Slight correction. Rep. Larry Springer is in the 45th District; I'm in the 48th, w/Rep Hunter. Confusion caused by Kirkland being split between the two districts.

Rep. Deb Eddy

Gee, I don't own an SUV or shop at Costco, yet I was a fervent supporter of I-1100. The campaign against it essentially consisted of sowing confusion, stoking fear, and spewing disinformation among the voters--all time-honored methods for stealing elections. And, apparently, it still works.

At a time when the state is to be cutting back and in some cases even eliminating essential government services, wouldn't it be nice to do the same for those that aren't?

I agree with cocktails. I don't shop at Costco or drink alcohol. I voted for 1100 for the same reason. And if sales went up, then the State would make more in taxes. Another time when a union stands in the way of progress.

losers? clueless liberal whackjobs who think money grows on trees. those political science degrees don't go very far in China or India these days, lucky you live in the USA, where we still tolerate useless humans.

When Tim Eyman wins we all lose. The anti-tax fervor that swept the state and the country is evidence to me that:

1. too many people watch too much television
2. radical conservatives own the airwaves

Hats off to the Citizens United lawyers, SCOTUS, etc for a job well done . The counter-balance of responsibility for this mess is the Dems in power distancing themselves from real progressive values, and the netroots, who drove the campaign in 2008. Bite the hand that feeds you - and you expose yourself to the kind of disease we are all catching now.

Tim Eyman win doesn't mean no new taxes, it means that the legislature has to ask the people who pay those taxes if they want the thing the tax is being raised for.

Look at Sound Transit, voters were asked did they want to tax themselves for a Light Rail Mass transit system. The answer was yes.

Look at the Police: With the Union not willing to renegotiate an automatic 5% wage increase next year the voters said, well then us neither.

The state can raise taxes, it's just going to have to make a case that what is being spent is worth it.

"money grows on trees"

Actually it does! Apples! Cherries! Peaches! The tree's themselves! Some folks seem to forget what actually drives an economy.

A 2/3 majority requirement does not reflect the voice of the people. It puts the legislature into dogfight mode and enables/empowers the lunatic fringe. We've been through this before with Eyman tax initiatives.

The 2/3rd's majority requirement isn't required by the vote of the voters. A simple majority can raise taxes. It's just that the majority has to come not from the legislature, but from those who pay those taxes.

Many of us look at the legislature as beholden to the corporate interests who finance their campaigns. Those same corporate interests will try to overwhelm any ballot initiatives, but there is at least a chance that the truth about the expenditures will come out in time to influence the vote.

Meantime, the Legislature will have to live like the rest of us with less money.

"Those same corporate interests will try to overwhelm any ballot initiatives, but there is at least a chance that the truth about the expenditures will come out in time to influence the vote."

I agree with the first part of your statement - but after the pause - slim chance of that. Unless you believe the "truth" that is spewed forth in TV ads and political mailers.

We elect our representatives to do a job; this initiative hamstrings their ability to do it and puts any real progress with solving difficult problems in jeopardy. Eyman logic would do away with a representative form of government entirely. And probably government services like police, fire etc as well. He's a nut job.

Many of those wringing their hands over the Citizens United ruling are doing so because their side no longer enjoys a competitive advantage. While McCain-Feingold campaign contribution limitations were in place, one group enjoyed (and profited from) an exemption: indian tribes. Here is a link to congressional testimony on the "tribal loophole":

http://www.american.edu/spa/ccps/uplo...

If congress moves to "correct" the Citizens United ruling, it should do so with one, firm, tenet: any law should apply equally to everyone.

oops, corrected link:

http://www.american.edu/spa/ccps/upload/Indian-Affairs-committee-2006-2.pdf

"Eyman logic would do away with a representative form of government entirely."

Sound Transit's legal architects already did away with the representative form of government, in case you hadn't noticed.

It's a major flaw with that government. People now have no ability to exert any control over that exceedingly powerful government by any political means. There is nothing people can do to implement or change any of the policies of that government.

The lawyers that designed Sound Transit's governance structure are worse than Eyman - they designed it to be unaccountable to people so they could maximize how much revenue they could suck out of it. And yes, Bill Gates is a partner in that firm.

Here's a group of LOSERS: the dwindling minority in this state that thinks judicial elections are a good way to select judges.

On my ballot there were 17 judicial “races” listed. Only 3 of those had a choice of names. Voters had no choice in the other 14. Judicial elections do not give the public a choice, and they do not force appropriate behavior by incumbent judges.

Worse, just look at the Sanders vs. Wiggins race for that supreme court seat. It is exceedingly close because of the forceful message blasted out in the weeks before the election that Sanders was unethical. He was tagged as a racist and someone with a disdain for monogamy.

What’s significant about those allegations of ethical shortcomings is they are essentially unrelated to his past performance, or any upcoming responsibilities he would undertake, as a member of that bench. Nonetheless, that political attack resulted in Wiggins getting lots of votes.

