fbpx
Donate Newsletters

Collection: What Democracy Looks Like

Honest Elections Seattle Bans “Pay to Play”

by

In 2013, when then-state senator Ed Murray was running for mayor of Seattle, his campaign asked Microsoft for the maximum allowed political contribution, which was $700 that year, and the company obliged. Murray was not alone in benefiting from Microsoft’s largesse: the software maker distributed similar contributions to a bevy of candidates that year and … Read more

Listen In: “It Gives Everyone—from a Dishwasher to a Bank President—a Voice”

by

Where did Honest Elections Seattle I-122 come from? Who’s behind it? Why vouchers? And what’s it all about? Sightline executive director Alan Durning recently spoke with KEXP Mind Over Matters host Diane Horn to address these questions and others. The full 25 minutes are worth a listen, and you can listen in here, but some highlights are below.

On how Honest Elections Seattle limits the power of Big Money to influence our elected officials and their policy decisions (5:30):

We’ve banned contributions from entities that spend a lot of money lobbying City Hall, and we’ve banned contributions from entities that make big money getting contracts from City Hall. A candidate shouldn’t be collecting money from businesses whose whole economic future depends on the regulations that those city councilors are making at that time.

The bottom line of “democracy vouchers” (7:30):

It will turn everyone from a dishwasher to a bank president into a $100 donor from the perspective of the candidate. It gives everyone a voice.

On why this is the best solution for democracy reform, even under decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon (8:20):

Read more

The Seattle Times’ Four Critiques of Honest Elections Seattle…

by

The Seattle Times recently editorialized against I-122 Honest Elections Seattle. Its arguments include a litany of errors. To set the record straight, I’ll repost and correct each of the editorial board’s four points.

The Times writes:

The proposal counts on people not participating. . . . Only about . . . 13 percent . . . of the vouchers could be redeemed before the money runs out. While the initiative suggests all voters should have a chance to contribute to campaigns — using taxpayer dollars — it assumes only a small percentage of voters would actually bother to do so, even when the money doesn’t come out of their own pockets. More money, more apathy.

The truth is that Honest Elections Seattle projects and counts on more people giving to local campaigns than ever seen in Seattle or anywhere else in the United States. I-122 gives Democracy Vouchers to every registered voter in the city, giving them a chance to have a voice in local politics as never before. In my dreams, everyone would treasure and use those vouchers. In reality, most people will not. Vouchers start from a baseline of political giving that could hardly be lower: In Seattle’s 2013 elections only 1.5 percent of city adults made campaign contributions.

Read more

Listen In: How Oregon Leads on Voting Rights

by

Last year, Oregon continued its leadership in voting rights by passing the New Motor Voter law and starting to automatically register eligible voters. (California has since followed Oregon’s lead.) Oregon’s Bus Project has been a champion of voting rights—this week on XRAY Radio’s Thank You Democracy, The Bus Project’s Executive Director, Nikki Fisher, and I … Read more

Proportional Representation is Better than Winner-Take-All Voting

by

[prettyquote align=”right”]”Cascadia voters could steer clear of the perils of district-only voting by choosing the safe harbor of proportional representation.”[/prettyquote] On November’s ballot, Whatcom County voters will see two proposed charter amendments to alter the way they elect county councilors. One would change to district-only voting, and the other would keep countywide voting but switch from three districts to five during primary elections. In my last two articles, I described how district-only voting fails voters while countywide voting serves them better. Despite its abysmal performance, district-only voting lures Cascadian localities with its siren song. Some, like Whatcom, are drawn in when moneyed interests hope to use it to their advantage; others seek it as a supposed cure to an illegal lack of representation (Yakima); while others follow calls for accountability (Seattle) or more geographically diverse representation (Portland). But there is another way.

Read more

Countywide Voting Is Better than District-Only Voting

by

[prettyquote align=”right”]”By preserving county-wide voting in general elections, the five-district option maintains better representation and council cooperation.”[/prettyquote]

Whatcom County, Washington, is exploring voting options that are instructive for voters throughout Cascadia. In my last article, I described the deficiencies of Whatcom’s district-only proposal. Now I describe how the competing five-district charter amendment measures up relative to five possible voter expectations about representative democracy. Next time, I will analyze proportional representation.

The county-council-sponsored five-district proposal would retain Whatcom’s system of district-only primary elections and countywide general elections, but would replace the current three districts with five smaller districts. Currently, all county voters select two councilors from each district and one at-large. If the five-district amendment passes, voters would select one councilor from each district and two at-large.

