🏅 Top traders

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-08/2022-california-election-prop-26-27-sports-betting-results

note these ought to be correlated

https://manifold.markets/barak/prop-27-ca-nov-2022-legalize-online

September 2-11 PPIC poll says 34% voting yes, 54% voting no on Prop 27

https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-september-2022/

Featured because
1. to highlight the ca 2022 ballot group, an election a lot of our users may vote in
2. its about gambling
3. if 26 and 27 both pass, only the one with more votes becomes law, so the % yes vote markets for them are more interesting

Ugh, I hate that this is a prop. Props are a pain to amend or recall if they turn out to be a terrible idea in practice iirc

@hamnox yup! like this one would lock in all the funds raised from taxing online gambling to be only used for mental health programs and homeless programs (and no more than 40% of that can go to temporary housing).

imo this is the level of specificity that doesn't belong in a constitution. It's good that unlike other countries, US does all its laws on layer 2, and that layer 1 is terse enough for high schoolers to learn every amendment in their gov class.

@Sinclair Yeah, I actually think that California's process to allow greater direct democracy is net positive, but I think they should've just made it so these props pass as normal statutes rather than constitutional amendments. It's easy to have language in the constitution that bars the state legislature from amending laws passed via the direct process for a period of time and/or without a popular vote on the changes, if that was what they were looking for.