The Supermajority Voting Requirement Explanation:

1) There's an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

The benefit a simple majority provides, of aiding in the achievement of a desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. The simple majority voting examples I give here are totally accurate but might be easier to get through with a calculator to verify the figures accuracy and help with the understanding of it.

2) To continue a disagreement as to the need for a supermajority, after going through and understanding the mathematical reasons in the above link, is to argue that it would make perfect sense to allow Idaho residents to vote with us irt raising our WA state sales tax with a "simple" majority vote. In actuality, a supermajority would not only be wanted, it would in fact be a necessity, iot achieve a more fair vote. This would once again be due to allowing a group of people (Idaho residents in this case) to vote for something "they benefit from" yet "don't have to pay for". Exactly what occurs with a simple majority property levy vote.

How could anyone seriously/honestly believe that passing a 12% sales tax on WA residents (due to the influence of ID voters), when only 29-38% of WA voters approved it, would make sense or seem fair/democratic...? Yet that's exactly what could happen if a simple majority was used. It's a perfect example of where a "simple" majority would be a flawed vote (as it is with property levies). The mathematical evidence is unquestionable, and a bit silly to argue (unless the math aspect just isn't understood). I've tried to provide simple examples but you can't force someone to "accept" the truth, you can only "provide" the truth.

*****To clarify, the "simple" majority is the absolute correct vote in "most" situations (everyone voting pays & benefits equally: President, Govenor, Statewide taxes, etc.) but is flawed when used in situations where a group of people are allowed to vote for something they don't have to pay for even though they enjoy benefits from it (like property levy votes). This brings back the question irt these votes: Which one takes priority, personal benefit (simple majority) or truth & correctness (supermajority)?...

3) Irt the argument that it takes more yes votes to counter no votes and that it somehow is less democratic: A supermajority actually makes the vote "more" democratic in these types of votes. The idea it takes more yes votes to counter no votes is correct (although not necessarily 2-1) and is the exact and necessary intent of supermajority votes. ((You'd want it that way in order to account for the yes votes from the Idaho residents voting yes to raise your WA state sales tax in the above analogy and the reasons are just as justified in the case of property levies. The basic mathematics of the problem show it to be 100% true in both cases.))

The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of people don't have an actual understanding of the mathematical "why/how" reasons that a supermajority is required in certain situations (property levy votes are, in fact, one of those situations). With a better understanding, the law would have never been reversed and we would still have a super majority requirement (especially given that HJR4204 passed by "less than" 1%).

4) BTW: The argument that "renters pay levy taxes via rent" is "ridiculously simplistic" because only in a perfectly linked, utopian, system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can't get a renter at a price that covers the costs of the levy, he/she has to lower the rent, "eating" the expense, in order "to simply rent the unit out and avoid a vacancy".

5) ----As a side note, a vote "to change" a current voting requirement should always require thecurrent standard iot change that standard (no matter what the vote deals with). In other words, going "from" a simple standard should require a simple majority to change it. Likewise, going "from" a supermajority standard should require a supermajority to change. It defies basic logic, mathematics, and common sense that a "lesser" requirement would be used to "get around a stricter requirement" that was seen, by a select group, as "a pesky rule" preventing their ballot items from passing.----

The solutions are either:

1) Requiring a 60% Super Majority to pass property tax issues
2) Allowing only levy payers to vote on those measures...

3) A sales tax with total revenue evenly distributed on a per student basis would be a much more equitable solution (everyone pays in) and would also remove the disadvantage that can occur in lower property value school districts. Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way.

--->Once again, the conundrum: The benefit a simple majority provides of aiding in the achievement of your desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. So which takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

Wake up WA State voters; you're property taxes can be UNFAIRLY raised now!!

-

Revisiting an old salty wound in the unjust category:

It was certainly a "backdoor" manner in which HJR 4204 reversed the "supermajority vote" requirement for raising property taxes. How can you vote to change a supermajority requirement using a vote that only requires a “simple majority”?! It would've been perfectly reasonable/acceptable if a supermajority vote had been used to overturn the supermajority requirement but being able to use the “lower” (simple majority) requirement to change the "higher" requirement should seem seriously wrong to all voters.

