MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,549
Can anyone point me in the direction of a good bookie? I'm fairly convinced I know how the referendum for cannabis legalization in California is going to turn out on Election Day: it will lose by a very, very narrow margin, probably between 1~2%. There will then follow a heated discussion, one side saying that the nation is just not ready for such a bold move, and the other side blaming poor voter turnout. But the status quo will be upheld.
Why do I say this? Because this is the way most big and highly controversial elections I've been alive to witness have turned out: The Gore and Bush presidential election, all votes pertaining to Puerto Rican independence ever held, Quebec secession, and Taiwan's watershed Peace Referendum, which took place when I was living there.
I don't want to sound like a crackpot, but I think this is how vote-rigging works in the so-called civilized world. Defenders of the status quo, who are at a tactical advantage in any controversial ballot, purposely rig the system to win by just a narrow margin, so as to make their opposition think they had a shot of winning (but not good enough of a shot), without raising suspicions of ballot rigging. Because when popular support seems strong for something, and then it loses by a landslide, something's obviously fishy. But when it loses only by 1% of the vote, hey, it was a controversial issue so what do you expect?
For defenders of the status quo in Californian marijuana laws, it's a lot easier to play dirty with this vote (just enough to win), than to let the opposition win and then battle to reverse or deny it.
Why do I say this? Because this is the way most big and highly controversial elections I've been alive to witness have turned out: The Gore and Bush presidential election, all votes pertaining to Puerto Rican independence ever held, Quebec secession, and Taiwan's watershed Peace Referendum, which took place when I was living there.
I don't want to sound like a crackpot, but I think this is how vote-rigging works in the so-called civilized world. Defenders of the status quo, who are at a tactical advantage in any controversial ballot, purposely rig the system to win by just a narrow margin, so as to make their opposition think they had a shot of winning (but not good enough of a shot), without raising suspicions of ballot rigging. Because when popular support seems strong for something, and then it loses by a landslide, something's obviously fishy. But when it loses only by 1% of the vote, hey, it was a controversial issue so what do you expect?
For defenders of the status quo in Californian marijuana laws, it's a lot easier to play dirty with this vote (just enough to win), than to let the opposition win and then battle to reverse or deny it.
