35 thoughts on “Seattle voters will soon get $100 in ‘democracy vouchers’ to donate to candidates

  1. So what is the difference between me donating my money and the gov’t taking my money and then giving it back to me to donate? Ah liberals and their good ideas.Report

            1. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

              There are proposals afoot to socialize the entire Police department, and have the government take over the sewer lines.

              Truly, we will stop at nothing.Report

              1. Sure, one or two. Maybe a third one but conservatives don’t run the place, no matter how you try to frame it. If this is such a great thing then wave the red flag proudlyReport

              2. notme,
                You oughta remember that just because they got a D beside their name, don’t exactly mean they’re liberal. Plenty of conservatives do that, and more in places you don’t expect than places you do.

                Machines are always conservative, after all.Report

              3. Based on the names, and clicking through to the web sites of some of the more ambiguous ones, I don’t see a single identifiably conservative organization on that list, and the vast majority are clearly left-wing. It’s possible that some of the individuals are conservative or centrist, but from what I can see this list supports notme’s assumptions.

                Edit: Didn’t realize that this was from a week ago.Report

  2. How does one become a “candidate”?

    If these were funds that would have gone to candidates anyway and are now still going there but the direction is being determined by the voters, that has both pros and cons.

    If this is on top of existing funding, I see mostly cons.

    I think?Report

    1. Thinking further…

      Using existing funds:
      Pros – getting funding to non-major party candidates; no additional costs to taxpayers
      Cons – very unbalanced funding could lead to entrenching existing power structures/major parties

      Using new funds:
      Pros – mitigating unbalanced funding but not stopping it
      Cons – where does the money come from?

      The “pro” here is only in relating to the other options as opposed to the status quo.Report

      1. Kazzy already touched on what strikes me as the most likely outcome: people will give their voucher to the parties that they’re most likely to have heard of and, more than that, they’re most likely to give their vouchers to the parties they’re most likely to vote *FOR*.

        And, given it’s Seattle, I’m guessing that it’ll be a 60/40 skew.

        Perhaps 10% of the 60% will give one of their four vouchers to a third party… but, hey. Maybe that’s the best outcome.

        The weird and obscure parties now have an opportunity to get scraps from the table when, before, they had to rely entirely on true believers.

        Now they can, occasionally, get a windfall from someone feeling guilty that they were thinking about giving all of their vouchers to the dems who caves and decides that, maybe, one of the four should be redistributed to the Nutrition Party.Report

        1. Or this: “major” candidates’ “volunteers” GOTV by engaging in “voucher relief” by making a personal “cash donation” to the voucher holder in exchange for “support” from the “interested citizen”.Report

            1. A website will pop up posting daily Democracy Voucher Exchange Rates for each candidate so citizens can make informed market-based-democracy choices…Report

  3. {{because I’m lazy…}}

    1. Can citizens donate money above the voucher maximum, or is each citizen limited to only the voucher amount?

    2. Are there any restrictions or limitations on “candidates” seeking a piece of that luscious Democracy Voucher money? (Does Jill Stein live in Seattle??)

    3. Oscar’s right, the name really sucks.Report

Comments are closed.