Democracy for Vancouver

8 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. Nearly 98% of total school levies have been approved in the last decade or so. So how can you argue that education is not being fully funded? With WEA having a 100,000 members statewide and the presumption that their members, along with their families and friends, will pretty much always vote in favor of increased funding, it seems to me the super-majority requirement prevents this huge voting block from undermining the voting process.

   But since 98% already pass with the super-majority requirement in place, even this argument is superfluous.

   I am wholeheartedly for fully funding our public school system but I am not in favor of what amounts to a special interest group, namely the enormous voting block of WEA, determining what constitutes full funding.

   IMO, this amendment was a solution without a problem.

   [reply to this]

   1. Above written by bushtool on November 9th, 2007 at 1:02 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

2. I guess I’ve just seen what the supermajority requirement has done in smaller - but rapidly growing - communities like Battle Ground and Ridgefield. Those schools have been bursting at the seams, but have failed by fractions of a percentage point because of the supermajority requirement. That goes for the repeated failure of the Vancouver Library levy as well. So the library has some huge scary voting block out there I’m not aware of?

   The WA state Constitution was amended in 1944 to require a 60% supermajority voting “yes” for local bond measures to pass. This amendment was pushed by large timber, mining and railroad interests, which owned big swathes of land in Washington state and wanted to constrain local governments’ from raising their property taxes. There’s your large, influential (and monied) voting block - not the WEA.

   And no one person’s vote should count more than any other’s (my yes vote in a 60% supermajority requirement is worth only 66.6% of your no vote).

   Supermajorities are undemocratic, and need to go.

   [reply to this]

   2. Above written by slim on November 9th, 2007 at 4:50 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

3. And my property taxes are going up around 15% this year towards the Battle Ground school district funding with the super-majority requirement in place. Again where is the problem if they almost always pass?

   Let’s look at this another way:

   Here is where being an accountant gets me in trouble.

   There are 3.4 million eligible voters in WA. Let’s say 45% (I think that is reasonable) of them actually vote on a levy. That means 1.53 million actually vote.

   Now if you add the 100,000 WEA members, plus their spouses, voting age children and friends who support them all together and assume they are almost always going to vote and vote for increased funding if there is a possible pay raise involved, let say (I think conservatively) that represents 175,000 “yes” votes for increased funding.

   If you divide that into the people actually voting you get 11.44% of “automatic” yes votes.

   So if the rest of the people actually voting are 55% against, 45% for a particular levy that means 745250 people vote no. That leaves 784750 vote yes and the levy passes without the super-majority. (hope my math is correct here).
   The numbers here are to make my point and not necessarily reflect what actually occurs (no one can know that for sure).

   It seems to me that my no vote was usurped by the tyranny of the biased minority who wanted a pay raise. My vote was worth less than the teacher’s vote since he/she can and will vote as a block for their pay raise.

   As an analogy, similar undemocratic results often occur with regard to corporations and their shareholder voting. If enough of the shareholder voters get together and vote as a block (very often the upper management of the company), they control the outcome. It is not democratic by any stretch of the imagination.

   Therefore a simple majority is not democratic when you have a large block of people, all with the same special interest in the outcome.

   [reply to this]

   slim reply on November 9, 2007:

   What hurts BG and Ridgefield most of all is that their tax base is largely residential - they don’t have much of a commercial tax base, so homeowners get saddled with the lion’s share of the levies. But don’t take that out on the schools - it’s not their fault. In fact, the reverse is true - the levies are going up (and your taxes, along with your property values) because so many people find BG and Ridgefield to be the kind of places they want to live, and want their kids to go to school. And that, in turn, is probably at least in part because they are not overrun with commercial development (yet).

   So, make your town less livable and maybe your property taxes (and your property values) will stagnate. Will you be happy then?

   And why should the WEA draw your ire more than anyone else? You could say the same of all union members, who generally vote in favor of progressive levies. Or democrats. Should we have a supermajority requirement just because a majority of the state’s voters are registered dems, and therefore more likely to vote for levies? (I’m not saying that’s the case - I don’t know - it’s just an example.)

   Couldn’t you just as easily say that WEA members better understand the needs of the school system? You could use your argument in favor or against any supposed voting block. For all you know, there might be a sizable portion of WEA members who votes like you, out of anger at their rising property taxes.

   [reply to this]

   3. Above written by bushtool on November 9th, 2007 at 5:46 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

4. WEA is the elephant in the room. They are by far the biggest, and therefore represent a huge voting block when it comes to voting on the levies. Because they represent such a big part of the voting public, IMO they can be singled out.

   I want to be clear that I am not against paying property taxes for the schools. If the schools need money, I am all for giving it to them. I just want the process to be equitable to all those involved.

   If 90% or more of the eligible voters voted, this conversation would be moot because at that point the “tyranny of the minority” would be so small as to not even be a concern (for me at least).

   But unfortunately that is not the case.

   [reply to this]

   4. Above written by bushtool on November 9th, 2007 at 7:16 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

5. By your reckoning then, you’re assuming a 100% turnout by WEA members. You’re also assuming that 100% of those members will monolithically vote for all school tax hikes. Also, according to WEA’s own web site, there’s 80,000 members, so already your math is flawed.

   WEA members own homes too you know. If a school district isn’t performing well, they’ll vote “no” on the levy too.

   I don’t know what your particular axe to grind against WEA is all about, but I would hate for DFV to give the Evergreen Freedom Foundation another talking point to bandy about.

   If we follow your logic to its ultimate conclusion, than the we must have a super majority requirement for building of new football stadiums, since there are well over 100,000 Seahawk fans. Sadly, super majorities are not required for new stadiums, but they are for school levies. That seems ridiculous, and anti-democratic.

   [reply to this]

   5. Above written by Aneurin on November 9th, 2007 at 8:04 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

6. My math is approximate and I believe you are ignoring retirees.

   If I am going to choose between a pay raise or keeping my property taxes down, the choice is pretty clear.

   And I don’t speak for DFV and I don’t know or care what position the Evergreen Freedom Foundation has on this nor would I ever make my judgments based on being contrary to their talking points.

   Perhaps super majorities should be required for new stadiums, I have not looked at that as an issue.

   [reply to this]

   6. Above written by bushtool on November 9th, 2007 at 8:34 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

7. Slim, slighly off topic but it was mentioned in your post, I have virtually conquered my migraines. I went from 2 a week to about one every four months or so, and yes, they seem to come from a predisposition but there is a huge component of controlling the triggers. It sounds impossible at first, but several things really help.

   Oh, and about the super-majority: it is undemocratic, draconian, unfair, illegitimate, ridiculous, and assanine.

   [reply to this]

   slim reply on November 10, 2007:

   Arturo, I would love any tips about migraines you could give. My email is nofishnonuts@hotmail.com. Thanks in advance - I’m just about at the end of my rope (for both my son and myself).

   [reply to this]

   7. Above written by arturo on November 10th, 2007 at 4:45 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

8. It’s not dead yet.

   [reply to this]

   8. Above written by bushtool on November 11th, 2007 at 7:14 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).