Joni Balter (surprise!) disses the caucus. Some of the goofs are just too dumb to let slide.
Taxpayers are spending almost $10 million for 19 delegates to be awarded in a race Republican Sen. John McCain has all but won; and so Democrats can stage a high-profile, show-and-tell event with no delegates forthcoming from the results.
And for us Democrats, the primary is a dumb waste of money. That’s why we don’t use it to award delegates. (There are, you know, constitutional issues too.)
For one thing, local election officials have a better record tallying votes. The best proof that the caucus system is full of holes came with the premature announcement by Republicans that McCain had won, while Mike Huckabee was still too close for that call to be made.
For fuck’s sake. Our caucus went off without (much of) a hitch, and our turnout was fifty times their turnout. Just because Luke Esser and his “short bussers” can’t count votes doesn’t mean the caucus method is broken.
Caucuses are quaint gatherings that are unwelcoming to the military,
Theoretically, yes. For all those Democrats serving in The Big Sandbox, getting together on a Saturday to discuss politics can be a tough one. Solution: bring the troops home.
the disabled
This would come as a big surprise to the disabled folks who attended my caucus. We had to negotiate some stairs, yes, but everything worked out ok.
and a variety of other voters who don’t want to sit around with their neighbors and hash out the decision.
Like Seattle Times columnists, apparently.
The Democratic race is very much alive and close. State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz knows voters will be furious with him when they realize they have to sign a pledge affirming they are Democrats to cast a primary vote — only to have the votes not count toward delegates.
Dwight Pelz could give a shit. He’s just protecting the integrity of our presidential nominating process (such that it is) by ensuring that Democrats (or people who want to sign a piece of paper saying they’re a Democrat) will have their votes count towards the selection of delegates.
But I am going to make a wild prediction. Our election system with caucuses and primaries is so convoluted and confusing, and the Republican tallying so troubling, that the parties will come to their senses by 2012 and abandon the caucuses.
My prediction is that in 2012, columnists will still be whining, ill-informed, about the nature of our caucus system.
“Caucuses are quaint gatherings that are unwelcoming to the military,”
Where does she get this falsehood from? Democratic caucus rules allowed military personnel to vote in absentia on forms downloaded from the internet. Isn’t voting the main point of attending a caucus? Isn’t the object to express your preference about who the party’s presidential nominee would be? Balter doesn’t know what she’s talking about, because the military weren’t excluded from that decision. To the contrary, the Democratic Party bent over backwards to accomodate them — just as Washington State bends over backwards to accomodate military voters.
“and a variety of other voters who don’t want to sit around with their neighbors and hash out the decision”
From this statement, I’m compelled to infer that Balter has never attended a caucus. I was sick on Feb. 9, so I spent only 5 minutes at my precinct caucus — just long enough to sign in, fill in the name “Clinton” in the presidential preference box — and leave.
“The Democratic race is very much alive and close. State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz knows voters will be furious with him when they realize they have to sign a pledge affirming they are Democrats to cast a primary vote — only to have the votes not count toward delegates.”
So where is GOP Chairman Luke Esser in this? Does Joni have a problem with the fact GOP primary voters get only half a vote — because they choose only half the delegates? She doesn’t mention that. Why?
Just because Luke Esser and his “short bussers” can count votes
I believe you meant “can’t count votes”.
The estimates are that the number of DEM votes on Tuesday will be several times the numbers who attended the caucuses.
I certainly can understand why many people find the caucus system fun and it is also certainly a way to build party participation.
But, it is hard to stand for democracy and the caucus system when so few people attend caucuses, the ballot at the caucus is not secret, etc.
I have an idea. Lets have a means test! To be a member of the Dem party you need to pay an annual fee of $250. The, the caucuses can be held for only the paid members. Of course, this would mean than anyone wanting to buy votes could ….
“But I am going to make a wild prediction. Our election system with caucuses and primaries is so convoluted and confusing, and the Republican tallying so troubling, that the parties will come to their senses by 2012 and abandon the caucuses.”
She’s right about one thing — her prediction is “wild.” As in, shooting blind in the dark. Within the Democratic Party, the caucus-vs.-primary debate has raged for as long as I can remember. This issue comes up in EVERY presidential election year. And our party still uses the caucus system. So does the Brand X party. Obviously someone wants it.
What’s really going on here is that people too lazy or indifferent to invest even 5% of the time and effort in politics that party activists do want a say in how our parties should be run. The only thing they’re willing to do is vote when an election rolls around. They have no loyalty to the party, don’t support it with donations or volunteer work, even complain about having to say they’re a “Democrat” or a “Republican,” yet they want equal footing with people who do. These are the people Balter is shilling for. She’s full of shit. These outsiders haven’t earned the right to run our party or help choose our candidate. They’ll get to vote in November, and if they don’t participate in a political party, that’s all they should expect.
@5 Your reasoning is faulty, my friend. Would you argue that “it is hard to stand for democracy and voting when so few people bother to vote”? How many people vote in local elections where the only thing on the ballot is a school levy or electing a fire commissioner? Is low turnout a reason to scrap voting and democracy?
