Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    25 Sep '17 10:35
    Some states already allow for referendums, but should the federal government do so as well?

    Initial responses may be "look at Brexit" as a cautionary tale against referendums. But, since lobbying has such a heavy influence on U.S. government, would it be better to move at least some decisions to the public?

    Republicans are making yet another move to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Much of their actions are driven by corporate interests, such as insurers who don't want to lose money covering preexisting conditions (among other aspects of the ACA).

    Since the life or death of the ACA is constantly being fought in the court of public opinion, (through polls, news outlets, independent media like YouTube, blogs, etc.), then why not have a referendum on the ACA?

    The ACA's demise or continuance seems heavily influenced by how senators think the public will feel about their vote. However, the power of lobbyists far outweighs public opinion—a major problem for the legislative process.

    Since the issue of healthcare has a much more immediate and tangible impact on U.S. citizens, why not have a referendum?

    Obviously, some decisions such as war would be a horrible idea to allow via referendum. Any issue which could devastate Americans or those abroad shouldn't be left to public votes; but, could it work for at least some topics? Or are Americans too misinformed and easily swayed for this to be a good idea? Would a referendum on the ACA be worse than lobbyists deciding our future?