Eh… sort of.
The two gambling props failed because they came with baggage.
I’m pretty sure that California citizens are ok with sports betting in general.
The two gambling props failed because they came with baggage.
I’m pretty sure that California citizens are ok with sports betting in general.
Short answer, tribal gaming leadership shenanigans. No betting propositions will ever pass in CA without their approval, but they continuously want way too much of the gambling pie.
1. Prop 26 — sports betting at tribal casinos and four race tracks. Tribal casinos can do dice and roulette.
Issues:
- even more power at tribal casinos.
- “ The proposition also would have created a new way of enforcing some gaming laws, allowing anyone to bring a lawsuit if they believe the laws are being violated and the state Justice Department declines to act”. Basically any card room that was not tribal was going to be sued non-stop.
2. Prop 27 - online sports betting.
Issues:
- even more centralized gambling control by tribes.
- extremely high threshold for gaming companies seeking licenses would have made it unusually tough for small but viable vendors to compete.
If any of them just said “yo, ya’ll wanna have sports gambling everywhere so ya’ll stop getting excluded from apps?” we would have voted for it (imo)
nobody here cares about tribal drama, both propositions heavily miscalculated that and got into immature campaigns against each other, they thought their proposals couldn't stand on their own merits and needed these complicated handouts
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”
Just like we overturned laws because someone’s sensitivities were harmed because other people were drinking and even conservative states think it’s no one’s business if another person decides to smoke weed.
But who gets to decide which ones? Who gets the final word?
I think that the question of which questions are the public's business, is itself necessarily the public's business. Which minority concerns are rights which should not be infringed on by the majority, must still be decided by majority.
There's no way around it. Constitutions don't interpret themselves or enforce themselves, much less write themselves, so they don't get you out of this pickle. At "best" they let you abdicate your responsibility for deciding that question.
As I recall, many of those abuses of minorities you list, were protected by such abdication, in that people would rather abide by the US's antimajoritarian process rules than use their majority to immediately fix the abuses.
Put money on it though? I’m very engaged
I’m totally fine if the audience completely changes