There is actually no evidence this is the case, and there is evidence it is the opposite - that the less voters support something, the more likely it is to pass.
Obviously the claim exists within the space of bills that somebody actually wants. The premise is that things major industries or politically connected plutocrats want get passed over the interests of the general public for all of the usual reasons, not that things nobody wants get passed without explanation.
By what means? Picking one of various parties that all colluded on the laws? Perhaps one that promises to oppose it but then does the opposite? Let's not pretend that voting of all things is an effective means to enact change on specific issues in a representative democracy.
There is actually no evidence this is the case, and there is evidence it is the opposite - that the less voters support something, the more likely it is to pass.
This claim appears blatantly false.
If being unpopular makes a law more likely to pass, then surely the French government tars and feathers all French children every other week.
No, they don't, since the voters would prevent that by voting for a different government.
Obviously the claim exists within the space of bills that somebody actually wants. The premise is that things major industries or politically connected plutocrats want get passed over the interests of the general public for all of the usual reasons, not that things nobody wants get passed without explanation.
That law was never proposed. Only laws that are beneficial to the ruling class get proposed.
5 replies →
By what means? Picking one of various parties that all colluded on the laws? Perhaps one that promises to oppose it but then does the opposite? Let's not pretend that voting of all things is an effective means to enact change on specific issues in a representative democracy.