"the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC) will mail four $25 vouchers to each voter [...]. The SEEC will release money to the candidates that agree to follow I-122's rules"
So, if I'm a voter in Seattle, the SEEC will mail me a $25 voucher for a certain local election. But it will also "release the money" to the candidates for that election as long as they comply with the rules. So if the candidates are getting the money from the SEEC, what exactly is the significance of the $25 voucher I have in my hands? I was hoping they would say something like "voters get to make the money available to candidates of their choosing", which would empower the voter, but that's not the way it reads.
I read the actual text of the initiative, and it's not any clearer.
If somebody smarter than me can explain, I will appreciate it.
I think the idea is you, the voter, can send your voucher to the candidate of your choice and they get the money if they agree to follow the rules. Otherwise, the voucher can't be used. Do you get it back to try again? I don't know.
"include participating in debates and accepting lower contribution and spending limits"
When SCOTUS sells us out, it will have to come from the grass roots level.
The shame factor will eventually play a part in elections again. Once the true magnitude of corporate buying power is seen, it is rejected by the voter. Fremont CA just did this with Chevron
The other one I would like to see is a voter roll protected by password so that one could check out if your vote is actually counted correctly in an election.
No ID required, just as you submit your vote, attach a password or pin so that you could login later and verify how your vote was counted.
That makes sense, although I wished they had stated it as clearly as you just did!
I suppose that if the voter sends the voucher to a candidate that doesn't comply, then it should be a straightforward matter to send said voucher back to the voter, who could then send it to some other candidate.
I generally like the idea. One problem, and it's only a relative drawback, is that it might encourage candidates to lie with even more impunity than they currently do; candidates, after all, would know that making attractive but politically unrealistic promises would land them lots of checks.
I dunno. If people will vote against their interest because of a well funded campaign, the issue isn't campaign financing - it's voter stupidity.
About that return I believe that it will be well known which candidates are accepting vouchers.
Another notable event happened in Seattle...
Seattle residents will be seeing more campaigns in City Council and in the streets to fight inequality and build social justice after the re-election of socialist City Councillor Kshama Sawant in the city’s high-profile municipal election on Tuesday.
It's actually pretty straight forward. A new tax will be imposed on you as a Seattle taxpayer and the money collected from you will be given by others to political candidates of their choosing to run their
(re)election campaigns. Not only that, the government gets to decide whether that candidate is worthy to reactive the cash that someone donated to them.
You didn't really think the government would let everyone keep all those $15/hr they are making?
Initiatives work better than begging or bribing politicians to do the right thing.
Its city wide -give it a chance-it should motivate more people to pay attention to local elections and on going issues. And its great to hear that Kshama Sawant was re-elected,we need more like her running for office.
Just curious: Did she have 'coattails' and help elect some of her BFFs to office too?