Mediaboss Marketing

What is the Democracy Voucher Program? To learn about what the Democracy Voucher Program is, please visit the About the Program page.

Can I still apply to receive Democracy Vouchers? Yes. Apply now to receive your $100 in Democracy Vouchers

Frequently Asked Questions View the list of frequently asked questions here. If these do not answer your questions, please feel free to contact us at democracyvoucher@seattle.gov or call (206) 727-8855.

Are you a registered voter? You do not need to apply and will automatically receive your Democracy Vouchers by mail after January 3, 2017.

Not sure if you are a registered voter? Visit the King County Elections' website to check if you are a registered voter and/or update your address.

Information for Seattle Residents Visit the Seattle residents' page for more information about how Seattle residents may participate in the Democracy Voucher Program.

Information for Candidates Visit the Candidates' page for information about how to qualify as a candidate in the Democracy Voucher Program. Interested candidates are strongly encouraged to contact Polly Grow, the Campaign Finance Auditor and Trainer before starting a campaign.

See the original post:
Democracy Voucher Program - DemocracyVoucher | seattle.gov

New York Times

Democracy in America: How Is It Doing? New York Times Democracy in the United States is strong, but showing some cracks. That is the conclusion of a new survey of 1,571 political scientists. Almost all said that the United States performed well on some of the most important measures of democracy: free and ...

More here:
Democracy in America: How Is It Doing? - New York Times

By Dinorah Azpuru and Michael Hall By Dinorah Azpuru and Michael Hall February 23 at 6:00 AM

In January, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)s Democracy Index demoted the United States from full democracy to flawed democracy. Thats disturbing, but what does it mean?

A democracy index is an attempt to measure how democratic a country is, like a movie rating flags adult content, or a bond rating measures an individual bonds risk. It may sound like typical academic overreach to put a number on democracy, but indexes can distinguish which countries are democracies and which are dictatorships and define countries that are shades of gray between them.

[How do you measure democracy?]

The basic tenet of democracy, free and fair elections, is intrinsically part of all the democracy indexes nowadays. A number of organizations use a range of criteria to determine their indexes, so how does the EIU downgrade compare to these other indexes? We looked at some of the best known indexes for a comparison.

Democracy indexes tabulate the freedom to campaign and other political rights

The level of democracy in countries can vary across indexes, sometimes dramatically, as Seva Gunitsky discussed here in the Monkey Cage. The democracy index with the most data is Polity IV, with data for many countries going back to the 1940s. The Freedom House Index has data from the early 1970s onward. These are the indicators academics use most commonly.

Polity IV assigns scores to a handful of questions about a countrys political institutions How many people are free to campaign? What checks are on executive power? How competitive is campaigning? Polity IV assigns a score to each answer, then adds up a total score for that country ranging from 0 to 10.

Freedom House assigns scores ranging from 1 to 7 for two categories each, civil liberties and political rights. Using combined scores, Freedom House divides countries into rankings of free, partly free and not free.

[Open data and (15 million!) new measures of democracy]

The United States is still a democracy and its Free

According to Polity IV the United States, with a score of 10 points, is still considered a full democracy, and it has always been. Freedom House has always ranked the United States a free country.

But Freedom House also produces an aggregate score combining a 40-point scale for political rights and a 60-point scale for civil liberties. The U.S. aggregate score is 89/100 lower than Canada (99/100), the United Kingdom (95/100), Sweden (100/100) and most other Western democracies.

The Global Democracy Ranking and the EIU Democracy Index are newer indexes, and expand the criteria used to measure democracy. The Global Democracy Ranking measures the quality of democracy using a political dimension (civil liberties, gender political equality, press freedom, transparency and alternation of power) for 50 percent of the score then tabulates five non-political dimensions for the other half of the score. Included are tallies of gender fairness and equality; wealth and quality of living of individuals and communities; knowledge (research, education, information); health and environmental sustainability.

[Do Americans still believe in democracy?]

In the 2016 Global Democracy Ranking, the United States isnt among the top 10 democratic countries in the world, and ranks lower than other advanced industrial democracies, as shown in Figure 1. The top three democracies in the world are Norway, Switzerland and Sweden.

The EIU Democracy Index in turn, is based on the ratings for 60 indicators, grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture.

Heres the main reason for the U.S. downgrade to the category of flawed democracy there was a drop in the levels of trust in political parties, elected representatives and governmental institutions. EIU also ranks France and Italy as flawed democracies.

The EIU Report explains, Trust in political institutions is an essential component of well-functioning democracies. Yet surveys by Pew, Gallup and other polling agencies have confirmed that public confidence in government has slumped to historic lows in the U.S. This has had a corrosive effect on the quality of democracy in the U.S., as reflected in the decline in the U.S. score in the Democracy Index.

The EIU analysis is consistent with 2014 data from the AmericasBarometer, a Vanderbilt University-based academic survey of citizens in Western Hemisphere countries. Figure 2 shows that U.S. trust in Congress is lower than in most other countries, other than Peru.

This low ranking is somewhat surprising, given that several countries in the list are new democracies. Some, like Venezuela, rank somewhere between democracy and dictatorship. The only other advanced industrial democracy on the list, Canada (49/100 points), ranks much higher than the United States (30/100).

