In today's democracy you only get what you want if what you want is coincidentally the same as what their donors want.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-democrats-unveil-long...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
People's opinions are highly correlated with elite opinions, of course (because elites control what they hear, read, and see, and whether they'll progress in their careers or be employed at all), but when there's a divergence, public opinion is followed 0% of the time.
That's not what I asked. I asked for an issue supported by voters, not population. A lot of people have opinions, but not many people vote, which skews actual legislation. There's also a conservative tilt because rural voters have disproportionate power.
The populist "it's the elite and their money controlling legislation" sentiment doesn't seem to correlate with reality from what I've read.
On healthcare, the support of socialization is complicated. Voters are iffy depending on how questions are phrased, so it's not totally clear on exactly what they want. It seems something like the ACA was pretty close, but even that was very controversial.
For example, I know you can get very high approval for M4A, but if you phrase questions in a more partisan manner, approval tanks. Something along the lines of "Would you support government provided healthcare that would ban private insurance?" would poll terribly, even though they're both referring to the same policy.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2187
Would have allowed for professionals in a given field to be accredited to make investments related to their profession. Or to put it another way, you would no longer need to already be rich to use the tools that the rich use to get richer.
The bill was passed unanimously in the house, and then quietly killed in the senate.
5 years later, we got a neutered version. Now you can make investments if you get a series 7 license, etc. But from what I understand you can’t just take the test and get the license, you need to be sponsored by an institution, but that misses the point of the original bill that represented the actual will of the people.
I'll have to look into it more though.
* Medicare for all: 55% support, 32% oppose.
* Civil asset forfeiture: 16% support, 86% oppose.
I'm getting throttled so I might not be able to reply in a timely fashion.
[0]: https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-publi...