Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No "person" voted for the ACA. It was voted on by Congress. Majorities of people are against the ACA in its current form actually.

Indeed, all those unelected congressmen foisted it on us, and then it was signed into law by a president who never said a single word about healthcare while campaigning, and then who stole the election!

Truly, the will of the people was unheard.

Indeed it was.

 d-usa wrote:

The majority of people only voted for the guy who the bill is named after.

Once when he was running on health care reform.
Once after he signed it.

That is the closest thing we have to a national referendum.

Ah... I see. So we can never, EVAR change out minds.

Gotcha.

(wondering how the hell Prohibition was repealed, women got votes, or hell... how things like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 eventually got repealed after numerous challenges.)

 whembly wrote:
Ah... I see. So we can never, EVAR change out minds.

Gotcha.

(wondering how the hell Prohibition was repealed, women got votes, or hell... how things like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 eventually got repealed after numerous challenges.)

Once those laws were unpopular enough (slave laws), the people voted in politicians (i.e abolitionists) who then acted on those wishes... i.e. functional government.

 Alfndrate wrote:
So how come no one has really/directly responded to Whembly's question about what was wrong with the CR that pushed the Individual Mandate back a year for individuals, that forced Congress and their staff, etc... to fall under the same system as the people they represent, and to fully fund the government?

I don't think anyone understands what that means.

Just because I was curious, I looked up some 2012 exit polling.

Via Politico.
Should 2010 Healthcare Law Be Repealed?
Yes: 49%
No: 44%

Looks like a majority didn't vote for anything regarding the ACA. Fun tangent, though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
So how come no one has really/directly responded to Whembly's question about what was wrong with the CR that pushed the Individual Mandate back a year for individuals, that forced Congress and their staff, etc... to fall under the same system as the people they represent, and to fully fund the government?

I don't think anyone understands what that means.

Someone did, because I got a solid answer

 Seaward wrote:
Just because I was curious, I looked up some 2012 exit polling.

Via Politico.
Should 2010 Healthcare Law Be Repealed?
Yes: 49%
No: 44%

Looks like a majority didn't vote for anything regarding the ACA. Fun tangent, though.

Sadly the government is not carried out by polls, it is carried out by election results.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Indeed, all those unelected congressmen foisted it on us, and then it was signed into law by a president who never said a single word about healthcare while campaigning, and then who stole the election!

Truly, the will of the people was unheard.

You genuinely believe that every person who cast a vote for Obama did so solely based on the ACA.

I'm actually not surprised.

You actually believe that every person who voted for a Republican in the house did so solely based on the ACA?

I'm actually not surprised.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ah... I see. So we can never, EVAR change out minds.

Gotcha.

(wondering how the hell Prohibition was repealed, women got votes, or hell... how things like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 eventually got repealed after numerous challenges.)

Once those laws were unpopular enough (slave laws), the people voted in politicians (i.e abolitionists) who then acted on those wishes... i.e. functional government.

Ya don't say...

*glances at current congress*

Sorry, it's all Heitfield and McCoys there...

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Oh man, that's an awesome point. You know who totally disagrees with you?

No, he doesn't. He is smart and dashing, though.

Pointing out that we elect presidents to lead is not the same as pointing out the falsity of the claim that Americans voted for the ACA.

It was almost a nice try, though.

Well, we have a representative democracy. What you're suggesting is direct democracy, which has some merits, but also a ton of problems. Direct democracy works only if the entire population is educated, informed, and participating. If only 65% or so of the public can be bothered to vote once every four years, how can we expect a larger portion of the nation to participate constantly? Or, for that matter, how are we supposed to educate the public at large about every single issue we face?

Also, the public needs representatives to run the government, otherwise things spin out of control. California has the closest thing to direct democracy through their referendum system. The results have been, frankly, poor. People consistently vote for more government activities, without voting into place the taxes that are needed to fund them. The result was the California budget crisis.

People are self serving with short term memory. They vote for things that benefit them without voting for the necessary consequences. By putting the law making ability in the hands of representatives, we can at least TRY to (but sadly, we don't always succeed in) mix the consequences with the benefits. Congress' self-preservation actually helps in that regard. If the benefits are outweighed by the consequences, they can mitigate them or choose not to implement them, and they have an incentive to educate themselves to ensure they know what all the benefits and consequences are so they don't get blindsided.

It's like in this healthcare issue. People want there to be no discrimination of pre-existing conditions, and fairer rules that insurance companies must abide by. They also don't want costs to increase and don't want to have an individual mandate. Unfortunately, those things can't all happen. If you want the first thing, you either have the 2nd or 3rd thing as a consequence, but most people don't think about that when they consider the issue.

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Indeed, all those unelected congressmen foisted it on us, and then it was signed into law by a president who never said a single word about healthcare while campaigning, and then who stole the election!

Truly, the will of the people was unheard.

You genuinely believe that every person who cast a vote for Obama did so solely based on the ACA.

I'm actually not surprised.

You actually believe that every person who voted for a Republican in the house did so solely based on the ACA?

I'm actually not surprised.