Other indexes measure more specific components of democracy, such as the quality of elections. The Electoral Integrity Index takes this approach, and ranks the United States lower than other Western democracies.

In summary, there are reasons for concern about the strength of American democracy. True, only one of these indexes has actually demoted the United States at this point but other democracy indexes remind us that U.S. democracy is less than perfect. In fact, indexes that consider a broad range of factors dont rate the United States at the top of the list, but rank other Western democracies higher.

A key takeaway here, perhaps, is that democracy is always a work in progress. The EIU findings suggest that one major challenge for U.S. elected representatives is to overcome the high levels of distrust in democratic institutions in the years ahead. Commitments to freedom of expression, press freedom, checks and balances, and electoral integrity are all an important part of citizen confidence in their democracies.

Dinorah Azpuru and Michael Hall are associate professors of political science and international relations at Wichita State University.

Read the original post:
Yes, our 'flawed' democracy just got downgraded. Here's why. - Washington Post

William H. McRaven, a retired four-star admiral and former Navy SEAL, defendedjournalists this week, calling President Trumps denunciation of the media as the enemy of the American people the greatest threat to democracy hes seen in his lifetime.

Thats coming from a man whos seen major threats todemocracy.

McRaven, who was commander of the secretive Joint Special Operations, is the man who organized and oversaw the highly risky operationthat killed Osama bin Ladenalmost six years ago. The admiral from Texas had tapped a special unit of Navy SEALs to carry out the May 2011 raid of the elusive terrorists hideout, a high-walled compound inAbbottabad, Pakistan,The Washington Posts Craig Whitlock reportedshortly after bin Ladens death.

McRaven left the military in 2014 after nearly four decades and later became chancellor of the University of Texas System. The UT-Austin alumnus, who has a bachelors degree in journalism,addressed a crowd at the universitys Moody College of Communication on Tuesday.

We must challenge this statement and this sentiment that the news media is the enemy of the American people, McRaven said, according to the Daily Texan.This sentiment may be the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.

[Adm. William McRaven: The terrorist hunter on whose shoulders Osama bin Laden raid rested.]

To be a good leader you have to be a good communicator, he added. As a leader you have to communicate your intent every chance you get and if you fail to do that, you will pay the consequences.

McRavens remarkscome amid Twitter attacks on the media by the president, whos hollered FAKE NEWS at several negative stories about his administration. In a widely shared tweet Friday, Trump called the media, naming the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN, the enemy of the American People!

In another tweet the same day, Trump quotedconservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who praised the presidents news conference the day before during which he confrontedthe media.

One of the most effective press conferences Ive ever seen! says Rush Limbaugh. Many agree. Yet FAKE MEDIA calls it differently! Dishonest, Trump tweeted.

President Trump berated the media repeatedly at his press conference on Feb. 16, calling CNN, the New York Times and other outlets "dishonest" and "very fake news," for reporting unfavorable stories about him. (Video: Reuters / Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Trump repeatedly blasted the media in a combative, more-than-an-hour-long news conference last Thursday, repeating descriptions of the press as dishonest and fake.

He berated a Jewish reporter for askinga question about bomb threats to dozens of Jewish community centers and for expressing concerns that Trump had yet to address anti-Semitic attacks. The president took the question as a personal affront, saying he was not anti-Semitic, even though the reporter never made such an accusation.

At the news conference, thepresidentalso criticized the intelligence community, asserted that his young administration is running smoothly and said that hed inherited a mess.

Trump haslashed out at the media a couple more times on Twitter over the past few days.

[Commander of bin Laden raid blasts Senate for disrespecting military leaders]

McRaven is not the only retired military man who has criticized the presidents remarks.

In an interview Saturday on NBC News, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), a vocal Trump critic, said such criticisms of the media is how dictators get started.

In other words, a consolidation of power, McCain told Meet the Press host Chuck Todd from Munich. When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press. And Im not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. Im just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.

McCain was specifically responding to Trumps condemnation of the news media as the enemy of the people, a phrase typically used by leaders to refer to hostile foreign governments or subversive organization and echoed the language of autocrats who seek minimize dissent, the New York Times wrote.

This is not the onlytime McRaven hasspoken outsince leaving the military.

In a seething column published last year in theTampa Tribune, he blasted Congress, specifically the Senate, for a disturbing trend in how politicians abuse and denigrate military leadership, particularly the officer corps, to advance their political agendas.

[Fox News anchor Chris Wallace warns viewers: Trump crossed the line in latest attack on media]

McRaven was particularly angry at the Senates treatment of Rear Adm. Brian L. Losey, who was forced to retire after several Democratic and Republican senators pressured the Navy to hold him accountable for retaliating against multiple whistleblowers, The Posts Whitlock wrote in 2016.

A series of DOD inspector general investigations were reviewed by the Navy leadership and, once again, Adm. Losey was found not to have violated the law, rule or policy. In fact, it was clear to the Navy that the personnel action taken by Losey against the complainants was not reprisal, McRaven wrote, adding later: Despite the Navys multiple endorsements, certain members of Congress chose to use Loseys case to pursue their own political agenda. They held hostage other Navy nominations until Loseys promotion recommendation was rescinded. The ransom for their congressional support was Brian Loseys career and, more importantly, his stellar reputation.

