Democracy is not paying people who are against your political convictions.

Please vote no on Seattle Prop 1.

So Democracy vouchers inflicted Teresa Mosqueda on us?

That would make a great ad for the No on Democracy Vouchers campaign.

Is this a joke?

What a great reason to not just vote NO but vote FUCK NO

Mosqueda road the wave of leftist lunatics that centered drug addicts from Florida and Texas in our city’s public spaces and handed them tents and fentanyl pipes. Fuck her and far left drug and homeless policy. Democratic Vouchers and District elections made it possible.

@5
Please remember that District elections played little role in the City Council's lurch to the far left. Mosqueda's seat was the city wide position 8 seat and Sawant's first electoral victory was before districting in a city wide election.

Also Pete Holmes, and M. Lorena Gonzalez are two other extremists who had continuing victories in city wide races.

The whole concept of District elections was hatched by conservative activist Faye Garneau who also funded the campaign for it.

So just stop with blaming district elections for the city council's previous extreme leftist makeup. It has more to do with the top-two primary system benefiting extremist candidates, the low-turnout, odd-year elections that favor candidates with motivated "movements" and the fact that Seattle is basically a huge college town. Because of its size it's easy to forget that we are basically in the granola-belt along with Berkley, Boulder, and Madison.

@6 Mosqueda was (and is) still terrible.

Plus, she's a poser.

She parades herself around as a Latina--her great grandfather was Mexican. However, she's as much Norwegian-American as she is Mexican--but she keeps that very quiet.

@7

I'm not arguing that she isn't terrible. I'm just pointing out that the change from at-large to district city council elections had nothing to do with her rise to prominence.

@5 was repeating a common bugaboo that the switch to district elections somehow made the Seattle City Council more progressive. The fact is the push to move to district elections was promoted by some of the most conservative, even reactionary, voices in Seattle politics.

Since the change moderates like Saka and Kettle have won district races, while progressives like Mosqueda and Rinck have won city wide races. It has more to do with the quality of the candidates, while I supported Tanya Woo and her policies, there's no doubt she was a poor politician.

We need more candidates like Nelson. It's appaling that Rinck is essentially running unopposed.

Just a reminder that the voucher program also brought Andrew "Ace" Houston who collected a ton of vouchers and basically got no voters. The only thing those voucher did was enrich the consultants who helped him harvest them.

https://mynorthwest.com/local/seattle-recent-election-reveals-success-democracy-vouchers/3475537

Wow, 10 comments against, 0 for.

Democracy vouchers have been a complete object failure with a lower than 5% usage rate. They drive up property taxes, which is not exclusive to property owners. Increased property taxes get passed on to renters in the form of rent increases. Vote no and put this stupid experiment to bed once and for all.

@10: I didn’t offer an opinion on democracy vouchers themselves. I merely noted what many others have already written, which is that, “democracy vouchers empowered Mosqueda,” was NOT an argument likely to help democracy vouchers.

Seattle Times: Vote No

This editorial puts to rest all the talking points. Big private money is still rolling into campaigns and they haven't increased voter participation.

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/the-seattle-times-editorial-board-recommends-vote-no-on-democracy-vouchers-renewal/

@12: Well it's 10 to 0 now and your caveat is a distinction without much of a difference.

I'd vote yes on Democracy Vouchers because the elections are otherwise controlled by big money interests and average people can't run for office unless they're totally in the pocket of these other characters.

However. I think the program needs to be better protect the privacy of people making contributions. After I made a contribution, suddenly my email was on every disgusting spammer's mailing list, which includes people into fraud, porn, you name it. I am literally afraid to make a donation to someone again because of whatever seems to be happening to your name and email when you do this.

Still, the concept is important enough to keep fighting for, but the people who make donations within this framework need to have their privacy protected. And no one seems to be representing on that direly needed reform and so that people can actually use the Democracy Vouchers system SAFELY.

@14: Never heard of a tie, eh? ;-)

Your ability to ignore plain English statements, remaining totally on-message, is not in doubt here, dear. No need to display it any more.

@14: There's not a tie. There's only one pro-vouchers.

@17: My point was Phoebe should have scored it 9-0-1 at that point, because I had offered no opinion on democracy vouchers. Maybe they do things differently in Wallingford? ;-)

@18 - Tensora, I acknowledged my mistake in @9 after @11's comment by saying: "Well it's 10 to 0 now"

Why wasn't that good enough for you?

Although the execution had been less than ideal (@9 points out how Ace seemingly abused the system), I still think the idea is worth extending (granted it’s things like this that make living in Seattle less affordable). My only hope is if it does pass, the City do a better job ensuring the funds go towards legitimate need (for example, our likely top two mayoral candidates hardly need this funding).

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good - vote yes.