Electing judges is a bad thing. It is no way to get the right kind of individual into those exceedingly important and powerful positions. The judicial “races” this year, including the joke of a “campaign” run against Johnson in the primary, should convince everyone of that fact.

Crossrip, as much as I hate the governing structure of Sound Transit, in fact the majority of the people in the region like the results of the work that is going on via that agency. Otherwise they never would have supported Phase 2 taxes.

And yes I totally agree with you, the way the agency is structured, there is no way to have a recall vote because it's taxing borders do not coincide with any voting borders, ie, it's neither a statewide agency nor a county or city wide. So no group of voters can collect ballot signatures to repeal their taxing effects, short of a state wide ballot to dissolve the agency.

But really this discussion belongs on some other transportation related thread.

"electing judges is a bad thing."

Well appointing judges hasn't turned out so great either. We have Thomas on the supreme Court bench for life even though there are plenty of good reasons for his removal, and never having got there in the first place. Roberts has also done the country a tremendous disservice with his votes for letting corporations run rough shod over the rest of us.

And then we have the disgrace of all those open Judgeship's that all presidents send to congress and all congress's seem to sit on until they think they can get them to either admit to an ideology, or withdraw. I'd rather have a full bench of judges that I didn't agree with than all those open positions.

As for Wiggins vs Sanders. Either of these gentlemen will do fine on the bench. Sanders has spoken his mind on a number of occasions but so far his actual rulings have been, as it appears to me, reasonable. Wiggins is untested but because of our system if he truly turns out badly we can oust him in a few years.

Knute, Whitman and Fiorina may be "creeps" but you should explain to us just why. Fiorina was a very good CEO at Hewlett-Packard even though largely unappreciated at the time; Whitman, I don't know much about, she might have been just lucky. But do more than just call names. In a couple years people might be calling Jerry Brown a creep, maybe sooner.

A few thoughts on the elections

1. I was shocked that I-1100 didn't (in all likelihood) pass. I thought surely the anti-government tide would annihilate the government alcohol business, but I was clearly wrong. It just goes to show how hypocritical folks can be about their political ideologies.

2. I was not surprised that I-1053 passed, nor do I have problem with the general anti tax sentiment. However, what does concern is the sentiment that voters don't trust their elected representatives. As much as Washington state needs some sort of tax reform to deal with the regressive nature and other faults of our current tax system, it also needs additional accountability from politicians at the state and local level. Any tax reform ought to be combined with an increase in the percentage of government money in the general fund so that politicians actually have power to shake up the budgets.

Currently, so much government money is tied up in voter initiatives, such as ST2, use specific taxes, such as the gas tax that can only be used for roads, and union contracts that politicians are forced to cut services like schools, or police for lack of a better option. If politicians have more power of the government spending it would be easier and fairer to hold politicians accountable for how our taxes are spent. If Sound Transit was accountable to voters or elected officials then surely we would try to maintain are current transit services (metro and other transit agencies face severe budget gaps) before attempting to build new ones. This would be good government but no one can fix because elected officials don't have access to those funds.

Of course, in the current political climate it seems unlikely that voters would ever actually buy into giving politicians more power, even if its essential to accountability.

3. California failed to legalize pot this year, but the results of this election tell me it's only a matter of time, probably two years, until marijuana is legal in California. The main thing holding Prop 19 back was that it restricted employers abilities to deal with employees who used pot on the job. Additionally, I suspect that once it passes in California it will soon pass in other states, like Washington.

4. Finally, on the national scale, both parties should feel pretty good about themselves. Republicans and tea partyers are the obvious winners, but Democrats should feel good about keeping the Senate. Additionally, I think the party of no will finally be forced to have more substantial policy positions now that they are no longer the helpless underdog. Hopefully both parties will be forced to make real compromises and both parties will be held proportionally accountable (as opposed to overly accountable, which the democrats were over the past two years) for their actions.

5. Apologies for overusing the word "accountable"

Gotta hand it to you Mossback, you took an election cycle that was largely a repudiation of the current crop of Democrats and their return to the New Deal, and turned it into an end zone dance for ersatz progressives. Skillful writing.

"repudiation of the current crop of Democrats and their return to the New Deal"

Actually it was the blue dog Democrats that got trashed. With over 1/2 of them losing their seats. The progressives lost 3 seats, one of which was Fiengold. Which makes total sense, why vote for a fake conservative when you can have the real thing?

The Democrats holding all the reins of government failed to deliver on their promises, expect to the big banks. No wonder their 2008 supporters stayed home.

Knute may be Bill Gates Sr isnt in the Loser category but I would sure put him in the really really far out of touch with reality category. Everytime I heard him speak, I thought is he senile or just so out of touch with the rest of the voters in this state. 1098 had everything to do with trust. Do you trust the Legislature after two years to keep it to the the top 2% of earners and the vast majority of Washington voters said hell no, we dont trust em to keep it there.... something Bill Sr. just couldnt figure out.

