2 ms·

> [FPTP voting causes] those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties California has FPTP voting and is completely dominated by Democrats

> [FPTP voting causes] those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties California has FPTP voting and is completely dominated by Democrats who have a super majority in the legislature and the Governorship, and can pass any legislation they want without a single Republican vote or amendment. That's been the case (with a brief stint by Arnold) for multiple decades. Tell me again how FPTP voting necessarily results in two equally balanced parties? I'm not seeing it.

klipt 7y ago
> Interestingly, this is strong evidence that Califorinia Democrats have no desire to implement universal health care Universal healthcare can't work on a state level because of the free rider problem: people from red states could go to California for free healthcare anytime, while never paying taxes into the system. Californians would end up paying for healthcare for the entire US, which is unsustainable. It works in Canada because Canada doesn't let sick Americans immigrate. But as a US state, California has no power to keep out sick red staters.
- erichocean 7y ago
  > California has no power to keep out sick red staters How does Massachusetts manage it then? They don't have the power to keep out those "sick red staters", and yet the entire state has healthcare (by law). Sounds like special-pleading to me. If a wealthy Blue state like Massachusetts can do it, then California can do it. I expect more from my representatives, not "sick Republicans in other states are stopping us!"
  - klipt 7y ago
    How do you think Massachusetts healthcare laws differ from California? They both have Obamacare which most people would say is not the same as universal healthcare.
    - erichocean 7y ago
      Massachusetts has the lowest rates of uninsured residents in the United States at 2.8% [0] California is 2.6x higher at 7.8% [1], is not improving, and is a much bigger state numerically, so we're talking about ~3 million uninsured people. Prior to Obamacare, California was at a dismal 16%. And note: CA had Dem supermajority rule for years prior to Obamacare's implementation, and can easily pass the healthcare legislation it's constituents want and deserve. They, unlike Massachusetts, have chosen not to. Massachusetts has less uninsured because they go beyond the bare minimum provided by Obamacare. California Democrats can, and should, do more. [0] https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/08/20/uninsured-rates-by-town-blue-cross-massachusetts https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/08/20/uninsured-rates... [1] https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article234997637.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/articl...
      - klipt 7y ago
        How specifically do the Massachusetts laws differ? Remember Massachusetts' median income is around 30% higher than California, so it's possible even with identical governance the state with higher median income would have better outcomes.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> California has FPTP voting and is completely dominated by Democrats That's a fairly recent phenomenon (California was a Republican stronghold in Presodential elections until 1992, and longer for state executive elections.) And the tendency toward balance that is asserted for FPTP is national; subordinate jurisdictions aren't expected to follow it even by people who adhere to the theory. > who have a super majority in the legislature and the Governorship, and can pass any legislation they want without a single Republican vote or amendment. That's been the case (with a brief stint by Arnold) for multiple decades. No, it hasn't; Democrats have only had supermajorities since 2012, and Gray Davis (1999-2003) was the only Democratic governor between Jerry Brown (term ended in 1983) and Jerry Brown (term starting in 2011.)

klipt 7y ago

> Interestingly, this is strong evidence that Califorinia Democrats have no desire to implement universal health care Universal healthcare can't work on a state level because of the free rider problem: people from red states could go to California for free healthcare anytime, while never paying taxes into the system. Californians would end up paying for healthcare for the entire US, which is unsustainable. It works in Canada because Canada doesn't let sick Americans immigrate. But as a US state, California has no power to keep out sick red staters.

erichocean 7y ago
> California has no power to keep out sick red staters How does Massachusetts manage it then? They don't have the power to keep out those "sick red staters", and yet the entire state has healthcare (by law). Sounds like special-pleading to me. If a wealthy Blue state like Massachusetts can do it, then California can do it. I expect more from my representatives, not "sick Republicans in other states are stopping us!"
- klipt 7y ago
  How do you think Massachusetts healthcare laws differ from California? They both have Obamacare which most people would say is not the same as universal healthcare.
  - erichocean 7y ago
    Massachusetts has the lowest rates of uninsured residents in the United States at 2.8% [0] California is 2.6x higher at 7.8% [1], is not improving, and is a much bigger state numerically, so we're talking about ~3 million uninsured people. Prior to Obamacare, California was at a dismal 16%. And note: CA had Dem supermajority rule for years prior to Obamacare's implementation, and can easily pass the healthcare legislation it's constituents want and deserve. They, unlike Massachusetts, have chosen not to. Massachusetts has less uninsured because they go beyond the bare minimum provided by Obamacare. California Democrats can, and should, do more. [0] https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/08/20/uninsured-rates-by-town-blue-cross-massachusetts https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/08/20/uninsured-rates... [1] https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article234997637.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/articl...
    - klipt 7y ago
      How specifically do the Massachusetts laws differ? Remember Massachusetts' median income is around 30% higher than California, so it's possible even with identical governance the state with higher median income would have better outcomes.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> California has FPTP voting and is completely dominated by Democrats That's a fairly recent phenomenon (California was a Republican stronghold in Presodential elections until 1992, and longer for state executive elections.) And the tendency toward balance that is asserted for FPTP is national; subordinate jurisdictions aren't expected to follow it even by people who adhere to the theory. > who have a super majority in the legislature and the Governorship, and can pass any legislation they want without a single Republican vote or amendment. That's been the case (with a brief stint by Arnold) for multiple decades. No, it hasn't; Democrats have only had supermajorities since 2012, and Gray Davis (1999-2003) was the only Democratic governor between Jerry Brown (term ended in 1983) and Jerry Brown (term starting in 2011.)