Washington State has gradually, inexorably moved away from 'consent of the governed.' (Seattle: tax, live in)

[PS90]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

See my post above ^^^^^^^^

The premise of this thread is entirely the other way around.

Wait... what?

The OP asked if the consent of the governed was being eroded... and you mentioned that Seattle subsidizes taxes to the rest of the state. That has nothing to do with it.

So, if you're NOT saying that Seattle should determine the state's policies, even when they lose an election, then I assume that you're trying to say that the rich people in Seattle are the only only ones smart enough to know what rest of us need, despite what we actually want?

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Donor counties (% of revenues received back):

1. San Juan 53%
2. King 63%
3. Skagit 92%
4. Chelan 95%
5. Kittitas 99%

Although, to be fair, the last three don't cover the state government overhead, so are in effect "recipients".

The top ten "welfare queen" counties:

1. Okanogan 207%
2. Stevens 200%
3. Adams 198%
4. Yakima 192%
(tie) Lincoln 192%
6. Mason 188%
7. Whakiakum 178%
8. Franklin 175%
9. Pend Oreille 173%
(tie) Asotin 173%

Finally, some numbers. Although the *transportation* taxes/expenditures could look quite different, overall it looks like San Juan, King, and Skagit are paying the welfare tab for the rest of the state.
Goes to show that the state as a whole, has too many handouts and poor income opportunity to cost of living ratios in many counties. Again though, I will argue that the transportation tax/spend probably looks quite different as there are many counties where the only changes I've seen is more "tar snakes" (patching) on the same roads that have been there for decades.
Back to the Welfare counties though. How the heck do you fix that? Those counties are already obviously depressed, taxing them more to cover their entire costs is just going to make them die off.

[travis t]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

The Seattle metro is subsidizing the rest of the state, not the other way around. Large parts of Eastern and Southwest Washington are economic basket cases.

Another point to make here is that Initiative 976 ($30 tabs) was outspent about 50-1 by opponents. This is typical of Eyman initiatives; in fact some have been close to 100-1. Much of the money comes from public sector unions, which means that they are indirectly using tax dollars to oppose initiatives. It's not illegal, but neither is it ethical or fair, IMO.

[travis t]

Another case in point is the 2019 'advisory' votes. These were tax increases rammed through by the state legislature late in the 2019 session. There were 12 of them, all passed by the legislature and signed by the Gov.

Voters voted to repeal 9 of them, and to maintain only 3. Several got 'repeal' votes by overwhelming margins. (see link).

The advisory votes do not actually result in repeal, but they do reveal the gap between the government and the governed, which I think was the intent. The existence of 'advisory votes' was itself the result of an Eyman initiative.

https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/...sures-All.html

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by travis t

Another case in point is the 2019 'advisory' votes. These were tax increases rammed through by the state legislature late in the 2019 session. There were 12 of them, all passed by the legislature and signed by the Gov.

Voters voted to repeal 9 of them, and to maintain only 3. Several got 'repeal' votes by overwhelming margins. (see link).

The advisory votes do not actually result in repeal, but they do reveal the gap between the government and the governed, which I think was the intent. The existence of 'advisory votes' was itself the result of an Eyman initiative.

https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/...sures-All.html

The ballot described these as "the Legislature passed, without voter approval...….." was pretty cut and dried.

[travis t]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

The ballot described these as "the Legislature passed, without voter approval...….." was pretty cut and dried.

Sure, but the point is just that the legislature passed all of these proposals, and the voters overwhelmingly don't like them. IOW, it's another example of the drift away from 'consent of the governed.'

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Gradually? No, they have done so quite quickly. Democrats have been unwilling to accept the result of a fair, open election for several years now. Washington state is one more example for the rest of the nation to watch and learn from. Which is sad, lots of great people in the state, it's sad to see how quickly it's going downhill.

[travis t]

It's no doubt a pipe dream, but I would like to see a system similar to the electoral college at the state level. The EC was intended to prevent large population states from dominating and running rough-shod over small population areas. It does just that. California with its 35 million pop gets the same 2 senators as Wyoming with its approx. 500,000 people. And both get 2 EC votes for their 2 senators.

At the state level, everything is proportional to population. Each WA state senator, for example, represents about 137,000 people. Whether you're in Seattle or rural Eastern WA, your senator represents the same number of people.

This is why many initiatives that win 35 counties and lose 4, still lose (or vice versa). The measure for a Seahawks tax-funded stadium, for example, failed in 32 of 39 counties, yet still passed (by 50.8%).

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by travis t

Sure, but the point is just that the legislature passed all of these proposals, and the voters overwhelmingly don't like them. IOW, it's another example of the drift away from 'consent of the governed.'

Fine, vote them out, if you don't like how they voted.

Unconstitutional throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bath-water and cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face initiatives solve nothing.

[Transmition]

Using counties as an arbitrary measure is crazy though, there is too much disparity.



The least populated 32 counties only have 28% of the population. The least populated 50% of the counties have only 7% of the people. Should 7% of the population have control of all state votes? Someone's vote shouldn't count for less because they live on the other side of an arbitrary border that was set many decades ago, just because you get annoyed that more people living in a concentrated area will vote differently to those who live spread out.