[Braxton1980]

The majority of tax payers voted for this to happen

[anon7000]

And the majority of tax payers voted for the previous admin too, which started this offshore wind project in the first place.

[Braxton1980]

Ok? And?

The majority voted to move in one direction then the majority wanted to reverse it.

[sgerenser]

Plurality, not majority. (Not that I’m excusing the dumb dumbs who decided not voting was a viable course of action when they decided that “both sides” were running bad candidates).

[Braxton1980]

"Both sides"

Both candidates weren't equally bad. That is always the situation and you must choose the least worse or best candidate.

[tomjakubowski]

With Trump getting a little bit less than half the vote and a 65% turnout, "did not vote" was the plurality.

[JumpCrisscross]

Which is functionally a vote for the status quo. Someone who can't bother to vote isn't going to bother e.g. protesting or otherwise affirming their rights.

[datsci_est_2015]

Or defeatism. Discouragement campaigns go a long way: “both sides are bad so don’t vote!”

[hedora]

So, in this case, "plurality" means "third place".

[Braxton1980]

Not voting is a choice and the same as voting for the winner

[justinclift]

> Not that I’m excusing the dumb dumbs who decided not voting was a viable course of action when they decided that “both sides” were running bad candidates

Sounds like both candidates were terrible enough that quite a few didn't bother?

[Braxton1980]

1.They weren't equally bad.

2. Not voting still results in one being elected. This isn't the same as being offered two foods you don't like and declining to eat either.

3. The judgment on the quality of the candidates is likely mostly based on misinformation and manipulation by others.

[collingreen]

I didn't see this particular policy on the ballot. I hope you use this logic uniformly when deciding if it is valid to care about a particular policy.

[tomjakubowski]

Many taxpayers are non-citizens or convicted felons and cannot vote. Turnout of citizens who were eligible to vote last election was 65%. Of those, 49.8% voted for Trump. Some portion of them likely did not vote with this specific policy in mind.

[Braxton1980]

>Some portion of them likely did not vote with this specific policy in mind.

Their fault. The Republican party has been quite open about being a against environmentalism and related policies.

[ericfr11]

Voted for what? More pollution, more expensive gas, more expensive electricity??

[danans]

> Voted for what? More pollution, more expensive gas, more expensive electricity??

Yes, but the hope is that the downside happens to the people you don't like, and you somehow only get the upside.

[jojomodding]

Well, yes. The GOP's disdain for renewables is well-known and not recent.