Hacker News Reader

Comment by SketchySeaBeast | Hacker News Reader

I'm not familiar with the texas government, but doesn't the fact that it ended up on the governor's desk mean that the "narrowly focused, dogmatic" politicians run the two chambers?

View on HN

I'm familiar with Texas gov. given the amount of power the Lt Gov has in Texas, since he has the ability to unilaterally set the legislative agenda, it's really more like: Lt Gov Dan Patrick is obviously dogmatic given just the quotes in the article

but yes, to answer your question

> I'm not familiar with the texas government, but doesn't the fact that it ended up on the governor's desk mean that the "narrowly focused, dogmatic" politicians run the two chambers?

The legislature has a 'mandate' from the people because it was elected. The governor has a 'mandate' from the people because he was elected.

Does one have more of a mandate than the other, or are they equal? What happens when they have different policies?

This is one of the weakness of presidential systems:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system#Efficienci...

> I'm not familiar with the texas government

> the "narrowly focused, dogmatic" politicians run the two chambers?

Yes. This is VERY Texas. The state government is 100% conservative republican.

"Texas is a majority Republican state with Republicans controlling every statewide office.[1] Texas Republicans have majorities in the State House and Senate, an entirely Republican Texas Supreme Court, control of both Senate seats in the US Congress."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Texas#:~:text=Texa...

So I guess I struggle with the idea that it's a thin slice of dogmatic legislators, when it seems that the majority of the state's legislators are still against THC.

Both can be true. Dogmatic legislators get voted into office along party lines, but they are not representative of the actual beliefs of most Texans (they appeal to what a lot of Texans think they should believe, but don't actually when it comes to lived reality). On this issue, the governor is aware that a lot of Texans would be in an uproar if they can no longer buy THC legally. This includes veterans and business owners who are considered special classes by the governor. I deeply dislike Abbott, but on this occasion, I think he did the right thing.

How do you do that highlight on Wiki? Is it just via URL or is there a handy way to share a link like that?

In Chrome, the right click context menu has a "Copy link to highlight" option. It'll add the appropriate stuff to the URL to highlight what you've selected and put it in your clipboard.

Thank you!

Well, we are talking about the Texas state legislature. It is going to be prone to narrowly focused dogmatic politicians.

There's some inertia. For a long time, being against cannabis legalization went hand in hand with being "tough on crime". A politician coming out in support of it ran a high chance of being called "soft on crime" by their opponents. There can also be a racial edge due to people who primarily see crime and cannabis as minority-driven problems.

I'm pretty sure often these things go forward because they are expected to fail. Your base and the single-issue voters notice and reward you for 'trying', but the general public does not really remember or care about that time 3 years ago you voted for a bill that never passed. Gives some flavors of brexit, which was not an expected or desired outcome by the PM who ultimately called the referendum.

Sibling comments are trying to explain the "dogmatic" politicians but really they just took money from alcohol companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com