this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2026
36 points (84.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

47367 readers
1540 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@lemmy.world
36
Why don;t more presidents put stuff to a national referendum like Clinton did a couple times? A person would get time off work to vote, show what americans actually want and so on. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 day ago by Patnou@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 minutes ago

There is no national referendum in the US. Whoever told you there is has misinformed you.

Also, you think Americans get time off work to vote? Lol. Lmao, even. Americans don’t get time off to vote. ~40% of Americans didn’t vote at all in the last presidential election, and that has the largest turnout. And you think they’re going to take time off work for a (non-existent) referendum vote?

One of the biggest reasons that America’s politics skews right is because the rich and retired are the ones who have time to reliably vote, and America’s rich and retired demographics both skew conservative. Democrats have much higher numbers when you look at the raw numbers, but democrats also largely don’t vote because they’re poor working class people who can’t afford time off (or can’t set their own schedule to ensure they have time).

If a minimum wage cashier works an 8 hour shift on Election Day, you think they’re going to drive all the way across town (because conservatives ~~closed~~ “consolidated” all the polling locations in liberal areas) and spend 4 hours in line to vote after their shift? No, they’re going home to crash, because they’ve been on their feet all day and they’re exhausted.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

What exactly did Clinton do "a couple times" in regards to referendums?!

[–] Patnou@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

He once used one to poll the people on how he was doing or something. I forget the other one but it gave americans the right to say fuck congress and representation my vote finally counts. I forget what it was for tho.

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Because the US does not have referendum. Some states do, but there is no national referendum in the US. If there were the country would likely be quite different. There are issues that "both sides" agree with that neither side push for because it's not profitable. If we had a referendum we might be able get certain things passed.

Of course, you'd have to depend on those in power to do the referendum to give us a chance to vote on it anyway...

It's almost as if representative democracy isn't actually all that democratic most of the time

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Because the US does not have referendum.

I think it would probably be possible for Congress to pass a law with a clause "this law is subject to a referendum and shall go into effect only if approved by a majority of voters" or similar. That's pretty much something any legislature can do if it wants to, even if the constitution doesn't specifically authorize it. But I don't think this has ever happened in the US.

In my country the constitution specifically authorizes this and it has happened once, which resulted in a law passed by the legislature not taking effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Austrian_nuclear_power_referendum

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 1 points 58 minutes ago

I would imagine that could be possible, but it would require our political parties to want a referendum process, which is pretty antithetical to the way they operate in general. I cannot imagine that ever, ever, ever happening in the US without first having gone through a major change in our system, vis a vis the the two current parties. If, somehow, we managed to get the very progressive/green/soft socialist types in power within the democratic party the way the ultra far right have taken over the Republican party then I could see it happening, but if that were to occur then I think it's pretty likely to have followed some truly spectacular (potentially violent**) political upheaval in the country that would make the addition of referendum to our lives a footnote in the rest of what would be happening.

And that's assuming we could even get those kinds of people into power in the US, which I sincerely, genuinely doubt. But that's just my opinion.

**Pointing it out, not advocating for it

[–] Infrapink@thebrainbin.org 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

In Ireland Constitutional Amendments require a referendum to pass. It's bizarre to me that other countries leave something so important in the hands of politicians.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 hours ago

Yes, but that's not the case in all or even most countries. In my country most constitutional amendments can be made by a two-thirds majority in the legislature. Usually this involves the government coalition negotiating with one or more opposition parties to vote with them.

Of course there are other countries where there is no constitution (in the sense of a supreme law that other laws are subordinate to and can be struck down by the courts if they don't comply with it) at all, e.g. the UK.

[–] Infrapink@thebrainbin.org 2 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Hand of there's no way to do a national referendum how do they amend the Constitution?

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 hours ago

It is a whole process to amend the constitution. It requires the Congress and Senate to agree to add an amendment (there's a certain percentage of agreement required, but I can't remember the exact amount.) alternatively, 2/3rds of the states can petition for a constitutional change.

Iirc, the way it works is that it Congress to decides to add an amendment it is really only allowed to do that one thing and it's done. But, if 2/3rds of the states do it, then it is a constitutional convention, and the document itself is up for editing. As in, should we get to that point, anything about the constitution could theoretically be changed, removed, or added.

But honestly, Google to confirm, I haven't researched that in many many moons

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 16 hours ago

The process for amending the US constitution doesn't involve referendums.

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cynically? Because what they want to do rarely aligns with what people actually want. It’s far easier to just push through unpopular legislation and spin it retroactively than it is to run a full propaganda campaign ahead of a referendum and still risk losing.

Politicians only run referendums if they’re sure the outcome will be what they want, or if their hand is forced by the opposition.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

Because what they want to do rarely aligns with what people actually want.

False consensus?

Politicians only run referendums if they’re sure the outcome will be what they want, or if their hand is forced by the opposition.

Ah. APAB .

Evolve your politicians better.

[–] radix@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Can you be more specific? The US doesn't have any mechanism for a national referendum on a specific issue. Usually when people use that term, they're talking about mid-term elections (and reelection bids) being a "referendum" on a President's total popularity.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

I’m also curious as to what he’s referring to

[–] Patnou@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] radix@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

Your link doesn't mention Clinton at all, but starts with this:

Federal law does not allow national referendums in the United States where the general population gets to vote on an issue.

It happens at the State level regularly (in states where it's used), but it's not something a President can initiate.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Brexit. That's why. Don't trust a nation changing referendum to a country of mouth breathing tools that are more concerned about what Kim K. is wearing than what a policy means.

[–] flabberjabber@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Agreed. Although with the caveat that, had there been more stringent regulations surrounding misinformation and manipulation in political and media discourse for the UK, Brexit would never have been able to occur. Leave got there (and only just) through a multitude of lies and emotional manipulation.

Direct democracy is the ideal end goal of any democratic system. But for it to work, people need to be educated, healthy, stable, and both interested and invested in the political process.

We've a lot of ground to cover between then and now.

[–] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

No such thing as an american presidential referendum. What?

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 day ago

why would they? america is basically under foreign occupation, that is how much your government cares about the people.

[–] disregardable@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

You'd need to be a very popular president to do that and not embarrass yourself.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Judging by what "conservative" (far right) politicians in my country say, they specifically don't want to give people time off. Their idea of "appriate worker's/citizen's rights" is more akin to "indentured servitude".

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Because it's pointless.

It's a "feel good" thing in a Representative system.

Also, that's time off without pay. I can arrange that all on my own.