Ask my sister, who asked for the day off to caucus, and her request was denied. So her choice was:
A) Go and Caucus
–or–
B) Keep her job
She chose B.
At least in the primary, there is a wide array of voting times you can go to the polls, or you can vote by mail for your primary selection.
Watch the primary numbers roll in, and even though it doesn’t count towards allocating delegates, it will still blow away the numbers that voted in the caucus.
Now that I know how it’s all selected, i’m now interested in getting active in the WSDP to argue against the caucus in 2012.
Just because Luke Esser and his “short bussers” can count votes
I believe you meant “can’t count votes”.
Dont worry YLB. We have it covered. We came up with enough phony ballots to put the queen in. With the new vote by mail in KC we have thousand of phony votes.
CL- Prove it! Oh that’s right, you tried and couldn’t.
Actually, K what the dufus@9 was able to prove, was that there was Republican cheating.
SJ @ 5: “But, it is hard to stand for democracy and the caucus system when so few people attend caucuses, the ballot at the caucus is not secret, etc.”
Democracy is messy, inherently messy. The Greeks’ concept of democracy involved, of course, not just everybody voting, but everybody being equally informed about what they were voting for. There is inevitable tension in that concept. Is it best to have the biggest number voting, or those who give the biggest shit? I guess I tend to think the parties should get to decide how they want to choose their own candidates. If the Ds want to stick with a caucus and the Rs want to split between a caucus and a primary, great. Also, to get back to earlier concepts of democracy, the New England town hall meetings prior to independence were all the rage. Those meetings sound a lot more like caucuses than primaries. Go state your opinion amongst those with whom you live, and do it loudly.
@7 Roger Rabbit
Caucus … low particpation, even when it is a record/\
aggressive organzers have huge advnatges
no secret ballot
lection .. low but lots higher than caucus
freedom form organizers
secret ballot
Call me old fashioned but the secret ballot is one of the major difference from fascist democracies as in China and Russia.
Actually, is there any legal reason a party needs to be representative? What if they were run ;like public corporations?
IMAGINE:
Reprican Inc. Traded on the stock exchange, proxy votes, etc. Now that the prece is way down, you and I could buy lots shares and make a killing!
Demooscan Inc Also traded on exchange but price is too high now. Plus that Obama guy has the nutty idea of lots of folks owning a small number of shares. This dilutes my vote! I’ll buy Reprican!
Of course we would have a law limiting how many shares anyone person could own.
Parties could finance campaigns by selling shares!
THEN the Sultantae of Bidet, UAE might just try to take over the Reprican party!
Will — the Democratic turnout was only about 10 times the Republican turnout, not 50 times as much. Perhaps in some districts, of course, the Democratic turnout could have even been 100 times the GOP turnout. But statewide, I figure 250,000 Democrats and 25,000 Republicans.
The Republicans actually had one or two spots with much higher than average turnout, at least in comparison with GOP turnout statewide. I heard that the 5th LD actually got over 2,300 Republican turnout. This is probably by far the highest GOP turnout in any LD in the entire state, but is still probably only a fraction of the Democratic turnout in the 5th LD.
DustinJames @ 8
Don’t worry. Obama will still crush Clinton in the primary on Tuesday, even though the primary doesn’t count.
The state shouldn’t run a presidential primary, unless the political parties are willing to pick up the tab. $10 million is a lot of money. Perhaps $2 or $3 million might have been spent anyway, on school levy elections in certain areas, but the remainder is solely due to the presidential primary. Let’s keep open the option of either party requesting a presidential primary, whatever date the party chooses, but the party has to pick up the cost of the election.
As for the caucuses, they are a great fundraiser for the party. There were probably $500,000 to $1,000,000 in Democratic donations (if not more) and perhaps up to $100,000 in Republican donations last Saturday. Better for the parties to raise money from their supporters in caucuses, than for the state to fork it over by the truckload to no real effect in a primary.
DustinJames @ 8
Is a national election day a holiday in our country like it is in many countries? No, it is not. As a result, we routinely have lower numbers turning out for national elections than we see in many other nations. So, DustinJames, why don’t you lobby for Election Day being a holiday before you go to bat for primaries over caucuses?
hmmm
why not have the PARTIES run their own elections??? Unions do it???
As for the Caucuses, I would feel better if the voting were kept secret at the caucus. This could be done the old fashioned way with clay shards or maybe colored pebbles?
I would suggest carrots but you might eat them!
Did you see my thought about privatizing the parties? If The Democats and Reprocans were corporations, we could all just buy shares and use the stock exchange to record the votes!
Roger ..
this corporate party idea has wheels!
If we privatize the parties, then we could also privatize social security!
So your retirement funds would be invested in the parties! Then people could vote and invest at the same time!
@9 Just what this blog doesn’t need: Another wingnut posing as a liberal. I guess no Republicans want to be known as Republicans these days. Can’t say as I blame them for that, given the GOP’s disrepute.
