5 ms·
As a Washingtonian, I'll be voting yes on 1401, but I have a general question for the crowd here. Paul Allen has donated millions of dollars [0] to make sure t
by sharkweek 11y ago
As a Washingtonian, I'll be voting yes on 1401, but I have a general question for the crowd here.
Paul Allen has donated millions of dollars [0] to make sure this initiative gets through, which I think is great in a vacuum because I agree with what it accomplishes. However, in general I am against the concept of one individual person driving the success of an initiative because they feel passionate about a specific issue.
Is it more acceptable when the issue is seemingly benevolent?
[0] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/paul-allen-backs-state-ban-on-rare-species-trafficking/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/paul-allen...
- mikestew 11y agoFlip it around to Eyeman's initiatives, which when not being soundly turned down by voters, get overturned in the courts. My point being, even if it's one individual driving it, it's still one-person-one-vote (and the courts act as a buffer for when we collectively make a bad choice). I don't care who's behind 1401: is it a good idea or not? In this case, I vote "yes" regardless of what drove it. In the case of all of the Eyeman-driven "advisory votes" (what a waste of paper and ink), I vote "no" (which translates to "maintain" on the ballot) across the board.