Amendment 1 increased the homestead exemption for everyone. 
Most cities and counties would adjust their millage rates up to avoid budget cuts.  Some homeowners pay more, some pay less, all commercial owners pay more.
But it would have also diverted extra state funds to "financially constrained" rural counties.  But with Amendment 5, the state couldn't raise taxes unless they got a 2/3 vote to do so.  So the state would have to provide that rural subsidy by cutting existing spending.
Amendment 1 would have created far more losers than winners.  
Why did you want it to pass? Do you own a homestead in a rural county?

That said, I agree with you that there is very little state level media explaining these amendments.  

In Orange County, in 2016, we passed a county charter amendment by about 300,000 votes to 150,000 votes.  
Then in 2018, we passed a state amendment to cancel the charter amendment, 270,000 to 180,000.  Almost identical vote totals.  Probably the same people voting each time. Hardly any undervotes.  Just looks like about 120,000 just vote "yes" to everything without understanding it.  Those people probably behave the same way even if the media tries to explain the amendments.  They either don't care, or can't understand. But voting "yes" makes them feel good.

Put your cats away, dude. I have no interest in a debate about Amendment 1. The point was that 11 of 12 amendments passed, except the one that would cost counties money. I suspect a disproportionate amount of coverage for the latter, but don't even know where to begin researching that. Even if we exclude the aforementioned amendment, it's completely improbably that informed, partisan citizens approve 11 out of 12 amendments. It is far more likely that people tend to vote yes when they are unsure (even though I would have thought the opposite is more intuitive), or they vote for the position that gets the most coverage. I would imagine the same people with the power to put it on the ballot have the money to push that position. Either way, people aren't informed, and there is very little interest from the powers that be to change that.

I think people abstractly agree with "when in doubt, vote no" but they are not willing to admit, even to themselves, that they are in doubt.
Back in 1787, the US Constitution was ratified by votes from the people at large, and there were probably a lot of uninformed yes votes at that time too.
I suppose a new constitution or amendment has to be "ratified" by people who didn't write it.  You could either have a vote by the people at large like Florida does or you could have people from the next level of government down vote on it as the US Constitution does. Both have drawbacks.  The people have a "yes" bias and the next lower level of government may have a "keep power to ourselves" bias.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Put your cats away, dude. I have no interest in a debate about Amendment 1. The point was that 11 of 12 amendments passed, except the one that would cost counties money. I suspect a disproportionate amount of coverage for the latter, but don't even know where to begin researching that. Even if we exclude the aforementioned amendment, it's completely improbably that informed, partisan citizens approve 11 out of 12 amendments. It is far more likely that people tend to vote yes when they are unsure (even though I would have thought the opposite is more intuitive), or they vote for the position that gets the most coverage. I would imagine the same people with the power to put it on the ballot have the money to push that position. Either way, people aren't informed, and there is very little interest from the powers that be to change that.

I think people abstractly agree with "when in doubt, vote no" but they are not willing to admit, even to themselves, that they are in doubt.
Back in 1787, the US Constitution was ratified by votes from the people at large, and there were probably a lot of uninformed yes votes at that time too.
I suppose a new constitution or amendment has to be "ratified" by people who didn't write it.  You could either have a vote by the people at large like Florida does or you could have people from the next level of government down vote on it as the US Constitution does. Both have drawbacks.  The people have a "yes" bias and the next lower level of government may have a "keep power to ourselves" bias.

The US Constitution was not "ratified by votes from the people at large."

---

I think people abstractly agree with "when in doubt, vote no" but they are not willing to admit, even to themselves, that they are in doubt.
Back in 1787, the US Constitution was ratified by votes from the people at large, and there were probably a lot of uninformed yes votes at that time too.
I suppose a new constitution or amendment has to be "ratified" by people who didn't write it.  You could either have a vote by the people at large like Florida does or you could have people from the next level of government down vote on it as the US Constitution does. Both have drawbacks.  The people have a "yes" bias and the next lower level of government may have a "keep power to ourselves" bias.

