Talk:2012 Minnesota Amendment 1

Retitle?
I see no other articles with the title 'Minnesota Amendment 1'. Any reason we can't move this article to that namespace? Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 21:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing about that, though: There have been, in total, throughout the history of the State of Minnesota, about 216 proposed constitutional amendments submitted to ballot questions. Technically, the railroad loan amendment of 1858, literally the first amendment to the Minnesota Constitution ever submitted to the voters (and, for that matter, the first amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to be adopted, and the first to be repealed—it turned out to be a disaster and it was repealed only two years after it was adopted) could also be called Minnesota Amendment 1, since it was the first of two amendments which were submitted to the voters on April 15, 1858. Actually, there have been amendment proposals, submitted to voters, which could be called "Minnesota Amendment 1," in 1858, 1860, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1881, 1883, 1888, 1892, 1896, 1898, 1902, 1904, 1906, 1908, 1910, 1912, 1914, 1916, 1920, 1922, 1924, 1926, 1928, 1930, 1932, 1934, 1936, 1938, 1942, 1948, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1988, 1998, and of course 2012, as there were two or more proposed amendments submitted to voters in each of those years. A lot of these amendment 1s are also important enough to warrant the creation of Wikipedia articles in the future — the amendment 1 from 1868 expanded suffrage to include non-white males, for example. And then there's the fact that there will be other "Minnesota Amendment 1"s in the future. I would suggest that this article should be renamed "Minnesota Amendment 1 (2012)".—MNTRT2009 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Error in the data
The data for the county results has two problems: The first is that the source references the Maryland Elections Bureau rather than Minnesota. I think this should be the source: Source for data: http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ENR/Results/MediaResult/1?mediafileid=65

Second, the percentages do not agree with the numbers posted. In other words, Percent No should be No/(Yes + No). As a note, the Minnesota elections bureau seems to be using this to calculate their results No/(Yes + No + Blanks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.200.196 (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Against what
Good article that documents the amendment attempt well. But it incorporates one of the difficulties of the campaign -- namely "against what" Against Gay marriage? Against the amendment? I urge clarifying that the table column labeled "Against" is Against the amendment. Fholson 13:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)
 * I voted in this referendum, and the confusion over the wording of the amendment was not an unsubstantial issue (see https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/07/minnesota-amendment-wording-can-affect-votes-experts-say, https://www.minnpost.com/political-agenda/2012/07/gop-lawmakers-and-supporters-minnesota-marriage-amendment-sue-over-title-ch). As far as improving the table columns, I've changed the For/Against columns to "For amendment/Against amendment." This change doesn't seem to have substantially impacted table quality. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Minnesota Amendment 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127012951/http://www.startribune.com/politics/146746145.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/146746145.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120818234202/http://www.startribune.com/politics/121725399.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/121725399.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108092820/http://www.startribune.com/politics/133367088.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/133367088.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121211023131/http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ENR/Results/AmendmentResultsCounty/1?questionid=140 to http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ENR/Results/AmendmentResultsCounty/1?questionid=140
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024174732/http://mnunited.org/ to http://mnunited.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Results Table
I have not edited any Wikipedia page for a long time, so please let me know if I am doing something wrong. I have a few suggestions for the results table.

First, the three types of responses (yes, no, and "Invalid or blank votes") do not quite sum to the "Total votes," so that error should be corrected.

Second, the percentages given for the yes and no votes should use the total number of ballots as the denominator, not the number of so-called "valid votes." Under Article 9, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution, an amendment (to the Minnesota Constitution) can only be enacted if a majority of the total ballots cast have yes votes--the total of the yes and no votes is irrelevant to the ultimate result. The distinction is important because an amendment could receive more yes votes than no votes and still fail. Thus, the percentage of ballots with a yes vote is the key measure of the results of the election, not the yes percentage that is currently listed.

Third, the "Valid votes" row in the table should probably be removed or renamed. That information is not very meaningful. Moreover, it could be misleading because leaving the question blank was a valid option for a voter who wanted to express binding opposition to the amendment without casting a no vote.

Fourth, the "Invalid or blank votes" should probably be renamed to "Question left blank / response invalid" because leaving the option blank could have been deliberately chosen and because leaving it blank is not, in a sense, a vote.

Fifth, the "Invalid or blank votes" should have the red "X" next to it to show that the number represents additional binding opposition to the measure--whether intended or not.

Sixth, the sum of the no votes and the ballots with the question left blank or completed invalidly might be included as a row so that the total binding opposition to the amendment could be clearly seen.

Seventh, "Total votes" might be renamed to "Total ballots" so that it is less ambiguous. GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)