People who have more money should be able to buy more government.

Rich people are smarter (wise choice of parents or hard work and skill) and should have more to say about government than, for example, the average idiot SLOGist.

So of course rich folks votes should count more. In fact this one person one vote is just pure wimpy liberalism: voting power should be directly correlated to net worth. If you are worth ten dollars (most SLOGites) you get ten votes. If you are worth a million then you get a million votes. It's simple, fair and efficient.

Bright ideas brought to you by the Republican Party. :)

I'm not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good here...just a suggestion for improvement: $100 is a lot. Seems to me $40 is plenty sufficient to motivate candidates to try for the coupons.

Right now, candidates can either write a check for the $1200 filing fee to get onto the ballot. Or in lieu of that dollar fee, they can raise signatures. That is what I am doing - and I think the only other candidate doing that is Kshama Sawant. If you truly want grassroots, mandate that All candidates must get onto the ballot by signature gathering.

So how would you prevent a rich person from buying other people's vouchers? To give the voucher to a candidate you would do what? In person with ID? Too cumbersome. But how do you check to make sure the person giving the voucher IS the person named?

G g: Those of us who designed the policy did a lot of research, modeling, and calculating to choose the right amount of vouchers. We concluded that $100 is the right amount. It gives candidates a clear path to raising enough money to be competitive in modern campaigns, whether their opponents opt in or not. Nothing about this was just made up. Lots of analysis.

Amanda Kay Helmick: To qualify for Democracy Vouchers, candidates will have to show support from lots of voters, by collecting small contributions from hundreds of people.

Westelo: Good questions. "So how would you prevent a rich person from buying other people's vouchers?" 1. By making that a crime -- a serious crime that could bring a huge fine or prison time, sort of like buying votes. 2. By giving the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission authority to eject from the program any candidates who benefit from such fraud. 3. By making the entire system of Democracy Vouchers transparent and open for anyone to inspect, online or at the SEEC offices. The media, activists, authorities, opposing campaigns, and Slog readers will be able to see who is giving vouchers to whom and, if they're suspicious, go investigate. Essentially, we crowdsourced the enforcement. It will be like a game of cards with everyone's cards turned face up: kind of boring but extremely hard to cheat.

"To give the voucher to a candidate you would do what? In person with ID? Too cumbersome. But how do you check to make sure the person giving the voucher IS the person named?"

You write in the candidate's name and sign the affidavit on the voucher, just like you sign the affidavit on your ballot envelope. You can hand it to the candidate, to a campaign worker, to the SEEC, mail it to the SEEC, send it by courier, or whatever else you choose. It's like a check. SEEC confirms your signature against the voter registration file, using the exact same system that King County Elections checks the signatures on every ballot envelope processed in local elections, then SEEC sends money to candidates at least twice a month.

There will also be an online system as soon as it's bombproof. King County elections already uses online voting or Conservation District board and for remote voters: those serving in the military overseas and those who lose their ballot at the last minute locally. Online vouchers will be similarly secure. Also, remember, the whole system is transparent: you can go online and make sure your voucher went to the candidate you chose.

Alan, were your models based on the typical number of candidates we've had in the past decade of citywide elections or the 40+ we've had in this coming district=based election ?

Personally, I think this would quickly degenerate into armies of doorbellers hoping to gobble up donations from citizens who might just want to get back inside their home to enjoy their non-work time rather than deal with said doorbeller. They'll be swarming neighborhoods like PacMen eating the pellets.

"doom": The proposal was not designed by "the enemy," It was designed by a number of people dedicated to improving a clearly dysfunctional, money driven electoral system. "The enemy" has made it very difficult to fix similar problems starting at the national level. We need to "act locally" to create a workable alternative for reducing the power of money.

A Cranky Blogger Crusades to Preserve the Ordinary in New York

“What’s happening in the city now isn’t gentrification — it’s hyper-gentrification,” he said one day last month, brooding over coffee in a gentrified diner in the gentrified East Village, where he has resided, begrudgingly of late, for more than 20 years. “New York has traditionally changed organically: Italians move out, Chinese move in. But this is not organic. This is planned, it’s strategic. It’s the city government and major corporations colluding together to recreate the landscape.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/nyregi…

@3 - "If you truly want grassroots, mandate that All candidates must get onto the ballot by signature gathering."

That would only be truly grassroots if you prevented them from using paid signature gatherers... which would have a hard time surviving a court challenge.

All of these programs are likely to increase the role of money in the election system. By creating a Joffrey Bucks system, it'll make the ability to get around campaign finance rules (ie, have money) even more valuable. Needless to say, these aren't tools in the hands of regular citizens. At least presently, there is a chance that Joe Schoe can put money together, convince other people with money, to support their issue. Look at Tim Eyman.

He ain't rich, but he did use the system to push through issues that weren't exactly popular. You can think he's a dirtbag and still without shame adopt his methods.

13, that's an absurd claim, that Timmie is representative of what any Joe Schoe can do. Eyman was financially supported by a succession of a few right wing millionaires. Besides, most of his attempts at making public policy were failures, the major exception being when the Legislature (twice!) passed his crap into law after the state supreme court found his measures to be illegal.

BRILLIANT!!

No doubt Republicans would try to make it illegal.

Chef Joe, you wrote: "Alan, were your models based on the typical number of candidates we've had in the past decade of citywide elections or the 40+ we've had in this coming district=based election?" Our models included scenarios similar to past numbers of candidates and to numbers of candidates much larger than in this year's race.

One thing to keep in mind is that the number of candidates skyrockets when there is an open seat -- one with no incumbent. This year, virtually all of the seats are open. That is, even where an incumbent is running, s/he is running in a new district. The sole exception is the at-large seat that Tim Burgess is seeking.

Also, the question of how many candidates is not really how many have filed but how many are running competitive campaigns. The Honest Elections Seattle Initiative gives exciting candidates who lack rolodexes of rich friends a viable path to office.

Doorbelling will increase but mostly by candidates. I doubt voters will give their vouchers to campaign volunteers. They'll want to meet the candidate. Just a guess. The point of the program, however, is that it tells candidates to put down the phones on which they've been dialing for dollars and instead go talk to voters. At the door. At houseparties. At farmers' markets and street festivals and union halls and churches and community forums. It makes every voter not only a vote but also a potential contributor.

@18, there are two at-large seats.

Yes, Sarah91. Thanks. I wrote in abbreviated form. There are two at-large seats. But only one of them is "open" insofar as no incumbent is running for it. Sally Clark was going to run for it, and then she dropped out. So it's open now.

More precisely stated: The only seat on the city council anywhere in the city where there is an incumbent in the race who has previously run and won in the exact same district/geographic area is the at-large seat that Tim Burgess is running for.

This is brilliant idea if implemented in the right way. what if someone throw big party in the block and invite every one to support his candidate #free food and drink . You only need to give out paper voucher and again it's not must . I think many people will get the dinner and ticket for drink and do away with the voucher .

Great, I would have to subsidize candidates I abhor. So much of what "progressives" propose destroys my Liberty .... I won't sign.

22 -- Yes, and your taxes also support a library where people can learn how to be more open minded.

Problem: limiting vouchers to registered voters locks out a lot of folks, especially people of color. :(

@24: Vouchers would be accessible to anyone legally eligible to make a political donation under federal law (registered voters + unregistered citizens, convicted felons, immigrants with green cards, etc). Unfortunately, undocumented immigrants would not be eligible to receive vouchers, but they aren't legally able to make a political donation anyway.