It boils down to a flawed loophole that allows for "all" amendments to the constitution to need a simple majority vote (without regard to what the amendment actually changes). I.e. the law fails to take into account the rare times that a vote would actually be dealing with a change that impacts an established voting "percentage" requirement as opposed to an amendment that had nothing to do with voting percentages. This needs to be addressed as well.

A big reason it "passed" (cough, cough) is simply because 1) so many people voting for it knew they weren't directly impacted (i.e. renters and people living with relatives) by property tax school levies and they just like "the idea" of their schools getting more money and 2) An innocent mistake whereas many people don't understand why (in certain situations) a supermajority should be required iot make it a truly fair vote. In fact, ANY vote that allows people to participate who aren't directly impacted (financially) should require a supermajority in order to simply help to make up for allowing a large number of people to vote for something (like property tax levies) who are aren't even affected by it (i.e. non property owners voting to raise taxes on someone else). However, if property owners were the only people allowed to vote on issues related to property taxes then a simple majority vote would be perfectly appropriate and fair.

**To the people who voted for 4204: It's like saying it would be alright to let the residents of Oregon vote alongside WA residents on a piece of legislation to raise Washington's sales tax to 12% and using a simple majority vote to do it. I doubt they'd be ok with that...


Read on if you're interested in an expanded explanation of why the supermajority vote is necessary to make it a "fair" vote...
---------------------------------------------------------

Examples: Assume 100 people are voting on a tax tied to property values:
--Abbreviations & colors used below: Levy Payer (LP), Non-Levy Payer (NLP)

1) "If" all 100 are LPs= The vote should require 51 votes to pass (The basic Simple Majority).

2) However, if the 100 consisted of 55 LPs & 45 NLPs the vote needs to be a supermajority. Here's why: To get a simple majority of LPs you need at least 28 to vote for the tax (28/55). The problem is that with the introduction of the 45 NLP voters, who aren't directly impacted, you've created a flawed vote. Flawed because you could get passage with as little as 6 LPs and 45NLPs voting yes (6+45=51%). That would pass the tax with only 11% (6/55=11%) support from the people who'd actually pay the tax!

Obviously a 100% (45/45) NLP voting rate is extreme but the mere fact it's a possibility shows the flaw. How about a very realistic 75% (34/45) of NLPs which would require only 31% (17/55) LPs to be passed (still extremely unfair). Obviously, passing a tax on people, when only 31% approved it, is a flawed system. Even using 64% (29/45) of NLPs you see that "a minority" 40% (22/55) of LPs still results in the tax being passed upon them.

3) The simple offset to correct this problem is to start with the baseline premise that at least a simple majority of LPs is required for passage. That means you need at least 28/55 PTPs to pass. Then, you simply have to make an educated estimate of the yes votes by NLPs. Again, it's perfectly logical that people are more likely to vote for a tax they get benefits from but don't pay for so using a potential rate of 70-80% is quite realistic. Using 75% produces .75x45=34 NLP yes votes. Recall, the premise dictates a simple majority of LPs is required for passage (28/55). Adding those figures yields 34+28=62 votes required. That equates to a 62% (62/100) vote requirement (which is a supermajority).

Adding more NLPs to the equation (&/or increasing their potential yes votes) would cause that required supermajority requirement of 62% to "potentially" go as high as 73% as follows: 45NLPs voting yes + the same 28 ("simple" majority of LPs) from above yields 45+28=73 votes (73/100= 73%). Using a 60% supermajority rule still wouldn't protect LPs in this example BUT it's a heck of a lot better than the simple majority rule that was "swindled" in 2007's HJR4204...

We should bring back equality by either:
1) Requiring a Super Majority to pass property tax issues "OR"
2) Allowing only property owners to vote on those measures... The other option is to just fund all schools by sales tax revenue (because everyone pays sales tax).
Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way (property owners would see their portion of the funding go down slightly while non-property owners would actually start paying a portion...)

4) By The Way: Contrary to uninformed viewpoints, renters do not always see their rents go up by the same amount landlords property taxes are increased. In a Utopian world that might be the case but "in the real world" landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Raising rent on a vacant property, or raising it such that it causes a vacancy, isn't a very sustainable business plan now is it? The property owner basically has to "eat" the additional expense in the same way a business experiences profit margin erosion when they can't pass along all their input cost increases for various reasons.

Let’s reverse 4204 and make these votes fair again!