Seattle’s unique Democracy Voucher program, designed to enhance public campaign financing, has gained significant voter backing but has not translated into widespread usage among the electorate.
In the recent August 5 primary election, Proposition 1 garnered approval from approximately 114,000 residents, securing 59% of the votes necessary to renew the property tax funding for the program for the next decade.
Despite this strong support, as of September 3, only 36,882 vouchers have been returned by Seattleites.
The Democracy Voucher program, initially established in 2015, provides residents with four $25 coupons each election cycle, aimed at reducing the influence of wealthy donors and creating a more level political playing field.
The expiring property tax levy raised $3 million annually for the program, while the renewed levy is set to increase funding to $4.5 million per year, accounting for inflation.
Residents still have time to utilize their vouchers; the deadline extends to November 28, just nearly a month after the general election.
However, based on historical trends, participation in the voucher program is expected to remain low.
In the 2021 mayoral election, only about 48,000 residents used their vouchers, representing roughly 7.5% of the city’s voting-age population.
Due to enforced spending caps on participants, it is challenging for voucher redemption rates to exceed 10%.
So, what happens to the unclaimed vouchers?
Unused funds generated from the program do not vanish; they remain within the Democracy Voucher system and are specifically designated for future elections.
Since its inception, between 2016 and 2024, the property tax levy contributed $27 million to the program, with around $10 million distributed to candidates.
Additionally, $9.6 million has been allocated to administrative costs, including printing, mailing, and community outreach efforts.
Typically, candidates return any remaining voucher funds, with a total of $130,317 in unused funds being reported over the last decade.
For the current election cycle, candidates have thus far distributed approximately $3 million from voucher funds.
During a recent meeting of Seattle’s Elections and Ethics Commission, chair Zack Pekelis remarked that the program has reached an “inflection point” following its enthusiastic approval by voters.
City staff indicated that the current participation rates are looking “good,” but it remains early in the election cycle to draw comparisons to previous years.
Looking closer at individual candidates, it becomes evident that receiving Democracy Vouchers does not guarantee electoral success.
For instance, mayoral candidate Ry Armstrong reported collecting 10,304 Democracy Vouchers from 2,822 individuals by primary Election Day, noting that without these vouchers, their campaign would likely not have taken off.
However, Armstrong failed to garner sufficient support at the polls, receiving only 2,120 votes, or a little over 1% of the total.
This financial outcome translates to a cost of roughly $89.50 per vote for Armstrong’s campaign, which raised approximately $189,774, nearly entirely sourced from vouchers.
Political consultant Ben Anderstone, not involved in this year’s mayoral race, expressed disappointment at the disparity, stating, “Damn, that’s pretty bad.”
In contrast, primary winners Bruce Harrell and Katie Wilson spent around $4.50 per vote, demonstrating a stark difference in fundraising efficiency.
This phenomenon of candidates attracting more vouchers than votes is not unique to this election cycle.
In 2021, candidate Andrew Grant Houston similarly raised Democracy Vouchers from over 5,000 individuals yet finished the primary with just 2,570 votes.
Anderstone theorizes that both Armstrong and Houston benefited from solid outreach strategies and were well-regarded by voters, but they ultimately lost out to candidates perceived as more viable by those voting.
This cycle, Wilson emerged as the more favorable choice among voters.
Anderstone suggests that a ranked-choice voting system might have favored Armstrong, allowing voters the flexibility to express support without purely strategic voting.
Voters tend to donate vouchers more liberally to candidates whose platforms resonate with them, even if they are aware those candidates are less likely to win.
“Sometimes voters use their votes more strategically, while their Democracy Vouchers, they may be more willing just to give to somebody who impresses them in front of a QFC,” he added.
Anderstone does not consider the mismatch between vouchers and votes to be problematic; rather, a central aim of the program is to empower candidates without traditional campaign resources and broaden their outreach.
Given the varied political landscapes, particularly in crowded races, it makes sense for voters to support multiple candidates.
Many who support candidates like Armstrong may do so knowing they are unlikely to win.
Candidates who collected vouchers prior to the primary but did not redeem them still had until September 2 to do so.
It is common for campaigns to experience financial strain, so rules permit losing candidates to continue soliciting vouchers until the deadline to aid in offsetting any debts.
After the primary, the number of post-election voucher returns has been marginal for many candidates who did not advance.
Mayoral candidate Joe Mallan has returned just 22 vouchers, while District 2 candidate Jamie Fackler has returned 81, and City Attorney candidate Rory O’Sullivan has returned 50.
Armstrong serves as an exception, as their campaign has seen a notable influx of vouchers post-primary, totaling an additional 5,821 vouchers from 1,557 new supporters since Election Day.
While these vouchers are still categorized as “received,” meaning they await verification before candidates can access those funds, checks are typically distributed biweekly.
Candidates advancing to the next stage also retain the opportunity to solicit more vouchers until November 28 to help manage campaign debts.
Anderstone notes that while collecting Democracy Vouchers can be a simpler process, it still necessitates substantial outreach and engagement activities.
“There’s still a big barrier of entry for smaller candidates,” he stated, highlighting the challenges beyond simple campaign fundraising.
Within the city, District 3 currently boasts the highest return rate of vouchers at 28,334, whereas District 7 shows a much lower return rate at 14,029 vouchers.
For the upcoming special election next year, only residents of District 5 will receive Democracy Vouchers, narrowing the scope of funding opportunities further.
As the November 28 deadline approaches, residents can still request replacement vouchers via the city’s website if they have misplaced or not received their allocated ones.
image source from：knkx
