Proponents argue that it would preserve cultural heritage and appeal to those who value traditional designs. Opponents argue that it would stifle innovation and limit the design freedom of car manufacturers.
Response rates from 941 Left voters.
13% Yes |
87% No |
13% Yes |
87% No |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 941 Left voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 941 Left voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Left voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@B39JDXJ4mos4MO
This should be up to the individual not the government.
@B2ZJH9G5mos5MO
no everybody deserves to own whatever car they want but something should be done to all cars to lower carbon emmisions
@B2Y4YCB5mos5MO
Classic aesthetics should be mandated as at least one per current inventory however modern cars should still be developed.
@B2XJCNN5mos5MO
Should be worring about quity and saftey not nessisarily estetics
@B2TWT9H5mos5MO
Not too technology. For example, not having autopilot in cars.
@B2DQ5HF6mos6MO
Yes, that means internal combustion engines. Stop telling us that you will force us to buy electric cars by 2035, how are you going to provide the infrastructure with our climate? Imagine providing street chargers to all the people that live in places with no driveways like Verdun, it's insane. Plus, I don't think the technology is going to be sufficient for snow clearing and god forbid we have another ice storm that knocks out electricity for weeks. Politicians who say we should all have electric cars by 2035 need to be thrown out of parliament.
@B2CMT6Q 6mos6MO
In some cases, the outlying aesthetic of a vehicle can pose a number of safety risks, and government safety organizations should be expected to address these concerns or risks.
@B279XJN6mos6MO
Regardless, vehicles should have physical buttons rather than screens to prevent potential accidents.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
