West Seattle Blog…

Election 2011: How West Seattle voted on liquor initiative

December 6, 2011 at 1:17 pm | In West Seattle news, West Seattle politics, WS beverages | 17 Comments

Our partners at the Seattle Times have just made maps breaking out the vote around the region on the two most-discussed statewide initiatives in last month’s elections, liquor privatization (I-1183) and tolling (I-1125). The graphic above is taken from one of the maps published by the Times – green areas supported I-1183 (the darker the green, the stronger the support), red/pink areas did not. See both initiative breakouts here. P.S. The transition to privatized liquor sales gets into high gear this Thursday, when 1183 becomes law and would-be sellers can start applying.

17 Comments

1. Well it’s no wonder, look at all the bars we have!

   Comment by M — 2:12 pm December 6, 2011 #

2. Whoa, what kind of ad campaign did costco wage on the eastside?

   Comment by questionable — 3:07 pm December 6, 2011 #

3. Interesting! So it looks like it was more a party-line vote than I realized. The rich (conservative) voters approved of the initiative overwhelmingly.

   Comment by Alex — 3:11 pm December 6, 2011 #

4. On another website I saw a post from a Florida person who was being transferred to Pullyup by his company to work in a liquor store they would be opening there.

   —-

   I’m hoping we can get businesses in who know how to order/run/stock liquor stores, and which will stock better selections.

   Comment by transplantella — 3:22 pm December 6, 2011 #

5. That’s what I was thinking, Alex.

   Comment by Nic — 3:22 pm December 6, 2011 #

6. University Professor Mike Veseth who fancies himself a “Wine Economist” clearly spells-out the dynamics involved in the passage of Initiative 1183. When time permits check out this link.
   http://wineeconomist.com/2011/11/15/a-tale-of-two-initiatives/

   Comment by Aman — 3:23 pm December 6, 2011 #

7. Alternate title for the graphic: “Who Shops At Costco” ??

   Comment by Keith — 3:40 pm December 6, 2011 #

8. I have lived in two states with state-run liquor stores (PA and WA) and four states with private liquor stores (DE, NJ, TX, AK). Private has ALWAYS been better in terms of selection, hours of operation, service, etc. Hands down – privately operated stores are better. The state does NOT need to be in the liquor business (other than liquor control).
   Anyone who doubts this need only vist PA for a lesson on how not to do it. Patronage was always the underlying reason for them keeping it state-run.

   Comment by JunctionMonkey — 5:03 pm December 6, 2011 #

9. I think Keith nails it – folks that want to support small local businesses (like the new Craft Distilleries that will be negatively impacted by the new laws) don’t shop at Costco quite so much. Folks in Bellevue on the other hand…

   Comment by SadlyWestie — 5:56 pm December 6, 2011 #

10. Sure looks like there would be a high correlation between support and higher income…and yes, Costco attracts a higher-income demographic. As a Costco shopper, I think I’d be looking for something different there than I would be from a craft distillery. I hope, anyway, that such craft operators will maintain a strong niche based on what they produce, not to mention the atmosphere they can provide. Yes, I voted for, though I did have very mixed feelings about it.

    Comment by MMB — 6:40 pm December 6, 2011 #

11. according to the P-I, two unions filed suit today, alleging that the initiative violated the state Constitutional ban on initiatives that deal with more than one topic. That should be interesting …
    And, those of you who think the Eastside is conservative and wealthy are a few decades behind. The Eastside has been electing more and more Democrats in the last 10 – 15 years and the demographics regarding income, incl. poverty-level, are very different than when it was a white, middle class burb that people moved to to escape the ‘inner city.’ Yes, there are still enclaves of the extremely wealthy, but those folks hardly care about saving money on liquor.

    Comment by metrognome — 7:15 pm December 6, 2011 #

12. I found that news release in my e-mail – hadn’t noticed earlier or I would have added it to this story. – TR

    Comment by WSB — 7:31 pm December 6, 2011 #

13. You don’t have to be RICH to be conservative…I’m NOT. It looks like West Seattle (at least in a gross area) predominately voted for I-1183. To me these green areas in WS more represent a middle and/or upper-middle class (NOT rich). Furthermore, West Seattle politically leans towards the liberal/progressive side. I think this tells more the tale of what the independent voters are thinking and NOT suggesting WS is FULL of RICH CONSERVATIVES…because it’s not.

    Comment by Near Alki — 7:39 pm December 6, 2011 #

14. Lean any more Progressive, and you will be getting “rationed” beet vodka provided by the government, just like in them old Soviet days.

    Comment by FreeMarketLiberal — 8:41 pm December 6, 2011 #

15. I think you could read the 1183 map with good old fashioned NIMBY-ism in mind, and not just ideology or wealth. The red areas might be neighborhoods with concern about more liquor on the corner. Some of the north end does not correlate as tightly with property value. My wife and I are politically similar; we voted opposite.

    Comment by TMQ — 9:38 pm December 6, 2011 #

16. i know i’m missing the point, but when i look at the map i can’t think of anything but how many voters there might be on harbor island.

    Comment by rob — 10:43 pm December 6, 2011 #

17. To me the map is more of an indication of which areas are impacted more by alcohol abuse, not income level or partisan politics.

    Comment by Jill — 11:45 pm December 6, 2011 #

Sorry, comment time is over.