I heard that Tim Shelton will be introducing a referendum for privatization in the upcoming session. If it comes to the voters again it should be supported. The State has no business being in liquor sales and distribution.

From the story's summary.
"The people of Washington looked at the problems associated with privatization — the loss of public revenues, the consequences for public safety, the threat to thousands of private and public sector jobs — and they came to understand that the current three-tier regulatory system works pretty well by allowing for the consumption of alcohol by responsible adults while minimizing the problems that can result from deregulation. In short, they made a wise decision, and we thank them for it."

The truest statement actually is that the State Unions along with the Washington Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association's anti-competitive greed coupled to preserve an expensive, antiquated, monopolistic State run system that abuses customers.

What led to the defeat of I-1100 and 1105 was successful negative campaigning.

Legislators should consider passing a more complete version of liquor store privatization. Privatization should not lead to fewer public revenues. In fact, with appropriate taxes and permits, private liquor sales may actually lead to a windfall for state and local governments.

We already entrust members of the private sector to help regulate other alcoholic beverages. Liquor really is no different.

Given all of the dangers of selling alcohol in private stores that we were told about in the ads by Protect Our Communities, perhaps beer and wine should be sold only in state liquor stores as well.

Yeah, and why should we stop there, Mr. Giovanni? Maybe ALL products deemed in any way 'harmful' should only be sold in state-ownd stores...

The initiatives failed because they were flawed, as so often is the case with initiatives. I think one change would have saved 1100: control the number of liquor licenses by charging a substantial fee ($5,000 minimum) for the license -- as is common in many other states. The result:

* Increased revenue from license fees.
* Alleviate concerns that every corner store would be selling booze to chronic inebriates and minors.
* Make enforcement of sales to minors easier -- in fact easier than sales of beer and wine.

The argument about job loss is not legitimate in an era when everyone says government is too big and will be a non-issue when the economy recovers.

The voters did indeed look at the problems associated with privatization --but only as stipulated by the two initiatives. But that doesn't mean voters, in the main, want the state to continue to sell liquor. Suppose an initiative comes along that privatizes liquor sales with much tighter regulations and a modest number of private outlets (state-licensed, not state-run stores), not hard liquor available at every corner convenience store that ponies up $1000? I suspect a majority would then vote YES.

If the state wants to get out of the business of selling liquor, then the state should SELL the business, not give it away.

The state should not be providing a service that private industry can provide. That's the way a free society works. That simple truth may not be popular in these environs, but that doesn't make it wrong.

"Did the presence of two competing measures on the ballot have a significant impact in undermining both? Not really. Our polling showed that virtually everyone who voted for 1105 also voted for 1100."

What about the people that didn't vote for either simply out of confusion? One initiative (or referendum) with a single unified voice would fair much better with voters. Don't kid yourself, Mr. Guadnola.

Mr. Guadnola assumes that the I-1100 and I-1105 were defeated on their merits (or lack thereof). Were that the case, the WWBWA would not have had to spend $2 million on its mis-information campaign. Public safety, public-sector jobs and public revenues were smokescreens for preserving the current three-tier system, a system that provides the WWBWA with its income and its political clout.

Our polling showed that virtually everyone who voted for 1105 also voted for 1100.

I'd be interested to see your data. Does "virtually everyone" mean 99%, 95%, 90%? I, and a great many people I talked to, voted for 1100 but against 1105. Neither was perfect, but we tended to support the argument for privatization and saw 1105 mainly as a preserving-the-distributors'-business measure.

Problem was that BOTH of the initiatives were written with corporate interests primarily in mind. So it wasn't that difficult to build a case for voting No on both. That said, 1100 did get substantially more votes than 1105, so not everyone voted the same on both initiatives.

The author is dreaming if he believes voters voted FOR the status quo. I know that's one of his industry's main talking points right now, but that doesn't make it true. No, it's time to get working on a privatization bill that's not designed just to benefit one segment of the marketplace, one that doesn't give away taxpayer-owned assets and doesn't take further whacks at the state budget.

I know it's tangentially related, but I think a comment about polling and argument-by-initiative-result is in order.

In less enlightened eras, people regarded the word of the king or the church as sacred. The opinions of scientists were highly valued in our society not too long ago (see, e.g. the technocracy movement). Today, public opinion is sacred; citing the will of the voters, as manifested in polling data or election results, is the coup de grace of any argument.

The problem, of course, is that public opinion is seldom straightforward. Both the article itself and most of the commenters so far know what "the people" want, and coincidentally it matches their own opinions. It feels good to claim the mantle of the majority, and it can be used to bludgeon opponents in a debate, but it really serves no intellectual value. Now, my position happens to be that I disagreed with both 1100 and 1105, mainly because I wanted to see more controls retained on the availability of liquor and it would be unwise to further damage the state's finances at what is already a very difficult time. This would be my view whether measures had gotten only 10% of the vote, 50%, or 90%.

In support of Mr. Lukoff's statement above about the line from the article.

"Our polling showed that virtually everyone who voted for 1105 also voted for 1100."

1100- Yes 1,175,302
1105- Yes 878,687

Difference 296,615 or about 25%

"Virtually everyone" doesn't equal 25%. To lie about such an easily verifiable number shows an arrogance of power that needs to be addressed. Remove the monopoly now.

Cameron, read the statement again.

It's perfectly possible that the 878,687 Yes voters on 1105 were among the 1,175,302 Yes voters on 1100.

Prove it.

I didn't say it's a fact, C, I said it was possible, and here's your proof: 1,175,303 is a larger number than 878,687.

The smaller number could easily be a subset of the larger.

Just go underground and bootleg and get all your booze from Oregon, Idaho, and duty free shops worldwide. It has worked for many consumers for many decades.

I understand what I asked you to do and you cannot. Is it possible? Sure. Is it provable? Not with a secret ballot.

Dbreneman suggests that "the state should not be providing a service that private industry can provide. That's the way a free society works."

While a very simple statement, actual application of the premise is not so simple.

Sales of liquor is one potential application but what about the others? Should the state close all universities (as there are private ones)? Should the state close all community colleges (as there are many for-profit vocational schools)? Should we eliminate all public achools as there are private schools? Should the AG be prohibited from hiring any AAGs as there are private law firms? What about prisons, Harborview hospital, UWMC and state parks (or Mt Rainier)?

Everything must be looked at Another Thought. Maybe, since so many voted to maintain a State run Monopoly, we should insist that all Beer and Wine products be distributed exclusively by the State at State facilities. With State Distribution and State Mark-Ups.

As to your other examples, perhaps if the State did not make rules prohibiting reasonable alternatives to State run institutions, we might be able to develope more efficient, practical models for delivering all sorts of services.

Given that obesity is the biggest danger of all - why not just make all grocery stores state-owned so they can jack up the prices on all the sugary, processed foods and cola?

Um, pardon me, but this is pretty obviously a public relations release by a party interested in the status quo (and ready to put up major money in support of the status quo). A PR piece masquerading as some sort of analytic op-ed. The Gov is right that a more substantial and thoughtful survey of voters might uncover better information on this issue.