Who Voted For These People????

[Fingerlakes Fireplace]

​ ​ Dear NEHPBA Members, As you know, the New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) has been passed! The draft has been written and it includes: Moratoriums on new gas infrastructure - immediately NO new natural gas service to existing buildings - immediately Prohibit natural gas, propane, and oil equipment in new homes by 2024 Prohibit traditional heating systems in existing homes by 2030 Ban use of natural gas appliances (dryers/stoves/etc) in homes by 2030. NO GASOLINE VEHICLES sold in New York by 2035. The only way to amend this draft is to establish a record of public comment. Public comments are being accepted now. It is imperative that New Yorker’s build a record of comment. The Climate Action Council (CAC) can only make changes to the CLCPA based on the record in front of them. Therefore, it is very important that you click the link below & send this letter to the Governor Hochul and the CAC to create that record. CLICK HERE: https://hpba.quorum.us/campaign/38462/​ It is VERY important to understand a couple of things: The Draft, as written, is not unanimous but it has been “passed.” The Draft can only be changed based on the record that is created through public comments, SO people who want it changed MUST SUBMIT COMMENTS. There is NO vote for New Yorkers on the final version of CLCPA. Once the final draft is created (redrafting will begin May 1) only the CAC and Governor Hochul vote on its passage. So again, a record MUST be created or they get to vote on this as written. SHARE THIS LINK with family, friends, employees, subcontractors, other business people you know! In the body of the letter, feel free to edit the first sentence: Change business owner, homeowner, add resident, add doing business in NY -- whatever is appropriate. Please act now! Thank you,

 

[CreoSophist]

I understand your frustration with these absurd measures. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter all that much who voted for these people.

There was a paper from 2014 that faced some criticism, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Special Interest Groups and Average Citizens. They looked at 1,779 policy changes from 1981 to 2002. In 2015 Martin Gillens did a followup where he looked at 2,245 policy changes from 1964 to 2006. And what these guys found was that policy changes were driven entirely by elite opinion, and to a lesser extent, special interest groups.

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

Whether the average citizens 90% opposed a policy, or 90% supported a policy it still had about 30% chance of happening. With “economic elites,” the story is radically different. If they all oppose something, it doesn’t pass. If they all support it, it’ll have a roughly 60% chance of getting passed. For interest groups, the important effects are around the middle, where interest group start net supporting a change.

In other words, there was no grass roots campaign of voters who wanted to make heating your house illegal.
I understand it's likely your title was a rhetorical question, but regardless it's an important point for people to understand if they think elections and policy are related in any significant way.

 

[Fingerlakes Fireplace]

I understand your frustration with these absurd measures. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter all that much who voted for these people.

There was a paper from 2014 that faced some criticism, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Special Interest Groups and Average Citizens. They looked at 1,779 policy changes from 1981 to 2002. In 2015 Martin Gillens did a followup where he looked at 2,245 policy changes from 1964 to 2006. And what these guys found was that policy changes were driven entirely by elite opinion, and to a lesser extent, special interest groups.

View attachment 292560​

Whether the average citizens 90% opposed a policy, or 90% supported a policy it still had about 30% chance of happening. With “economic elites,” the story is radically different. If they all oppose something, it doesn’t pass. If they all support it, it’ll have a roughly 60% chance of getting passed. For interest groups, the important effects are around the middle, where interest group start net supporting a change.

In other words, there was no grass roots campaign of voters who wanted to make heating your house illegal.
I understand it's likely your title was a rhetorical question, but regardless it's an important point for people to understand if they think elections and policy are related in any significant way.

I partially agree with you...
However if the people that are pushing for this, and/or will pass this agenda, knew that if they will get voted out for passing this, do you think they would be willing to sacrifice they're political career for the claimed reduction in "climate Change"?
I don't think so...

 

[all night moe]

I partially agree with you...
However if the people that are pushing for this, and/or will pass this agenda, knew that if they will get voted out for passing this, do you think they would be willing to sacrifice they're political career for the claimed reduction in "climate Change"?
I don't think so...

You better think again.
I will say no more. Politics are ugly.

 

[bholler]

I partially agree with you...
However if the people that are pushing for this, and/or will pass this agenda, knew that if they will get voted out for passing this, do you think they would be willing to sacrifice they're political career for the claimed reduction in "climate Change"?
I don't think so...

