California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

That’s what $200 billion in fake news buys you these days.

I think you mean $200 million. But I'd be curious to hear what you think is fake news

The best part about Prop 22 is it reveals who reads their props before expressing an opinion on them. It's a litmus test for who speaks in an uninformed manner.

Here is the only reference to seven-eighths in Prop 22:

> After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter

Seven-eighths to overturn, eh? Now where did you go get that?

Now secondarily, one might ask if someone "disappointed with the public" is sufficiently informed about ballot propositions in the first place. For instance, if you're a California voter and you can't answer "If a ballot proposition is passed through voter referendum, what majority of the legislature can overrule it?", then can you really be considered an informed voter?

Or, more directly, you are clearly expressing discontent with California voters while being the problem since you are clearly uninformed about Prop 22 and about how ballot props work (and perhaps about why they have to work that way).

You mean cheap Ubers of course.

I also don't think direct democracy lost here. Most people don't want Uber prices to go up. Democracy always sucks for the minority / people who don't have voting rights.

Direct democracy sounds great but I doubt large enough fractions of the voters can be informed well enough (in a reasonable amount of time, not in general) to be actually aware of the consequences of their decisions on most topics.

If you want to read about a textbook example of under-informed voters getting more than they bargained for, look no further than [0] (or well, the "Brexit"). A national-conservative party wanted to limit immigration to Switzerland and put that up for decision. The Swiss voted in support of it but the issue is ... immigration is part of a treaty with the EU that is protected against such "cherry-picking" by a so-called "guillotine clause" [1]. Cancelling or failing to renew any part of the treaty voids it as a whole[2]. The government eventually implemented a very toned down version to avoid running afoul of the treaty because among other things that would have affected the other agreements on air traffic, road traffic, agriculture and science and more (see "Implementation" in [0] again).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiat...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine_clause

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_U...