Um... dude... there's a ton of single-issue voters.

Which sucks... but, it's true. It's why we can't have nice things.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Well, we have a representative democracy. What you're suggesting is direct democracy, which has some merits, but also a ton of problems.

I'm not suggesting anything beyond that the statement, "A majority of people voted for the ACA," is incorrect.

Alright, I'm not suggesting it. I'm outright stating it. Precisely because we don't have a direct democracy.

 whembly wrote:
Um... dude... there's a ton of single-issue voters.

Which sucks... but, it's true. It's why we can't have nice things.

This is why I take a while while voting. If I don't know anything about the candidate, I read through the information on the ballot.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Indeed, all those unelected congressmen foisted it on us, and then it was signed into law by a president who never said a single word about healthcare while campaigning, and then who stole the election!

Truly, the will of the people was unheard.

You genuinely believe that every person who cast a vote for Obama did so solely based on the ACA.

I'm actually not surprised.

You actually believe that every person who voted for a Republican in the house did so solely based on the ACA?

I'm actually not surprised.

Um... dude... there's a ton of single-issue voters.

Which sucks... but, it's true. It's why we can't have nice things.

So who is wrong here then, me or Seward? He seems to think that single-issue voters couldn't possibly have voted for Obama, but because Republicans gained the house it must mean that everybody is against this single issue.

 d-usa wrote:
You actually believe that every person who voted for a Republican in the house did so solely based on the ACA?

I'm actually not surprised.

Nope. Didn't say anything as asinine as, "Well, people voted for Republicans, and Republicans talked about the ACA some, so that's a de facto referendum!" either.

 Seaward wrote:
Just because I was curious, I looked up some 2012 exit polling.

Via Politico.
Should 2010 Healthcare Law Be Repealed?
Yes: 49%
No: 44%

Looks like a majority didn't vote for anything regarding the ACA. Fun tangent, though.

Fun thing about exit polls, it a poll. Why they are meant to find out who you voted for and why, not every one takes it and it is a POLL(so has the same isuee all polls have).

 Alfndrate wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Um... dude... there's a ton of single-issue voters.

Which sucks... but, it's true. It's why we can't have nice things.

This is why I take a while while voting. If I don't know anything about the candidate, I read through the information on the ballot.

Yeah... me too. I usually end up voting 50-50 on democrat/republicans locally. If I don't see any issues after doing so research, I usually vote the incumbent.

The remedy is in the people's own hands.

1. Vote differently at the next election.
2. Change the constitution to make single issue voting more effective.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The remedy is in the people's own hands.

1. Vote differently at the next election.
2. Change the constitution to make single issue voting more effective.

And?

3. live in current system and shut up?

 d-usa wrote:
So who is wrong here then, me or Seward? He seems to think that single-issue voters couldn't possibly have voted for Obama, but because Republicans gained the house it must mean that everybody is against this single issue.

No, Seaward thinks a majority of the country didn't vote for the ACA, because A) we don't have a direct democracy, thus we had no referendum on it, and B) polling shows us that more people were in favor of repealing it than in favor of keeping it.

d-usa, on the other hand, believes every vote for Obama was in fact a secret referendum on the ACA.

 Seaward wrote:
Just because I was curious, I looked up some 2012 exit polling.

Via Politico.
Should 2010 Healthcare Law Be Repealed?
Yes: 49%
No: 44%

Looks like a majority didn't vote for anything regarding the ACA. Fun tangent, though.

Want me to pretend that nobody ever posted the further breakdown of those numbers indicating that a large number of those people don't like it because it didn't reform enough?
Want me to post the polls saying that the majority of people didn't want a shutdown over the issue?
Want me to post the polls saying that the Republicans are shouldering the majority of the blame here?
Want me to post the polls saying that the people want more gun control?
Want me to post all your posts talking about how we are not a direct democracy and majority rule shouldn't happen like that?
Or you wanna keep on this train of thought?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So who is wrong here then, me or Seward? He seems to think that single-issue voters couldn't possibly have voted for Obama, but because Republicans gained the house it must mean that everybody is against this single issue.

No, Seaward thinks a majority of the country didn't vote for the ACA, because A) we don't have a direct democracy, thus we had no referendum on it, and B) polling shows us that more people were in favor of repealing it than in favor of keeping it.

d-usa, on the other hand, believes every vote for Obama was in fact a secret referendum on the ACA.

So every time people talk about the Republican takeover of the house and the 2010 results as a referendum on the ACA, they really aren't?

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The remedy is in the people's own hands.

1. Vote differently at the next election.
2. Change the constitution to make single issue voting more effective.

And?

3. live in current system and shut up?

If you prefer to, that decision will be reflected at the polling station.

 d-usa wrote:
Want me to pretend that nobody ever posted the further breakdown of those numbers indicating that a large number of those people don't like it because it didn't reform enough?
Want me to post the polls saying that the majority of people didn't want a shutdown over the issue?
Want me to post the polls saying that the Republicans are shouldering the majority of the blame here?
Want me to post the polls saying that the people want more gun control?
Want me to post all your posts talking about how we are not a direct democracy and majority rule shouldn't happen like that?
Or you wanna keep on this train of thought?

