name, image, and likeness deal. There’s almost no line, anymore, between pro and college (and even high school) sports.
But if athletes can make money off their platforms, who is the state to tell them no? We don’t prohibit 14-year-olds from working at night or restrict talented musicians from taking scholarship money.
Why should some person in Columbus tell gifted athletes they can’t make money? They shouldn’t.
Ray Marcano’s column appears on these pages each Sunday.
