Unrelated. Seat belts don't really fail, the mechanism isn't technological, your car still starts whether your seat belt is buckled or not, etc. The list goes on.
No. Not at all. I support practical means of curbing drunk driving.
That's one of many reasons to vote no.
Sure it is. How are you going to get EVERY car without this system off the roads, or require installation of such a device? Is the government (i.e. the taxpayer) going to pay for it? It's a huge problem. Sure, with unlimited funds and time you could "solve" it. But this is the real world.
It says liberty, not right. So your point about the constitution is incorrect. The constitution doesn't even handle the concept of automobiles, for obvious reasons. But there is a liberty in being able to drive operate your property to legally travel somewhere, breaking no laws in doing so.
Straw men, for various reasons. Getting a license and mandatory installation of a device which can brick your car if it fails are NOT the same thing at all.
Also true. If the car is tricked into a false negative, the "drunk" person who plows over a family will say "The bartender didn't think I was impaired, I did not think I was impaired, and the technology I paid for in my car confirmed that I was not impaired."
I do not think they would be that much safer. As @Pretzel pointed out, drinking-related deaths are a pretty small number. They get headlines, like many other things do, because of the emotions involved.