3 ms·

> Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not. You're essentially arguing against a constitution. Governments can work without one bu

by Spivak 7mo ago

> Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not. You're essentially arguing against a constitution. Governments can work without one but it should at least be recognized what we're losing. There are no longer any practical limits to what laws legislators are allowed to enact. There's a huge disconnect between what the voters want and what legislators actually enact which is why I'm glad we have a constitution. My home state, Ohio, actually tried to limit ballot initiatives because they knew they knew the upcoming abortion ballot measure was going to pass. Literally the definition of legislators not representing the will of the people. I wouldn't ever argue "some state legislature passed a law therefore it must be what the people wanted."

rayiner 7mo ago
> I wouldn't ever argue "some state legislature passed a law therefore it must be what the people wanted." That’s a broadside argument against democracy. You’re not just saying that legislatures sometimes don’t reflect the will of the electorate. You’re saying that’s the default. Do you really think that’s the case here? That people in Utah don’t support a porn tax? The Ohio abortion referendum doesn’t prove your premise. It shows that, when you put a single issue to a public vote, you can get a different result than a legislature, where factions necessarily have to form coalitions to support or oppose platforms including many issues. If you put the abortion issue in a referendum with other issues like say police funding, you would probably get a different result—even with no legislators standing between the public and the outcome. And how is your alternative proposal better? If elected legislatures don’t reflect the will of the people, doesn’t that go doubly or triply so for a handful of unelected judges interpreting a “constitution?”
- Spivak 7mo ago
  > If you put the abortion issue in a referendum with other issues like say police funding, you would probably get a different result. Ohio actually is aware of this which is why in the state constitution there's a rule that bills must have a single subject. The hypothetical abortion plus police funding bill would be unconstitutional.

by Spivak 7mo ago

rayiner 7mo ago

> I wouldn't ever argue "some state legislature passed a law therefore it must be what the people wanted." That’s a broadside argument against democracy. You’re not just saying that legislatures sometimes don’t reflect the will of the electorate. You’re saying that’s the default. Do you really think that’s the case here? That people in Utah don’t support a porn tax? The Ohio abortion referendum doesn’t prove your premise. It shows that, when you put a single issue to a public vote, you can get a different result than a legislature, where factions necessarily have to form coalitions to support or oppose platforms including many issues. If you put the abortion issue in a referendum with other issues like say police funding, you would probably get a different result—even with no legislators standing between the public and the outcome. And how is your alternative proposal better? If elected legislatures don’t reflect the will of the people, doesn’t that go doubly or triply so for a handful of unelected judges interpreting a “constitution?”

Spivak 7mo ago
> If you put the abortion issue in a referendum with other issues like say police funding, you would probably get a different result. Ohio actually is aware of this which is why in the state constitution there's a rule that bills must have a single subject. The hypothetical abortion plus police funding bill would be unconstitutional.