The closest to “time off to vote” is vote by mail. It is really popular, but the current political party in charge federally really doesn’t want everyone to vote and is taking significant action to try to supress the vote.
There is no national referendum in the US. Whoever told you there is has misinformed you.
Also, you think Americans get time off work to vote? Lol. Lmao, even. Americans don’t get time off to vote. ~40% of Americans didn’t vote at all in the last presidential election, and that has the largest turnout. And you think they’re going to take time off work for a (non-existent) referendum vote?
One of the biggest reasons that America’s politics skews right is because the rich and retired are the ones who have time to reliably vote, and America’s rich and retired demographics both skew conservative. Democrats have much higher numbers when you look at the raw numbers, but democrats also largely don’t vote because they’re poor working class people who can’t afford time off (or can’t set their own schedule to ensure they have time).
If a minimum wage cashier works an 8 hour shift on Election Day, you think they’re going to drive all the way across town (because conservatives
closed“consolidated” all the polling locations in liberal areas) and spend 4 hours in line to vote after their shift? No, they’re going home to crash, because they’ve been on their feet all day and they’re exhausted.Americans do get time off to vote in 28 states. Sounds like yours is not one of them? Don’t disagree with your sentiment, but there is law that clearly states employers cannot deny the request or retaliate.
https://www.paylocity.com/resources/learn/articles/state-voting-leave-laws/
Cynically? Because what they want to do rarely aligns with what people actually want. It’s far easier to just push through unpopular legislation and spin it retroactively than it is to run a full propaganda campaign ahead of a referendum and still risk losing.
Politicians only run referendums if they’re sure the outcome will be what they want, or if their hand is forced by the opposition.
Because what they want to do rarely aligns with what people actually want.
False consensus?
Politicians only run referendums if they’re sure the outcome will be what they want, or if their hand is forced by the opposition.
Ah. APAB .
Evolve your politicians better.
Because the US does not have referendum. Some states do, but there is no national referendum in the US. If there were the country would likely be quite different. There are issues that “both sides” agree with that neither side push for because it’s not profitable. If we had a referendum we might be able get certain things passed.
Of course, you’d have to depend on those in power to do the referendum to give us a chance to vote on it anyway…
It’s almost as if representative democracy isn’t actually all that democratic most of the time
Because the US does not have referendum.
I think it would probably be possible for Congress to pass a law with a clause “this law is subject to a referendum and shall go into effect only if approved by a majority of voters” or similar. That’s pretty much something any legislature can do if it wants to, even if the constitution doesn’t specifically authorize it. But I don’t think this has ever happened in the US.
In my country the constitution specifically authorizes this and it has happened once, which resulted in a law passed by the legislature not taking effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Austrian_nuclear_power_referendum
I would imagine that could be possible, but it would require our political parties to want a referendum process, which is pretty antithetical to the way they operate in general. I cannot imagine that ever, ever, ever happening in the US without first having gone through a major change in our system, vis a vis the the two current parties. If, somehow, we managed to get the very progressive/green/soft socialist types in power within the democratic party the way the ultra far right have taken over the Republican party then I could see it happening, but if that were to occur then I think it’s pretty likely to have followed some truly spectacular (potentially violent**) political upheaval in the country that would make the addition of referendum to our lives a footnote in the rest of what would be happening.
And that’s assuming we could even get those kinds of people into power in the US, which I sincerely, genuinely doubt. But that’s just my opinion.
**Pointing it out, not advocating for it
In Ireland Constitutional Amendments require a referendum to pass. It’s bizarre to me that other countries leave something so important in the hands of politicians.
Yes, but that’s not the case in all or even most countries. In my country most constitutional amendments can be made by a two-thirds majority in the legislature. Usually this involves the government coalition negotiating with one or more opposition parties to vote with them.
Of course there are other countries where there is no constitution (in the sense of a supreme law that other laws are subordinate to and can be struck down by the courts if they don’t comply with it) at all, e.g. the UK.
Hand of there’s no way to do a national referendum how do they amend the Constitution?
It is a whole process to amend the constitution. It requires the Congress and Senate to agree to add an amendment (there’s a certain percentage of agreement required, but I can’t remember the exact amount.) alternatively, 2/3rds of the states can petition for a constitutional change.
Iirc, the way it works is that it Congress to decides to add an amendment it is really only allowed to do that one thing and it’s done. But, if 2/3rds of the states do it, then it is a constitutional convention, and the document itself is up for editing. As in, should we get to that point, anything about the constitution could theoretically be changed, removed, or added.
But honestly, Google to confirm, I haven’t researched that in many many moons
The process for amending the US constitution doesn’t involve referendums.
Can you be more specific? The US doesn’t have any mechanism for a national referendum on a specific issue. Usually when people use that term, they’re talking about mid-term elections (and reelection bids) being a “referendum” on a President’s total popularity.
I’m also curious as to what he’s referring to
Your link doesn’t mention Clinton at all, but starts with this:
Federal law does not allow national referendums in the United States where the general population gets to vote on an issue.
It happens at the State level regularly (in states where it’s used), but it’s not something a President can initiate.
What exactly did Clinton do “a couple times” in regards to referendums?!
He once used one to poll the people on how he was doing or something. I forget the other one but it gave americans the right to say fuck congress and representation my vote finally counts. I forget what it was for tho.
Clinton was notorious for polling people and changing positions, but that was not by referendum. Sometimes our pundits play loose with words and pretend polling is a referendum because we don’t actually have referendums. See also “democratizing” when it just means “commodotizing”
No such thing as an american presidential referendum. What?
Brexit. That’s why. Don’t trust a nation changing referendum to a country of mouth breathing tools that are more concerned about what Kim K. is wearing than what a policy means.
Agreed. Although with the caveat that, had there been more stringent regulations surrounding misinformation and manipulation in political and media discourse for the UK, Brexit would never have been able to occur. Leave got there (and only just) through a multitude of lies and emotional manipulation.
Direct democracy is the ideal end goal of any democratic system. But for it to work, people need to be educated, healthy, stable, and both interested and invested in the political process.
We’ve a lot of ground to cover between then and now.
You’d need to be a very popular president to do that and not embarrass yourself.
why would they? america is basically under foreign occupation, that is how much your government cares about the people.
Judging by what “conservative” (far right) politicians in my country say, they specifically don’t want to give people time off. Their idea of “appriate worker’s/citizen’s rights” is more akin to “indentured servitude”.
Because it’s pointless.
It’s a “feel good” thing in a Representative system.
Also, that’s time off without pay. I can arrange that all on my own.