Well if they won't get voted out of office for it the majority of voters from your state must want that

 

[bholler]

File Not Found - New York's Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act

climate.ny.gov

Here is a link to read the actual plan. Btw I don't agree with the plan at all. I am all for reduced emissions and increased energy efficiency. But some parts of this plan are moving way to fast

 

[stoveliker]

Well if they won't get voted out of office for it the majority of voters from your state must want that

That is also not entirely true; voting for one of two candidate representatives inevitably leads to compromises. There are many issues in politics that are deemed untouchable for many voters (on either side). So many votes are cast by folks having one of such all-overriding issues they care about - and relatively minor things are the compromise they make to be able to vote for their principles.

Not saying wood burning is a minor issue, but in all honesty, it is a minor issue for most folks.

And then there are folks who vote without regard to anything than the letter behind the name.

 

[bholler]

That is also not entirely true; voting for one of two candidate representatives inevitably leads to compromises. There are many issues in politics that are deemed untouchable for many voters (on either side). So many votes are cast by folks having one of such all-overriding issues they care about - and relatively minor things are the compromise they make to be able to vote for their principles.

Not saying wood burning is a minor issue, but in all honesty, it is a minor issue for most folks.

And then there are folks who vote without regard to anything than the letter behind the name.

This plan doesn't address wood burning from what I saw. Pretty much all fossil fuels.

Although many people claimed it did cover wood

 

[stoveliker]

Evidently I did not read the plan - I feel my influence is zero anyway (confirmed by that study regarding voters and "elites").

So I commented on the thing I have a perspective on. We'll see how it goes. My stove is on again, after having been away for a few days

 

[Fingerlakes Fireplace]

Well if they won't get voted out of office for it the majority of voters from your state must want that

Oh no. We cant vote people like this out of office!
That would be crossing party lines, and sheeple like you don't do that.

 

[CreoSophist]

I partially agree with you...
However if the people that are pushing for this, and/or will pass this agenda, knew that if they will get voted out for passing this, do you think they would be willing to sacrifice they're political career for the claimed reduction in "climate Change"?
I don't think so...

In theory, yes. In practice, no. How many NY voters know/care about this agenda? 1%? 5%? Additionally 25-30% of your states voter-base does not know how to read and is bused to the polls by party operators.

One of the big benefits for the system in a universal suffrage representative "democracy", and I am quoting someone else here, is that:

As a politician, you’re an actor within a government. You are not intimately tied to the general health of the country. In fact if you’re a senator, you can gesticulate and claim that you had nothing to do with anything bad that happened, or anything perceived to be bad that happened in the country. Even as president in the US, you can say your ability to act was constrained by the congress or the courts, that you only had four or eight years to implement your plan. And maybe it really is true. Maybe there is no single actor or group of actors that you can blame in the US. The buck doesn’t stop anywhere.

In the US, you can pick a side. And then if anything goes wrong it’s either because of the other side. Or if your policy is implemented and that went wrong, well “it’s because those lousy Democrats corrupted the policy”, or “the Republican crippled Obamacare, it wasn’t really what we wanted.” There’s all sorts of games you can play. The system is sufficiently complicated that you can always find some plausible out. So the buck never stops anywhere.

In other electoral authoritarian regimes the public knows that the elections are a sham. But what if you had an electoral authoritarian regime where the public was well and truly conned, and truly believed that elections mattered. Well you’d have a level of control beyond any dictatorship. Because at least open dictatorships now have the burden and the odiom of being a dictatorship. And have the policy buck stopping at them.

Anyways, don't get too down about it. It's highly unlikely the United States will make it to 2035 in its current political form.

 

[all night moe]

Oh no. We cant vote people like this out of office!
That would be crossing party lines, and sheeple like you don't do that.

This comment is out of line. For your record I myself am far from the flock.

All you are accomplishing is more division. Just like the elite want. Nice job.

Since I let myself get dragged in this, just now, I will add that they don't get voted out due to the cesspool of critters occupying NYC. The majority of NY's population is centered in the rotten apple with a few other NY cities trailing in. The rural conservative voters get out numbered.

 

[all night moe]

Anyways, don't get too down about it. It's highly unlikely the United States will make it to 2035 in its current political form

This all has been a very long time coming. See the act of 1871 set forth by congress.
The end of the republic.
It has been a slow painful death. We are witnessing the end.

 

[CreoSophist]

This all has been a very long time coming. See the act of 1871 set forth by congress.
The end of the republic.
It has been a slow painful death. We are witnessing the end.

Things like this tend to happen very slowly, then all at once.

 

[bholler]

That's enough of that