Plus they'd like to think they are the bellwether state for progressive policy, but really the whole Left Coast is just a petri dish for experiments that usually don't work and serve more as a warning than an example to be emulated.
To be fair, many, if not most, of the failed experiments in California are voter enacted conservative pet projects (Prop 8, Property Tax Cap, Ban on Affirmative Action, Making Uber drivers unable to be considered employees...) Either way, the idea of governing by Constitutional amendment seems like a terrible idea. We ostensibly elect leaders so that they can be deeply informed on public policy and make wise decisions. Personally, I feel uneasy voting on the 20+ propositions each year, since I don't have the time or capacity to fully research and appreciate the public policy implications of my votes. I'd much rather offload this responsibility to an elected Representative (and their staff) who broadly shares my worldview.
Diversity levels at colleges were increasing under the non affirmative action.
Property tax cap keeps taxes reasonable and does not allow for straight up highway robbery.
Uber contractors were able to set their own hours and work when they wanted. Not having to listen to the man on when they wanted to turn on the work sign. I get it, there needs to be a balance, but think about the benefits these laws have had. The Uber situation was great for some, and bad for those who could not do maths.
> Property tax cap keeps taxes reasonable and does not allow for straight up highway robbery.
Price controls always distort the market. Property tax cap simply gives earlier residents an advantage versus newer residents for a highly in demand land like California’s. It is a blatant wealth transfer from newer land owners to previous landowners. I guess there could be some benefits from that, but I am not convinced of the long term, societal benefits of it versus the drawbacks.