By preserving countywide voting in general elections, the five-district option maintains better representation and council cooperation. By drawing districts around more contiguous communities instead of slicing and dicing Bellingham, five districts would give urban and rural voters a better shot at electing like-minded councilors. (The map below roughly approximates where the new district boundaries might fall).

Read more

How Money Gets into Our Politicians’ Pockets

by

Editor’s Note September 2016: Washington state’s democracy reform initiative, which aims to put everyday people back in control of government, is swinging into high gear as the November elections inch closer. But how does big money get into politicians’ pockets in the first place? Here’s our quick and easy primer. Political donations are a tangled web. Convoluted with layers … Read more

District-Only Voting Is Bad for Voters, Councilors, and Communities

by

[prettyquote align=”right”]”Whatcom’s electoral options showcase how some voting systems enhance democratic representation, while others degrade it.”[/prettyquote]

A proposed new coal export facility just north of Bellingham, Washington, has created a furor of electoral activity as proponents and opponents of dirty fuels vie for control of the Whatcom County Council. But champions of representative democracy should also take notice: Whatcom’s electoral options showcase how some voting systems enhance democratic representation, while others degrade it.

In November, Whatcom voters will have the chance to vote on two potential amendments to the County Charter. The first would switch to district-only voting for six out of seven council seats with one seat at-large. The second would retain the current system of district-only primaries and countywide general elections, but would redraw the district boundaries to create five new districts in place of the current three. Unfortunately, voters will not have the opportunity this fall to vote on proportional representation because conservative Charter Review commissioners blocked it from going to the ballot.

What do voters want in a representative democracy? Voters expect 1) to elect councilors who reflect their views and 2) that the council overall will reflect the views of voters overall. Voters expect councilors 3) to be responsive to concerned citizens and 4) to work together to craft county solutions. Finally, voters might hope 5) that regular people, like them, could run for office.

Read more

Beware Whatcom District Voting

by

Whatcom County, Washington, is a battleground in Cascadia’s fight to hold the Thin Green Line against fossil fuels. The fight against the Gateway Pacific coal export terminal also provides a window into how democracy is broken in North America—and how we can fix it.

“The fight against the Gateway Pacific coal export terminal also provides a window into how democracy is broken in North America—and how we can fix it“

November’s ballot will offer Whatcom voters two options for changing their voting system: one that will make their Council far less representative of county voters, and one that will make it slightly more so. Voters will not have the option to approve proportional representation—a voting system that would guarantee the Council accurately mirrors the people.

The first option—I’ll call it the three-district option—would keep the current county district boundaries but switch from at-large elections to district voting for six out of seven seats. The second, five-district option would keep the county’s current voting system—district primaries and countywide voting in the general election—but would create five new districts in place of the current three.  A switch to district voting with the three-district option could have profound implications for Whatcom and for coal exports, possibly enabling pro-coal conservatives to consistently win four out of seven council seats and give the green light to a huge new coal export terminal. But Whatcom’s choice offers larger lessons for voters across Cascadia about the risks of district-only voting.

Read more

Why Big Coal Likes Gerrymandered Districts

by

Coal companies want to build the biggest coal export terminal in North America just north of Bellingham, Washington. The Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point would send more than 48 million tons of coal a year to Asia. Most Washington voters oppose exporting coal through the Evergreen state, so the moneyed interests that would profit from the coal terminal have enlisted conservative politicians in Whatcom County in a crusade to ensure that coal wins, whether voters like it or not. Here are coal interests’ strategies to circumvent voters in Whatcom County.

Coal Strategy #1: Buy the Whatcom County Council Election

In 2013, coal interests spent more than $170,000 through the SaveWhatcom PAC and Whatcom First PAC to try to elect candidates who would give coal the green light. (The Public Disclosure Commission fined the two pro-coal PACs $4,500 for illegally funneling money through the Republican Party and failing to report their contributions in a timely manner.) In addition to donating to the PAC, SSA Marine, a Seattle company that would build the coal terminal, is funding an ongoing campaign in support of the project. But clean energy proponents out-spent coal in this round: Washington Conservation Voters, bolstered by $275,000 from the NextGen Climate Action Super PAC, spent $330,000 on county campaigns. Anti-coal terminal candidates swept the election, winning all four of the Council races. Coal interests lost the battle, so they switched tactics.

Read more

+ More