Thanks, staybailey, for a thoughtful piece. A couple of comments:

To your #1: I think in line 3 you might better use "inconsistent" rather than "hypocritical." Ideologies are not necessarily morally consistent.

To your #2: I agree with the thrust of your point as I understand it: The attempt to end run representative government with direct government is confusing and inconsistent and leads to a tyranny of the loud and rich, not to a better democracy. Votes for or against an initiative do not constitute the "voice of the people," but simply the voice of the energized and/or in the case of some initiatives the voice of big money.

On #4: I would suggest that this was an ideological election, not a policy election, so I am quite skeptical that "compromise" is possible. Ideology tends to represent one's deep fears and values, so it's hard to find compromise. If, as some of the posts here suggest, government is out to destroy me, hates me, and wants to take away my freedom, it's pretty hard to say "On the other hand, government has a benign function to perform in the name of the common good and I will support some of the things it's trying to do." The teaparty types and Republican fellow travelers are ideologues not policy wonks, so I doubt they will be interested hammering out compromises with the Progressives. I fear they demand only victory not progress (little "p").

To #5: I'm not sure what "accountable" means in politics except the yes/no bubbles on ballots, which is awfully crude in a supposedly democratic society.

Anyway, thanks for a good post.

The Eastside is purple, but it could be bluer if the Dems would more thoughtfully choose their candidate to oppose Dave Reichert. They keep putting up candidates whose main qualification is they are rich business people. They have chosen people who rarely vote themselves and have not shown they believe enough in the political process to run for lower office. Why do they believe they are so qualified they should go straight to the top? It didn't work when the Rs put up Mike McGavick against Maria Cantwell, why would it work for Democrats?

The Dems seem to think choosing a woman will somehow override all these other problems, which is insulting to me as a very liberal Bellevue woman. Look through the bench of dems already working hard in local government. If it is a woman, that is a bonus, but it doesn't have to be. Reichert is beatable.

So what do we need house and senate for anyway? Looks like we're governing by initiative here.

Oh, wait, people still want roads, schools (with special help for their special needs child), police and fire, ferries and the bus they happen to take to work. Initiatives don't provide those. Guess we still need a government. Don't it suck, though, that we have to pay for it? Maybe we could outsource!

Knute, just so you know, you're not the only one who wrote in a candidate's name rather than voting for Jim Johnson (or leaving that race blank). I wrote in Stan Rumbaugh, as did several of my friends. So is this a Sam Reed cover-up? (small joke) Somewhere, I want my vote to show up!

The faith community was a big proponent of I-1098 because it was apparent that much of the social safety net would be at risk during the next budget cycle. When the faith community was down lobbying in Olympia during the last session, the message that we sent to the legislators was that more revenue would be needed to keep critical safety net programs in place--GAU, basic health, housing trust fund. During the last session, the legislators by and large did a fair job of trying to keep social services intact. For example, the soda tax was a pretty innovative way of collecting revenue while not placing a tax that disproportionately impacted the poorer members of society.

The faith community was also actively involved in the initial planning for I-1098. When I first heard about the campaign early in the summer, I commented to my minister that the campaign better address the perception that the tax would be extended to lower income levels. The campaign did not do that until it was apparent that the opposition was gaining traction with the argument.

The I-1098 campaign also did an extremely poor job of educating the populace. Bill Gates was a great spokesman. But he needed to look into the camera and say with all sincerity "Next year, we will not have state funding to keep class sizes to less than 30 children per teacher. Next year, we will not have state funding for all day kindergarten. Next year, we will not have state funding to keep our public universities fully staffed and still affordable to all Washington State citizens."

The I-1098 campaign had its heart in the right place. But it failed in not creating a sense of urgency. It failed in not explaining the consequence. And it failed more than anything else in failing to take into account the oppositions strategy in defeating the measure.

In all likelihood this year was not the one from a strategic perspective to bring I-1098 to the voters. Under the Tea Party smaller government refrain, it would have likely failed no matter how well the campaign had been made. Next year would have been better since it would have been decoupled from the regular election and the voters would have a better understanding of the consequences of not having a balanced source of revenue. My fear though is that in waging such a hasty and poorly planned campaign that we won't be able to have such a discussion.

There was at least one additional write-in vote to challenge the "unanimous" vote for Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson. I wrote in John McKay for that race, and I did remember to fill in the bubble as well as entering his name.

If it's such a good thing that the Legislature under 1053 has to come to the people in order to seek revenue and determine how it's used, why do we vote for legislators? Because that's actually what they're voted in to do: be our representatives in making law and determining what's needed to run the state.

Again: we vote for them. To do that kind of thing. We do that in municipal elections, and county elections, and state elections, and nationally.

Have you anti-tax people forgotten that? If you want to change that, then seek constitutional amendments (and yes, the State has a constitution). Otherwise, vote for who you like and don't expect them to put everything out for a vote in a separate election (which, by the way, will cost you plenty).