Don’t forget to mail in your ballot today.
Sure, it’s a vanishingly small probability that your single vote will have any actual impact, and you could even argue that the act of voting is a pacifier, preventing you from taking more direct and meaningful action to change the course of our country by convincing yourself that you’ve “participated in democracy”, but if you all you do is give yourself the satisfaction of voting No on Tim Eyman’s latest piece of greed-driven douchebaggery, Initiative 1125 (aka Kill Light Rail), then we think you can pat yourself on the back and take the rest of the day off.
If you want some background reading on the rest of the ballot, we recommend either Doug’s Voter’s Guide (by Thackery-resident and long-time Wallyhood haranguer DOUG.) or The Stranger’s 2011 Voter’s Guide. It’s not always right, but it’s better than a dart board. And if you’re unsure, just leave that oval blank. There’s no penalty for an incomplete ballot, and maybe a blank ballot is a statement, too.
(10:04 am: Updated with link to Doug’s Voter’s Guide)
(Photo by Ben Martinek)
The Stranger got a few things wrong. I suggest this voter’s guide instead.
Updated article with link to DOUG.’s guide.
That’s not a voters guide.
Got ours just in the nick of time! Go DOUG. And while we’re at it, please vote for keeping the #26 bus on its current route/timetable.
Doug, how much did the opposing side (primarily the beverage wholesalers) put into blocking Initiative 1183?
You can be justifiably angry about the broken initiative process, but it’s lazy to base your vote (and claim that you’re offering an educated guide) due to one side’s expenditures. If you don’t like the content of the initiative, that’s fine, but explain why. I disagree with both you & The Stranger, but at least they appeared to have given it actual thought.
Also, other than their protest votes (and your vote for Chone Figgins is similarly inspired), I found almost nothing on which you disagreed. Which “few things” did they get wrong?
Jason–it’s because the initiative process exists to give citizens redress if they believe the legislature is not representing the will of the people. The initiative precess is not meant for corporations to pursue their agenda if they can’t buy enough support from legislators.
At least that’s why I voted against 1183. (I can’t speak for Doug, but I imagine his reasoning is similar, he just said spending instead of sponsorship.) Oh, and lets not forget the sweet tax break Costco wrote wrote themselves in the initiative.
Plus there’s at least a tiny difference between opposing corporate groups putting money into the race, vs a big corporation and their lawyers writing the initiative and paying signature gatherers to put it on the ballot. That’s the subversion. It’s not the amount of expenditures on either side, it’s that the initiative might as well have been titled Kirkland Brand I-1183.
Thanks for reading my guide. Seriously. But please don’t call me a “lazy” voter.
There are many reasons to oppose I-1183: it will kill good paying jobs, it will possibly leave a large, vacant storefront on 45th and it will likely push out local beers and wines from grocery stores. But all of those things pale in comparison to the corporate takeover of the “citizen” initiative process in this state. It’s disgusting.
And there is a difference between paying for an initiative to get written, petitioned and placed on the ballot, and fighting against the initiative once it’s there (which Fruitbat well articulates above).
Oh, well, I-1183 passed in a landslide. So much for the power of the people. I need a drink…
I’m not surprised 1183 is passing. The WSLCB has been responding to consumer complaints, but scleroticly; 1183 was seen as a better-written version of the better of the last two initiatives; and the No campaign played fast and loose with the facts instead of highlighting the things DOUG. mentions above.
The last Costco initiative didn’t fail by that large a margin; that the WSLCB didn’t seem to take that as a serious wakeup call probably helped 1138 as much as Costco’s $22M.
hooray to a liqour store on every corner and tweens buying handles by the the caseload! a good day in this state.
Imo, suggesting that Costco purchased the success of I-1183 is pretty disrespectful of the electorate. Just maybe WA voters have figured out that government needs to limit itself to the businesses of regulating and taxing, activities no other business can do. Everything else belongs in the private sector where efficiency and accountability are not only expected, but required for success.
And really, since when did the liquor board police drinking and driving? I thought that’s why we had law enforcement and justice systems!
I voted for I-1183 because I love good cocktails and collect different types of booze to go in them. The idea that the government should decide which booze is sold in the state just meant that I had to buy my booze elsewhere – not good for our local economy but that’s what it came down to. I’m looking forward to BevMo moving in!
iyqtoo: Unfortunately our state legislature is unable to do even the “businesses of regulation and taxing” due to the passing of Tim Eyman’s I-960 (and then I-1053), which requires a supermajority (two-thirds vote) of the state legislature to raise any sort of taxes. Maybe Initiatives should be held to the same two-thirds standard.
(By the way, I-960 passed in 2007 with just 51% of the vote.)
“hooray to a liqour store on every corner and tweens buying handles by the the caseload! a good day in this state.”
Ah, yes. There’s that ‘fast and loose with the facts’ part.
I agree with iyptoo — don’t see why the State has any business running retail liquor establishments.
i was being faceitious. I am happy to see 1183 pass.
Personally, I don’t think the state should be in the business either – but I didn’t like this as a solution. The problem is crafting regulations that balance entrepreneurial opportunities – in St. Louis, I used to patronize this small wine store that had an absolutely amazing whisk[ey/y]/scotch/bourbon selection because the owner was passionate about such things – against community needs – again, in St. Louis, a lot of booze is sold in blighted neighborhoods by the pint or airplane bottle.
My primary objection to 1183 was that it explicitly ruled out the opportunity for the first sort of establishment to exist, without taking care to address the real concerns of communities around alcohol abuse and expanded availability (as opposed to the exaggerated concerns raised by the No campaign).
It really was a coin-toss vote for me.
Ah. The facetiousness was hard to see, given that that was the primary content of the No campaign’s materials…
i will type in facetious font next time.
@Doug. “Unfortunately our state legislature is unable to do even the “businesses of regulation and taxing”…”–nsS! Making excuses for them is nonsense, besides, it’s silly to blame an individual, even Eyman, for an initiative that got supported by 51% of the state’s voters.
Since the current legislators are unable to do the job they were elected and are being paid to do within the existing system, it’s time for their employers–that would be you and me–to take a hard look at who among them needs to be replaced asap. That means becoming an informed voter able to see beyond simple–and I do mean simple!–marketing.
@iyqtoo: I don’t think pointing out the absurdity of a legislative supermajority mandated by just 51% of the electorate is “making excuses”.
And since I can only vote for the two representatives and one senator who represent the 43rd District, it’s hard for me to vote out most of those I’d like to see replaced (though I do think Frank Chopp has worn out his welcome).