TPTTAA Poll - Why would anyone opposed the ConCon results?

[cinyc]

I'm going to say that they just assumed it was bad since it was supported strongly by liberals.

Perhaps, but Jbrase, Yelnoc and Dibble all voted for it, and Dallasfan was a delegate and voted to approve of the final document.

It is more likely just an anti-PS thing, though I'm not sure what I've done to alienate people like MilesC56 or Cinyc.

It had nothing to do with you.  My general view on referenda is to vote no unless persuaded a change is really needed.  I've read the constitution (current and proposed) and never really thought the current version of the Constitution is broken as currently drafted.  And, though at first glance it doesn't appear so, I have neither the time nor energy to make sure nothing significant in the current Constitution was changed advertently or inadvertently.  That's the reason I voted no.

By the way, I'm just a voter.  I hold no political office.  Contrary to the Vice President's statement, I owe nobody an explanation for why I voted the way I did.

[cinyc]

At least someone finally had the balls to answer honestly.

I'm not sure what that means.  When prior constitutional amendments have been proposed, I've complained when proponents don't make a case for why a change is needed.  And if proponents don't make that case, I've almost always voted no.  It is up to those who think a change is needed to justify it - not leave it up to us ordinary voters to try to figure out what the problem was and why the proposed fix is better.

I had no idea that there even was a change to remove Atlasian citizens from the rolls sooner.

[cinyc]

If you don't understand or care about what is on offer, you just shouldn't vote.

So far the opposition has been two people saying they don't like the Constitution as is so they're engaging in the pointless exercise of voting for a nicer version of what already exists, and one person saying he didn't pay any attention and voted nay out of reflex.

I'm glad that most other people have been reasonable, though. This is a good step forward in the goal of consolidation and really, the biggest step, if ratified.

As usual, you have mischaracterized what I said.  I see no reason to amend the constitution as it is currently drafted for the sake of amending it.  The current text reads just fine.   It is up to the people who propose changes to the constitution to tell us why change is necessary.  Unless they do that, I will not vote for any proposed change to the constitution.

The burden is NOT on ordinary voters to try to figure out why a constitutional change is supposedly necessary.

What is this goal of consolidation?