> There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it?
You don't have to be so condescending. There is plenty of complexity that you're ignoring to reduce it to a quip like that.
First off is the obvious possibility that being on the same schedule as 95% of the country is more important than being on a better schedule.
There's also the inertia of change. You can interpret "If it were up to a popular vote today" as an alternative to DST having been implemented decades ago.
But in 2005, the US Congress reviewed and modified daylight saving. That shows inertia can be overcome when the populace wants it. There wouldn't have been any issues of synchronicity. And yet Congress decided to keep DST.
Again, do you believe they misrepresented the will of the people? If so, what evidence is there to support that claim?
Changing the day doesn't affect anyone much except calendar makers. Much less inertia there than with getting rid of DST.
I certainly believe that congress would rather make a show about 'saving energy' than address the fact that it doesn't.
That doesn't mean they are going against the "will of the people", but the people are half-informed at best.
The question is what people would vote for in a popular election, without worrying about soundbites, and with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic. The actions of the legislature are not a great proxy for this.
> The question is what people would vote for in a popular election
I totally agree.
> with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic
You're being condescending and dismissive here. I've acknowledged that many people agree with your opinion that an extra hour of morning sunlight all winter long is not worth the hassle of changing clocks twice a year; you seem to be saying that only an ignorant person could possibly have the opposite opinion.
> you seem to be saying that only an ignorant person could possibly have the opposite opinion
Not at all. I'm saying that most people are uninformed, and that the ratio of votes would almost certainly be different if people were generally informed.
This goes for most topics! There's nothing specific to any opinion.
It could be that there's actually more anti-DST misinformation than pro-DST misinformation, and being informed could make people like DST more. I have no idea, I just want people to not be voting based on misinformation.
You don't have to be so condescending. There is plenty of complexity that you're ignoring to reduce it to a quip like that.
First off is the obvious possibility that being on the same schedule as 95% of the country is more important than being on a better schedule.
There's also the inertia of change. You can interpret "If it were up to a popular vote today" as an alternative to DST having been implemented decades ago.