Anytime you'd like to admit your claim that the 2012 election was a referendum on Obamacare was just the usual falsehood, you're more than welcome to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So every time people talk about the Republican takeover of the house and the 2010 results as a referendum on the ACA, they really aren't?

They really aren't what? Talking about it?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Want me to pretend that nobody ever posted the further breakdown of those numbers indicating that a large number of those people don't like it because it didn't reform enough?
Want me to post the polls saying that the majority of people didn't want a shutdown over the issue?
Want me to post the polls saying that the Republicans are shouldering the majority of the blame here?
Want me to post the polls saying that the people want more gun control?
Want me to post all your posts talking about how we are not a direct democracy and majority rule shouldn't happen like that?
Or you wanna keep on this train of thought?

Anytime you'd like to admit your claim that the 2012 election was a referendum on Obamacare was just the usual falsehood, you're more than welcome to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So every time people talk about the Republican takeover of the house and the 2010 results as a referendum on the ACA, they really aren't?

They really aren't what? Talking about it?

Let's make it simple then. Whose election and defeat do you think had anything at all to do with ObamaCare?

 whembly wrote:

Ya don't say...

*glances at current congress*

Sorry, it's all Heitfield and McCoys there...

Be careful about that. The President, who supported keeping the bill, was also re-elected in '12. If people truly wanted the healthcare bill repealed, they had a candidate who said he would do that, and that candidate lost. Also, the Senate is still in the hands of Democrats too, they held onto the Senate despite some expectations that it would be taken from them.

In addition, if we want to really get messy, we can look at vote counts by party for House seats state wide. In Pennsylvania, more people voted for Democratic house candidates than Republican house candidates (2.8 million to 2.7 million), but Republicans won 13 of 18 seats.

From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html

In Pennsylvania, where Democratic votes are concentrated in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Republicans won 13 of 18 House seats while losing the statewide congressional vote, 2.8 million to 2.7 million. In North Carolina, Republicans drew three districts to be overwhelmingly Democratic and won nine of the other ten, even as House Democratic candidates won the statewide vote, 2.2 million to 2.1 million.

Basically, trying to advance the argument that the public today is voting by proxy to repeal the ACA is a strategy that stands on very thin ice, and is best left to the side for Republicans.

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Just because I was curious, I looked up some 2012 exit polling.

Via Politico.
Should 2010 Healthcare Law Be Repealed?
Yes: 49%
No: 44%

Looks like a majority didn't vote for anything regarding the ACA. Fun tangent, though.

Want me to pretend that nobody ever posted the further breakdown of those numbers indicating that a large number of those people don't like it because it didn't reform enough?
Want me to post the polls saying that the majority of people didn't want a shutdown over the issue?
Want me to post the polls saying that the Republicans are shouldering the majority of the blame here?
Want me to post the polls saying that the people want more gun control?
Want me to post all your posts talking about how we are not a direct democracy and majority rule shouldn't happen like that?
Or you wanna keep on this train of thought?

Polls smolls...

Kinda a little useless now until maybe after Jan 1st.

Here's Gallup on the ACA:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163253/americans-wary-health-law-impact.aspx

Let's see how this shifts after Jan 1st... eh?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The remedy is in the people's own hands.

1. Vote differently at the next election.
2. Change the constitution to make single issue voting more effective.

And?

3. live in current system and shut up?

If you prefer to, that decision will be reflected at the polling station.

Ultimately... yeah. Happens everytime.

It's like we have a bloodless Revolution every 2 years.

That's not the way it works. You vote for your representative based on what they say they will do. If they don't live up to it you get the chance to vote them out four years later.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not the way it works. You vote for your representative based on what they say they will do. If they don't live up to it you get the chance to vote them out four years later.

We have elections every 2 years.

So... are you saying that we should "shut up", except when we vote?

Err, national referendums are a terrible idea. The US is finally figuring out some of the remaining civil rights issues, but despite the general outlook on the matter shifting year to year, there is still a sizable number of people in the country who would have no qualms about making LGBTetc folks second class citizens. It'd be tyranny of the majority and would not work out nearly as well as one might hope.

Also, people simply do not have the time and education to make fully informed decisions. In theory, the government they elect should be made up of those who do have the time, education and inclination to be so informed and make wise choices in their stead. That's not a shot at the average civilian, it is literally impossible for 330m people to keep abreast of every last development on hundreds of issues. That's why there are entire teams and think tanks working around the clock on those matters and contingencies for others that haven't even shown up yet, or might never.

 d-usa wrote:
Let's make it simple then. Whose election and defeat do you think had anything at all with ObamaCare?

With 62% of voters in 2010 saying the economy was their top issue, and 60% saying the same in 2012 - the health care numbers are 19% and 17%, respectively - I'd say neither of them were referendums on Obamacare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:
Err, national referendums are a terrible idea.

Which is why no one here is advocating for them, simply combating the claim that one was held on the ACA.