The US Constitution was not "ratified by votes from the people at large."

It varied state to state.
A few of the states did a statewide vote, yes or no. Now in those states only white males with property could vote.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The US Constitution was not "ratified by votes from the people at large."

It varied state to state.
A few of the states did a statewide vote, yes or no. Now in those states only white males with property could vote.

I know we're wandering off topic into a minor point, but... 

States called conventions to debate and vote on ratification.  It wasn't like they set up polling places and had all the white men with property vote.   There were probably just a few hundred people at the most at each convention.  For example, Delaware ratified by a vote of 30-0.   When you say "ratified by votes from the people at large" it implies that it was a simple popular vote of the sort we do in Florida for state constitutional amendments.  It wasn't like that.  

https://www.archives.gov/education/lesso...ation.html

---

Back to the subject of Elizabeth Warren's tax plan for Medicare for all, I think she is ignoring one huge factor in determining how much money she would raise, and that is, her election would cause all asset classes to crash, because of the threat of the wealth tax and people having to sell assets to pay it. (People would anticipate such a forced selloff, and try to be "first out the door," thus initiating the crash.) The decline in asset values would mean there would be a LOT less wealth to tax, so she would not raise anywhere near as much money as what she is saying she would. In addition, the forced asset selloff would cause a business contraction, which would throw a lot of people out of work, which would further the reduction in taxes she would be able to raise.

In other words, she's an idiot.

---

Back to the subject of Elizabeth Warren's tax plan for Medicare for all, I think she is ignoring one huge factor in determining how much money she would raise, and that is, her election would cause all asset classes to crash, because of the threat of the wealth tax and people having to sell assets to pay it.  (People would anticipate such a forced selloff, and try to be "first out the door," thus initiating the crash.)   The decline in asset values would mean there would be a LOT less wealth to tax, so she would not raise anywhere near as much money as what she is saying she would.   In addition, the forced asset selloff would cause a business contraction, which would throw a lot of people out of work, which would further the reduction in taxes she would be able to raise.  

In other words, she's an idiot.

She’s catering to her base who want nothing more than to see the wealthy suffer. Warren wouldn’t mind either, as long as it doesn’t include her wealthy husband and fellow limousine liberals.

---

Back to the subject of Elizabeth Warren's tax plan for Medicare for all, I think she is ignoring one huge factor in determining how much money she would raise, and that is, her election would cause all asset classes to crash, because of the threat of the wealth tax and people having to sell assets to pay it.  (People would anticipate such a forced selloff, and try to be "first out the door," thus initiating the crash.)   The decline in asset values would mean there would be a LOT less wealth to tax, so she would not raise anywhere near as much money as what she is saying she would.   In addition, the forced asset selloff would cause a business contraction, which would throw a lot of people out of work, which would further the reduction in taxes she would be able to raise.  

In other words, she's an idiot.

She’s catering to her base who want nothing more than to see the wealthy suffer. Warren wouldn’t mind either, as long as it doesn’t include her wealthy husband and fellow limousine liberals.

If she understands anything about economics, then she is a very cynical demagogue.  If not, she's an ignoramus.  One or the other.  I'm not sure which.

---

She’s catering to her base who want nothing more than to see the wealthy suffer. Warren wouldn’t mind either, as long as it doesn’t include her wealthy husband and fellow limousine liberals.

If she understands anything about economics, then she is a very cynical demagogue.  If not, she's an ignoramus.  One or the other.  I'm not sure which.

I'd hesitate to call a Harvard law professor an ignoramus.
I also suspect she is completely sincere, unlike many others.
I explain her advocating this wealth tax more as, she "knows so much that isn't so."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

She’s catering to her base who want nothing more than to see the wealthy suffer. Warren wouldn’t mind either, as long as it doesn’t include her wealthy husband and fellow limousine liberals.

If she understands anything about economics, then she is a very cynical demagogue.  If not, she's an ignoramus.  One or the other.  I'm not sure which.

---

If she understands anything about economics, then she is a very cynical demagogue.  If not, she's an ignoramus.  One or the other.  I'm not sure which.

