4 ms·

wow, it went from almost impossible to just improbable, everything is great then.

• SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's just a strange way to conceptualize the process. The whole concept of a ballot proposition is to give voters the final say on policy questions - if legislators could easily overturn propositions, what would be the point?
  • jldugger 6y ago
    I assumed the idea was to allow popular but divisive issues to be decided upon without attaching the name of specific legislators to the issue.
    • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Both factors are relevant, but the final say thing is pretty characteristic of California. For bond measures, it's actually mandated by the state constitution - once the legislature passes a bill for a new bond program, they have to create a ballot proposition to ask voters for approval.
• pianoben 6y ago
  I'll be the first to admit that it's not great. There's a pretty wide area between "great" and "unacceptable", and I think that prop 22 is in there. Regarding 7/8 specifically, it's true that it's "not great" and it's also true that it is "better than the default". Consider the authors' perspectives for a moment, if only to understand it. One party has a supermajority in the CA legislature, and they are openly hostile to prop 22. They didn't necessarily want an immutable proposition, but they also didn't want it to be immediately nullified. 7/8 seems like a way to guarantee that changes can be made if and only if there's broad bipartisan support for those changes. You don't have to agree with that perspective but I think it should be said that there's a non-nefarious way to see it.