4 ms·

Ironic when the same day, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoe'd bill intended to limit the price of insulin, and thus access to essential health care for many.

• tacocataco 3y ago
  Is that the same bill that would have decriminalized psychedelic mushrooms? Good thing California uses First Past the Post voting, making a two party system a inevitably. Must be cheaper to purchase the government for the 1%.
  • gingerrr 3y ago
    No, he vetoed more than one good bill today! Busy day for Gavin.
  • astrange 3y ago
    Newsom is the same party as the legislative supermajority. This is a very bad way to analyze politics. Politicians actually believe in the things they're doing.
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Newsom is the same party as the legislative supermajority. FPTP is a major part of the reason why there can be a wide disparity in position on currently salient issues between a legislative supermajority and a governor of the same party, since it is why we have ridiculously “big tent” parties.
      • astrange 3y ago
        Most of the things in the US people blame on FPTP are caused by primary elections, and California doesn't use the usual primary system because it has jungle primaries. And IRV for local elections, but you don't see micro-parties in SF.
        • dragonwriter 3y ago
          > Most of the things in the US people blame on FPTP are caused by primary elections No, most of them are caused by FPTP [0], which very strongly encourages low dimensionality of political dialog and a two-party system with two roughly-equal national parties, with a strategic interest in negative campaigning and alienating voters, since driving slightly more of your major opponents voters away is just as effective as winning over votes. Some are more precisely caused by legislative bodies with independently elected members in single-member districts. > and California doesn’t use the usual primary system because it has jungle primaries. Jungle primaries in no way mitigate the effects of FPTP on duopoly (they aren’t much different than majority-runoff, except that there is always a runoff even if there is a first-round majority, and the two rounds are separate by a much greater interval of time than is usually the case for majority-runoff. > And IRV for local elections, but you don’t see micro-parties in SF. IRV (1) is not used for most local elections in California, and (2) offers little if any mitigation of the effects of FPTP elections (it is, as the name suggests, modelled very closely on majority-runoff voting), and (3) is only used in SF for elections which are explicitly non-partisan. [0] “FPTP” is used in a somewhat loose sense here, encompassing single-winner vote-one election methods including majority-runoff as well as plurality (FPTP in the narrow sense).
    • zlakdfljk 3y ago
      [dead]
  • Gibbon1 3y ago
    There used to be moderate republicans in California. But the cuckoo puff wing of the party pushed them out. Not the democrats cunning schemes. Democrats implemented a jungle primary in order to try and fix that problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary
• Simulacra 3y ago
  That was because California wants to sell its own version of insulin.