I remember when I looked at Hollingsworth's website a couple months ago, do determine who to send my vouchers to, I had the impression that there was no chance in hell I'd vote for her. She seemed like the kind of "centrist" who thinks that incremental change means that we never make any significant change (rather than making lots of small lasting changes that build up to something bigger - the former is subsidizing health insurance but keeping the market as-is, the latter is Obamacare as a step to universal healthcare).

I just looked at her website again. It's been updated, and I do not have as bad an impression of her positions. But it is still deeply troubling that she lists both property crime and violent crime in the same category, and that this leads to property crime being listed as more concerning than mental health, food access, and gun violence. She throws in the phrase "mutual aid", but based on my initial impression of her I'm skeptical that some marketer decided that this was a good buzzword to use.

And it's not like we lack reasonable alteratives. Ashifou has experience organizing and leading. He lists housing as his top priority, and favors a multi-pronged approach to solve it. He supported I-135 which bolters his credibility. When he talks about public safety, he criticizes punitive measures and again talks about a multi-pronged approach, recognizing that lack of social safety nets and inadequate mental healthcare are causes of crime.

It does not surprise me that people are sending their vouchers to Hollingsworth (particularly those in other districts - I sent all of my vouchers to in-district candidates because I have no right to meddle in other people's elections), because Sawant was a divisive figure. And some of the criticisms of her are fair - she was certainly too "firebrand" at times. But her criticisms had substance, and she was never afraid of speaking up for what is right. We kept her in office for a decade, and I am confident that we will continue to push for real change going forward.

The voucher program exists to fund candidates who otherwise might not have access to donor bases or other resources. We’re seeing here two women of color, from heritages of activist citizenship and deep roots in their communities, getting the money they need to fund serious campaigns. They don’t start by having to promise anything to any donors. If they want to tap into business donations later, they can do that.

This is such a watery bad take. It's like saying if we fund public schools, there's a danger we might provide education to kids whose parents disagree with you on one or two pet issues. If we create homeless shelters, there's a danger those services might get used by an old guy who doesn't like rap music. If we pass universal healthcare, it might inadvertently give health care benefits to that auntie who always wants to bug you about Jesus.

Yeesh. It's not as big of a stinker as when the Stranger defended the violent gun nut who put my kids' school on lockdown and shot a cop a few weeks back, but still, "democracy vouchers are getting used to help black people I don't like" is just, ugh. Is this a joke? Is this, like, straw man bait to get the comment section spicy?

I BURN those horrid democracy vouchers IMMEDIATELY upon receiving. I suggest everyone else do the same.

At least there isn’t a complete grifter collecting those vouchers this cycle like the last mayoral race.

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

Mailed all my vouchers to Tanya, much more exciting race than my district. Thanks Stranger for turning me on to her with your bio! Appreciate some new voices; it’s all gone tech bro urbanists lately.

@6 Geez, thanks for that, I had somehow missed that story.

"Houston stands out insofar as he was the first candidate in that primary to reach the fundraiser cap off democracy vouchers, but ultimately failed to make waves in the election — garnering more democracy vouchers than actual votes."

"Just shy of $164,000 of those expenses were billed to Prism West, the brainchild of Riall Johnson, a former professional football player turned political consultant. While Prism provides general political consulting — their services range from digital advertising to creating campaign mailers — much of their work on the Houston campaign involved canvassing for democracy vouchers."

So, what happened there is Seattle taxpayers, subject to the most regressive tax system in the United States, funneled tens of thousands of dollars to a for-profit company that is in the business of soliciting democracy vouchers. While the general concept of democracy vouchers seems like a reasonable idea on the surface, in practice, it just encourages new and different kinds of abuse of campaign finance issues.