I'd hesitate to call a Harvard law professor an ignoramus.
I also suspect she is completely sincere, unlike many others.
I explain her advocating this wealth tax more as, she "knows so much that isn't so."

Most people are ignorant of things that are outside their area of experience or expertise, and Fauxchahontas is most clearly ignorant about genetics.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If she understands anything about economics, then she is a very cynical demagogue.  If not, she's an ignoramus.  One or the other.  I'm not sure which.

I'd hesitate to call a Harvard law professor an ignoramus.
I also suspect she is completely sincere, unlike many others.
I explain her advocating this wealth tax more as, she "knows so much that isn't so."

I wouldn't. Her studies were incredibly poorly done before Harvard and only slightly better while there. She wouldn't have been there except she listed herself as a minority in the Association of American law professors directory. Her CV was not Harvard level and research into bankruptcy was political thinktank level. She would list any bankruptcy that included any medical debt as being caused by medical debt for the first study and then raised the bar to $1000 of medical debt for the second.

I am thouroughly unimpressed with Warren and do not think she is honest.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

If she understands anything about economics, then she is a very cynical demagogue.  If not, she's an ignoramus.  One or the other.  I'm not sure which.

I'd hesitate to call a Harvard law professor an ignoramus.
I also suspect she is completely sincere, unlike many others.
I explain her advocating this wealth tax more as, she "knows so much that isn't so."

Regarding the part in bold... I wouldn't.

What makes a "Harvard Law Professor" so special?  The fact that she was educated indoctrinated at a perceived higher school?  She is ignorant in the subject of economics.


You must have gone to one of those online "college" schools to become an "engineer".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'd hesitate to call a Harvard law professor an ignoramus.
I also suspect she is completely sincere, unlike many others.
I explain her advocating this wealth tax more as, she "knows so much that isn't so."

Regarding the part in bold... I wouldn't.

What makes a "Harvard Law Professor" so special?  The fact that she was educated indoctrinated at a perceived higher school?  She is ignorant in the subject of economics.


You must have gone to one of those online "college" schools to become an "engineer".

Elizabeth Warren went to the University of Houston for undergrad and Rutgers for her JD.
Public schools.
Not elite.
She worked her way into Harvard.
I think it's interesting that you presume Elizabeth Warren got an elite education and then say it doesn't matter, but then you turn it to me and say that I did not. Suddenly an elite education matters again? Does it or does it not?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So then why is she so ignorant about the history of previous attempts to tax wealth?

---

So then why is she so ignorant about the history of previous attempts to tax wealth?

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't.
As Obama's experience proved, the process of passing legislation is not so much about your new taxes actually working or actually getting enforced, It's about making the CBO believe that they will actually work and actually get enforced.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So then why is she so ignorant about the history of previous attempts to tax wealth?

Selective ignorance. She must assuage her supporters.

---

The Politburo never wanted for bread either.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It varied state to state.
A few of the states did a statewide vote, yes or no. Now in those states only white males with property could vote.

I know we're wandering off topic into a minor point, but... 

States called conventions to debate and vote on ratification.  It wasn't like they set up polling places and had all the white men with property vote.   There were probably just a few hundred people at the most at each convention.  For example, Delaware ratified by a vote of 30-0.   When you say "ratified by votes from the people at large" it implies that it was a simple popular vote of the sort we do in Florida for state constitutional amendments.  It wasn't like that.  

https://www.archives.gov/education/lesso...ation.html

The ratification conventions were sometimes elected in the same manner as the legislature itself, that is by all eligible voters, and other places they were selected by the state legislature.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

She’s catering to her base

Hmmmmm......... WHAT A CONCEPT !!!

---

She’s catering to her base

Hmmmmm......... WHAT A CONCEPT !!!

The point being that she’s doing so with such a deeply flawed premise that it all but ensures failure.

---

She’s catering to her base

Hmmmmm......... WHAT A CONCEPT !!!

Just means they are all liars and hypocrites. ALL.

---