I will say, however, that the ballot measure was confused by the arguments, with both sides arguing against time changes.
>Proposition 12 (1949), a ballot initiative that established DST in California, needed to be repealed. In California, a ballot initiative cannot be repealed without the consent of voters. Therefore, the state legislature could not take action to change time policy unless voters approved Proposition 7. This applied to both permanent daylight savings time and permanent standard time.[1]
As I understand, Prop 7 was needed to undo Prop 12, which then gave the CA state legislature the power to go with DST all year around, which they have indicated they want to since 2016:
>In 2016, the California State Legislature asked the President and Congress to pass an act that would allow California to adopt year-round DST.[2]
It seems that it's the federal government preventing the states from doing what they want to do, hence my quip about states' rights.
Which I also like. We can call it the Western time zone.
I would prefer standard time, but I'll accept any time as long as days are always 86400 seconds (+/- 1 second). I'm willing to have a separate discussion about leap seconds, but that seems like it's being determined by concensus among national standards bodies, not democratic action, so I have less influence.
Here we have a month where daylight isn't a whole lot better than 8:00-5:00, so it's always amusing to hear people say that they like it to be daylight when they wake up (so 1.5 hours less sun here than San Francisco today, which is where the last person I saw with that complaint lives).
The text authorized the State legislature to make the change if Congress passed a law allowing the State to make the change. It passed.
I hate that it's permanent DST, though. Why make noon at one hour past the sun at its highest point? So annoying.
I have a friend that is also annoyed by this prospect, but I never could understand why. I mean I can see why people have opinions based on morning/evening light, but is "high noon should be noon" really that big a deal? I mean even if the center of every timezone had high noon set at noon, you'd still end up having the edges of the same timezone having their high noon closer to 11:30 and 12:30. The fact is that local times have had their high noon disassociated from 12:00 for quite a while. Other than the principle of the thing, I just don't see why having around 1:00 really is such a bother.
edit: I really can't understand why you're being downvoted. Your frustration shouldn't be ignored.
Never did I argue that it does not matter. In fact I didn't even take a position on the matter. I specifically asked _you_ about _your_ beliefs.
> So in that case why not pick the one that actually makes sense according to the motion of the solar system? If I have to make a choice between two equally logical solutions, I always pick the most beautiful or most symmetrical. Why not?
Why not? As I pointed out, there are other considerations at play like morning/evening light. You apparently believe that the balance of beauty and symmetry with the solar system is the most important consideration. I don't personally consider that very important.
I never stated otherwise.
> The only single reason I can think to choose one clock over another is that one synchronises with the solar system and one does not.
Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Having extra daylight in the morning (i.e. pre-12:00) and the afternoon (i.e. post 12:00) are reasons. The amount of light before and after school/work/etc. has real effects.
> ...there is nothing else to consider.
This is factually untrue. You may not consider other reasons as important as your own, but stop pretending they don't exist.
By the way, you are an extremely irritating person to discuss with. I started this conversation specifically to hear your side and you are taking the opportunity to ignore and belittles ideas other than your own. It's pretty childish honestly.
I feel exactly the same way about you.
This issue is fascinating as it seems people just can't talk about it rationally. I will stop now.
In the UK we have already tried "permanent DST" (if that's what you want to call it): we were on UTC+1 through three winters: 1968-1971. From what I've heard, the Scots hated it and, according to Wikipedia, "on a free vote, the House of Commons voted by 366 to 81 votes to end the experiment".
I think Ireland joined in the experiment back then. There's a similar problem to the problem with Brexit: it would annoy some people if Northern Ireland were to have a different time from Ireland, and it would annoy some people if Northern Ireleand were to have a different time from the rest of the UK. I think all-year UTC would make a lot more sense and be generally more acceptable for the British Isles (UK + Ireland) than all-year UTC+1.
I also think Spain should consider switching to UTC. Some poeple claim they only switched to UTC+1 in the first place because of Franco's friendship with Hitler.