It was so uncontroversial that nearly 90% of the American public supported the reform, including 85% of gun owners.
I keep on seeing this number quoted, but looking at the survey it looks like it was limited to Florida, Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia. I wonder how the question would go in Texas, for example. Is there a standard definition of a national poll?
Whatever your views are on gun control, it's hard to see yesterday's events as anything but an example of an entrenched political interest using its power (money, exclusive relationships, incumbency) to maintain the status quo...
Nonsense. Yesterday was how things are supposed to work, when a small minority cares passionately about an issue in the face of a lukewarm majority.
The politicians involved realized that this was a 'time to organize to throw the bum out' voting issue for the portion of the population against it, while the larger portion of the population that was tepidly for it will end up basing their votes on other issues. They therefore made the correct call.
I don't think this article went nearly far enough ... the reality is that we have the technology (or could) to allow the population to vote on what laws are passed. In theory, we could get rid of representative government completely and truly see a nation where one person gets one vote.
If the vocal minority rallied their forces as suggested below (by gyardley), and the tepid majority didn't, then I agree that things worked the way they're supposed to. If you don't care enough to vote, then why should your voice be heard? And if the majority wasn't as tepid as they appeared, then they'd prevail.
[+] [-] akurtzhs|13 years ago|reply
I keep on seeing this number quoted, but looking at the survey it looks like it was limited to Florida, Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia. I wonder how the question would go in Texas, for example. Is there a standard definition of a national poll?
I do appreciate Seth linking to the poll's press release. If anyone's interested, the poll data is available at http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-instit...
[+] [-] gyardley|13 years ago|reply
Nonsense. Yesterday was how things are supposed to work, when a small minority cares passionately about an issue in the face of a lukewarm majority.
The politicians involved realized that this was a 'time to organize to throw the bum out' voting issue for the portion of the population against it, while the larger portion of the population that was tepidly for it will end up basing their votes on other issues. They therefore made the correct call.
[+] [-] coderzach|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoyer|13 years ago|reply
If the vocal minority rallied their forces as suggested below (by gyardley), and the tepid majority didn't, then I agree that things worked the way they're supposed to. If you don't care enough to vote, then why should your voice be heard? And if the majority wasn't as tepid as they appeared, then they'd prevail.
[+] [-] efremjw|13 years ago|reply