I agree. This is an exception, as it really should be the popular will that reigns on such matters. Plebiscites would be disastrous for policy decisions generally, but as there really is no downside to any of the three choices, nobody suffers in this case. I can't imagine mobs rioting in the streets on behalf of one outcome or another.
Nor is Congress likely to act. Elected officials will face no repercussions from ignoring the will of the people on this issue; it won't decide elections, so there's no penalty for ignoring it. Nor are there lobbyists, as no special interest gains or loses.
This is an issue that ought to be decided by plebiscite, not Congress. It's not partisan in any way, and people should be able to choose such options themselves. The national voting might even help heal our divisions, as people from different points of view find agreement here.
I agree. This is an exception, as it really should be the popular will that reigns on such matters. Plebiscites would be disastrous for policy decisions generally, but as there really is no downside to any of the three choices, nobody suffers in this case. I can't imagine mobs rioting in the streets on behalf of one outcome or another.
Nor is Congress likely to act. Elected officials will face no repercussions from ignoring the will of the people on this issue; it won't decide elections, so there's no penalty for ignoring it. Nor are there lobbyists, as no special interest gains or loses.
This is an issue that ought to be decided by plebiscite, not Congress. It's not partisan in any way, and people should be able to choose such options themselves. The national voting might even help heal our divisions, as people from different points of view find agreement here.
My preferences are irrelevant to this comment.
I hate plebiscites and "national voting." That's mobocracy. Count me out.