Re:Why did California vote down legal pot?
by varjag on Thursday November 04, 2010 @07:35AM
(#1868461)
> Netherlands + France say no to european constitution
Why is that a bad thing? The constitution would be a major setback for democratic process in EU, where the actual governance is already too far removed from voter.
Re:Why did California vote down legal pot?
by woodpanel on Thursday November 04, 2010 @08:03AM
(#1868513)
I'm not saying that voting it down was wrong. The same would have happened if we germans hat a chance to vote on that. But it proves the point isn't it?
Re:Why did California vote down legal pot?
by varjag on Thursday November 04, 2010 @09:22AM
(#1868707)
Well yes, it's just that it was on the list with other items supposedly illustrating a backwards/un-liberal voting pattern.
But sure, your point was clear.
Re:Why did California vote down legal pot?
by woodpanel on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:59AM
(#1869128)
Well that's actually true. But i guess that voting the pattern was not intended to be "people voting down good things" but "people voting to prohibit changes"
Re:Why did California vote down legal pot?
by notahacker on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:09AM
(#1868916)
Conservative is probably the better way to characterise referendum results, because conservatives are generally better at mobilising themselves to vote.
Examples:
- California says NO to prop-19
- Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerl...
- Hamburg says NO to modernize public school system
- Netherlands + France say no to european constitution
- Initiatives to combine administrative entities (e.g. federal states) mostly fail
- If a referendum about the euro was hold in Germany in 1999, there wouldn't be no euro today