4 ms·

>...the majority chooses the first. Does it? If it were up to a popular vote today, I'm not so sure DST camp would win out.

raldi 10y ago
Do you mean in California or somewhere else? If California, how do you explain the fact that Sacramento has considered this many times, most recently two months ago, and always decides to keep things the way they are? http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-effort-to-eliminate-daylight-savings-1472001408-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essenti... There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it?
- djrogers 10y ago
  California's representatives haven't represented the will of their constituents in decades... Just look at how many ballot initiatives pass in spite of opposition from Sacramento or vice-versa. I'm pretty sure if put to a vote we'd stop changing times twice a year.
  - raldi 10y ago
    "I'm pretty sure" is not evidence.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it? You don't have to be so condescending. There is plenty of complexity that you're ignoring to reduce it to a quip like that. First off is the obvious possibility that being on the same schedule as 95% of the country is more important than being on a better schedule. There's also the inertia of change. You can interpret "If it were up to a popular vote today" as an alternative to DST having been implemented decades ago.
  - raldi 10y ago
    But in 2005, the US Congress reviewed and modified daylight saving. That shows inertia can be overcome when the populace wants it. There wouldn't have been any issues of synchronicity. And yet Congress decided to keep DST. Again, do you believe they misrepresented the will of the people? If so, what evidence is there to support that claim?
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      Changing the day doesn't affect anyone much except calendar makers. Much less inertia there than with getting rid of DST. I certainly believe that congress would rather make a show about 'saving energy' than address the fact that it doesn't. That doesn't mean they are going against the "will of the people", but the people are half-informed at best. The question is what people would vote for in a popular election, without worrying about soundbites, and with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic. The actions of the legislature are not a great proxy for this.
      - raldi 10y ago
        > The question is what people would vote for in a popular election I totally agree. > with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic You're being condescending and dismissive here. I've acknowledged that many people agree with your opinion that an extra hour of morning sunlight all winter long is not worth the hassle of changing clocks twice a year; you seem to be saying that only an ignorant person could possibly have the opposite opinion. Is that really what you believe?
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        > your opinion My? > you seem to be saying that only an ignorant person could possibly have the opposite opinion Not at all. I'm saying that most people are uninformed, and that the ratio of votes would almost certainly be different if people were generally informed. This goes for most topics! There's nothing specific to any opinion. It could be that there's actually more anti-DST misinformation than pro-DST misinformation, and being informed could make people like DST more. I have no idea, I just want people to not be voting based on misinformation.

raldi 10y ago

Do you mean in California or somewhere else? If California, how do you explain the fact that Sacramento has considered this many times, most recently two months ago, and always decides to keep things the way they are? http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-effort-to-eliminate-daylight-savings-1472001408-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essenti... There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it?

djrogers 10y ago
California's representatives haven't represented the will of their constituents in decades... Just look at how many ballot initiatives pass in spite of opposition from Sacramento or vice-versa. I'm pretty sure if put to a vote we'd stop changing times twice a year.
- raldi 10y ago
  "I'm pretty sure" is not evidence.
Dylan16807 10y ago
> There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it? You don't have to be so condescending. There is plenty of complexity that you're ignoring to reduce it to a quip like that. First off is the obvious possibility that being on the same schedule as 95% of the country is more important than being on a better schedule. There's also the inertia of change. You can interpret "If it were up to a popular vote today" as an alternative to DST having been implemented decades ago.
- raldi 10y ago
  But in 2005, the US Congress reviewed and modified daylight saving. That shows inertia can be overcome when the populace wants it. There wouldn't have been any issues of synchronicity. And yet Congress decided to keep DST. Again, do you believe they misrepresented the will of the people? If so, what evidence is there to support that claim?
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Changing the day doesn't affect anyone much except calendar makers. Much less inertia there than with getting rid of DST. I certainly believe that congress would rather make a show about 'saving energy' than address the fact that it doesn't. That doesn't mean they are going against the "will of the people", but the people are half-informed at best. The question is what people would vote for in a popular election, without worrying about soundbites, and with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic. The actions of the legislature are not a great proxy for this.
    - raldi 10y ago
      > The question is what people would vote for in a popular election I totally agree. > with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic You're being condescending and dismissive here. I've acknowledged that many people agree with your opinion that an extra hour of morning sunlight all winter long is not worth the hassle of changing clocks twice a year; you seem to be saying that only an ignorant person could possibly have the opposite opinion. Is that really what you believe?
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        > your opinion My? > you seem to be saying that only an ignorant person could possibly have the opposite opinion Not at all. I'm saying that most people are uninformed, and that the ratio of votes would almost certainly be different if people were generally informed. This goes for most topics! There's nothing specific to any opinion. It could be that there's actually more anti-DST misinformation than pro-DST misinformation, and being informed could make people like DST more. I have no idea, I just want people to not be voting based on misinformation.