3 ms·

Most Californian voters are pretty disappointing. There was one a few years back that basically eliminated paid breaks and meals for EMTs, and there are probabl

by db48x 6y ago

Most Californian voters are pretty disappointing. There was one a few years back that basically eliminated paid breaks and meals for EMTs, and there are probably a string of other bad decisions going back as far as you care to look.

onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
Prop 8 to ban gay marriage comes to mind. (It passed only a few years back...)
Rebelgecko 6y ago
I think it's easy to spin things however you want If prop 11 was rejected, someone could go on HN and say that they're disgusted with how CA voters decided that EMTs shouldn't receive extra mental health care. Or that voters said that it's better to let someone die than require an EMT to postpone their (still paid!) break by 1 hour
sanbor 6y ago
In 2016 there was a proposition to abolish death penalty and another to expedite it. Expediting death penalty proposition won. Another proposition was to legalize weed production. That one also won. If all the weed supporters would have also voted for abolishing death penalty...
argonaut 6y ago
Prop 11 required EMTs to remain on-call during paid breaks (I suppose you could spin it as eliminated non-on-call paid breaks). Most major newspapers endorsed it. There was very little opposition ($0 spent in opposition).
beeper-beeps 6y ago
It’s an illustration of the flaws of “direct democracy”, the question voters should be asked is: “Do you want workers in CA to be entitled to meal breaks? Or, are you willing to give up protected meal breaks?” The overwhelming majority of voters are not motivated enough to properly consider an issue which is going to impact a tiny minority of other people. And people will never feel responsible for their vote. This is why politicians should exist, to be responsible for these decisions and to be accountable afterwards (in theory). Direct democracy lets everyone wash their hands of any responsibility.
- Frost1x 6y ago
  Representative or indirect democracy allows much of the same with politicians who largely aren't held accountable by voters and don't seem to care about their actions on others. All we seem to do is shift the blame to someone with more moral flexibility while also losing power in the process. And our representatives are now selling our power to the highest bidder. At the same time, representative democracies at least help protect minorities against lynch mobs and group think a bit but that's far from guaranteed. I'm not convinced which system is better or not, personally, or if a better system can exist.
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    I think it's easier for voters to hold reps accountable for votes they don't agree with than it is for voters to remain educated yearly on the complexities of bond issues, property tax assessments, independent contractor laws, etc.

by db48x 6y ago

onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago

Prop 8 to ban gay marriage comes to mind. (It passed only a few years back...)

Rebelgecko 6y ago

I think it's easy to spin things however you want If prop 11 was rejected, someone could go on HN and say that they're disgusted with how CA voters decided that EMTs shouldn't receive extra mental health care. Or that voters said that it's better to let someone die than require an EMT to postpone their (still paid!) break by 1 hour

sanbor 6y ago

In 2016 there was a proposition to abolish death penalty and another to expedite it. Expediting death penalty proposition won. Another proposition was to legalize weed production. That one also won. If all the weed supporters would have also voted for abolishing death penalty...

argonaut 6y ago

Prop 11 required EMTs to remain on-call during paid breaks (I suppose you could spin it as eliminated non-on-call paid breaks). Most major newspapers endorsed it. There was very little opposition ($0 spent in opposition).

beeper-beeps 6y ago

It’s an illustration of the flaws of “direct democracy”, the question voters should be asked is: “Do you want workers in CA to be entitled to meal breaks? Or, are you willing to give up protected meal breaks?” The overwhelming majority of voters are not motivated enough to properly consider an issue which is going to impact a tiny minority of other people. And people will never feel responsible for their vote. This is why politicians should exist, to be responsible for these decisions and to be accountable afterwards (in theory). Direct democracy lets everyone wash their hands of any responsibility.

Frost1x 6y ago
Representative or indirect democracy allows much of the same with politicians who largely aren't held accountable by voters and don't seem to care about their actions on others. All we seem to do is shift the blame to someone with more moral flexibility while also losing power in the process. And our representatives are now selling our power to the highest bidder. At the same time, representative democracies at least help protect minorities against lynch mobs and group think a bit but that's far from guaranteed. I'm not convinced which system is better or not, personally, or if a better system can exist.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  I think it's easier for voters to hold reps accountable for votes they don't agree with than it is for voters to remain educated yearly on the complexities of bond issues, property tax assessments, independent contractor laws, etc.