Originally Posted By SuperDry I think the difficulty is getting 50% + 1 of the people to agree to what "sensible reforms" are, especially in the context of people that disagreed launching vehement campaigns against any such proposal. Even if such a proposal was polling at 55% support, all the opposition has to do through misinformation, misdirection, and scare tactics, is convince 5% of the people to change their minds. And, considering that to fix the problem would likely involve lowering the 2/3 super-majority requirement for tax increases to a simple majority that most other states have, you can imagine the campaigning against that from some quarters.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The skeptical side of me thinks that you must be missing something. >>> I may in fact be missing something else. If so, I hope someone with more knowledge will chime in and correct the record.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Even if such a proposal was polling at 55% support, all the opposition has to do through misinformation, misdirection, and scare tactics, is convince 5% of the people to change their minds*** If only you could come up with a real world example of such a situation, it would perhaps be believable!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<If only you could come up with a real world example of such a situation, it would perhaps be believable!>> I hope you're being facetious.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yes. I am. I thought my sarcasm was kinda obvious, because didn't something like that happen precisely in that manner in California in 2008?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "In all fairness, they DID have just that for a little over a half of a year (don't let the right wingers fool you and claim it was "two years", but it WAS a fact for a brief period of time)." The Democrats had a 2/3 majority of both houses of the CA state legislature?
Originally Posted By Mr X Oops. Sorry. My mistake (I just automatically go to "federal government" when I read this stuff). Sorry Dabob.