Losey, who was commander in charge of the Navys elite SEAL teams, served under McRaven.

McRaven, one of the most experienced terrorist hunters in the U.S. government, had spent years tracking bin Ladenand recruited the Navy SEALs that carried out the raid two months before the terrorist was killed,Whitlock wrote.

The search for bin Laden was led by the CIA. Leon Panetta, the agencys director at the time, delegated the mission to McRaven after then-President Barack Obama gave the authorization.

In his book titled Spec Ops, McRaven noted six key requirements for any successful mission: surprise, speed, security, simplicity, purpose and repetition.

Amy B Wang contributed to this story.

READ MORE:

Thats how dictators get started: McCain criticizes Trump for calling media the enemy

Trump called the news media an enemy of the American People. Heres a history of the term.

Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein: Trumps attacks on the press are more dangerous than Nixons

Original post:
'Greatest threat to democracy': Commander of bin Laden raid slams Trump's anti-media sentiment - Washington Post

As the Conservative Political Action Conference convenes in Washington this week, it is a vital moment for conservatives to take stock of where the conservative philosophy stands at a time when Donald TrumpDonald TrumpCompanies stuck in crossfire between Trump and his critics Bannon rips 'corporatist, globalist media' DNC candidate Harrison drops out, backs Perez for chairman MORE is president and Russian strongman Vladimir Putin is waging a war against democracy on both sides of the Atlantic.

From the presidency of Harry Truman to the presidency of Barack ObamaBarack ObamaGovernor: NY will protect transgender students Poll: Majority of voters oppose border wall, ObamaCare repeal Muslim White House staffer quits, slamming Trumps travel ban MORE there has been a great consensus that has defended America well. This consensus was at the heart of the security policies of every Democratic and Republican president since the end of the Second World War.

The only president who has not accepted the security policies of this consensus is Donald J. Trump, who has a habit of occasionally praising dictators and despots including Putin that should be as alien to true conservatives as it is alien to true liberals.

The backdrop of the CPAC meeting is the now broad consensus throughout the American intelligence community that Putin and Russian intelligence services acted to interfere with the 2016 election for the purpose of electing Trump as president. There are now widespread reports from a range of European sources, reported in European and American media, that Putin and his intelligence forces are now employing the same tactics they used in the U.S. to interfere in elections in nations across Europe, usually seeking to elect far-right pro-Putin candidates.

What Putin is doing, which should deeply offend conservatives and liberals and patriots of all persuasions, is waging a war against democracy across the full landscape of NATO nations. This war is designed to divide democratic nations from within, to divide democratic nations from each other, and to ultimately destroy institutions that bring democratic nations together for common purpose, from NATO to the European Union.

CPAC could perform an invaluable service to democracy, the Republican Party, the American people, the free world and, I emphasize, President Trump by taking a clear and unequivocal position against Russian aggression and in favor of maximum allied unity and publicly calling on President Trump to do the same.

Given the choices Trump has made regarding national security positions in his government, Putin has reason to be worried that his support for Trump in the election may ultimately backfire against Russia. While Trump has praised Putin and at times insulted friends of America from Australia to Germany to Mexico, and has appeared at times to oppose European unity, the deeply held views of key members of his administration are strongly in the post-war bipartisan security consensus.

When retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis was named as Trump's choice to be secretary of Defense, I immediately praised his nomination and supported his confirmation.

When Trump selected Army Gen, H.R. McMaster to be his national security adviser, that, too, was an outstanding choice of a first-rate military strategist who is rock-solid in favor of the key aspects of the long-term bipartisan national security consensus.

It was very constructive for Vice President Pence to travel to the Munich security conference last week to reiterate, in the strongest possible terms, as Secretary Mattis has done, American support for the unity and strength of the NATO alliance.

By contrast, President Trump should remove Steve Bannon, who holds very different views and lacks depth of experience and knowledge of national security matters, from the principals committee of the National Security Council.

Should the United States push for some of our European allies to increase their financial commitment to NATO? Absolutely yes. Should the United States seek agreements with Russia that are consistent with our interests and values? Of course we should.

But Russian aggression, Russian attacks on democracy, Russian violation of international arms agreements, Russian annexation of Crimea, Russian attempts to destabilize Ukraine, and Russian interference in democratic elections should never be tolerated or accepted and, going forward, should always be deterred.

Current economic sanctions against Russia should remain in effect, and if Russian aggression against nations or democratic elections continues, the sanctions should be strengthened.

It would be a service to America and democracy everywhere if CPAC would re-state these positions in clear and decisive terms, and a service to President Trump if a strong CPAC position would move him unequivocally to these positions along with every Democratic and Republican president in modern history.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Chief Deputy Majority Whip Bill Alexander (D-Ark.). He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. Contact him at brentbbi@webtv.net.

The views of contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read more:
Will CPAC denounce Putin's war against democracy? - The Hill (blog)