@18 Carrots? Did someone say CARROTS?!! YUMMY!!! I (heart) CARROTS!!!!! =:-D
@8
Or C) your sister could have downloaded a form from the state Democratic party’s website, voted for whoever she wanted, and mailed it in. It’s not our fault that she didn’t take the time to find out all of her options.
I have lived and voted in several states. They all had primaries. They also had party registration. As long as WA does not have party registration we should keep the caucus system.
@8
“Now that I know how it’s all selected, i’m now interested in getting active in the WSDP to argue against the caucus in 2012.”
I doubt that you would ever attend a meeting.
As an elected delegate to the county and legislative conventions, I’ll make sure that I will argue for keeping the caucus system.
Parties are becoming obsolete. I would guess that less than 50% of Mericans who live in areas where there are two parties, identify with either one.
The Red party in particular has become a kind of elecral vehicle, taken over recently by a weird coalition of interest groups devoted not o some “Republican” ideology but to theire individual agendas.
Few thinking people can possibly accept all the disparate ideas of the Rep party. The Dems, OTOH, may be headed toward a kind of vague centrality tied to not being Reprican. How long can that fgo on before the Dems also break up?
Maybe the time is coming to consider a multiparty system? I’ll bet of we legislated against the built in partisan structure of our govt, the parties would not last.
“. Just because Luke Esser and his “short bussers” can’t count votes doesn’t mean the caucus method is broken.”
uh, they didn’t actually have any “votes” to count. his phony call for McCain was based on who-knows-what, and when all eyes turned to him, he needed to come up with a story real fast as to what it was he was counting. not until monday did the answer come — that he was counting the preferences as listed on the sign-in sheets which were filled out BEFORE any alleged “caucus” had occurred.
“I think there’s a misconception that we have a bunch of ballots here” – Luke Esser as quoted in the Seattle PI
.
18 SJ
The Democratic party does hold its own primary. It’s called the Democratic Caucus. You’d think a smart feller like you would know that.
The primary election was something the State of WA cooked up that has nothing to do with how Democrats choose their candidates.
@26
The primary election is something the PEOPLE OF WASHINGTON came up with to choose their delegates.
The parties, great organizations that they are decided that was just to ‘big D Democratic’, and have been fighting against them ever since.
None of you guys are even challenging SJ’s points.
Lets leave machine politics to Tammany hall, Mayor Daley, and Ohio, ‘kay?
With 99.99% precincts reporting
Candidate Percentage
Huckabee —–23.2 %
McCain —–25.3 %
Paul —–21.5 %
Romney —–15.5 %
Other —–1.1 %
Uncommitted —–13.5 %
So I ask the 16%ers here where did Luke Esser incorrectly call the campaign or is this another of Goldy’s “I can’t let this issue die or I won’t have much to blog about this week” canards?
As Puddy was the first to point out the AP called Missouri for Clinton only to eat them words later. We on the other hand count the primary vote too, unlike the donkey where poor wittle DustinJames sister was disenfranchised. I declared my party and voted in the primary. And no Clueless Idiot I will not tell you for whom I voted for in the primary.
But the telling comment not lost on Puddy but was lost on other 16%ers here by PassionateJus@22. Why didn’t the Donkey party let people know their options? Did Dwight Pelz fall down on the job – again?
Holy Crapola Batman, Windie made sense! The 16%ers haven’t challenged SJ and only Windie and deciphered it. There is intelligent life with one 16%er.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ns18m.html
The GOP isn’t happy with their choices.
… only Windie has deciphered…
27 Windie
The primary election is something the PEOPLE OF WASHINGTON came up with to choose their delegates.
Wrong. That primary was struck down by the courts. The real answer is: “The caucus system is something that the Democratic party came up with to choose the delegates of their party to the natinal Democratic convention. If you’re a Democrat, caucus. If not, keep your mouth shut. If you don’t like your state wasting money on a useless primary, complain to your legislators.
I am a Democrat and I caucused. It wasn’t a “machine,” it was me, seven of my immediate neighbors, 44 others in my precinct, and 250,000 other Democrats statewide taking the time to express our preferences and to elect delegates pledged to maintain those preferences. Machine, my ass. You didn’t even go.
It really isn’t a problem for the military. Military service is one of the three reasons that someone can send an absentee form to the caucus, meaning that it’s just as easy for a service member from Washington who is stationed elsewhere to vote in the caucus as in the primary. And since the overwhelming majority of service members who aren’t deployed get weekends off, attending is no problem either.
PuddyStupid still can’t accept that the one politician determined to be the most liberal in the U.S. Senate, more liberal than Ted Kennedy, much, much more than Hillary Clinton is the same guy he’ll be throwing the lever for in November.
The most liberal Senator is Barack Obama.
If a guy more liberal than Ted Kennedy is not a “16%er”, what is?
Stupes, why are you voting for a “16%er” and not for mumbles McCain?
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
I will not tell you for whom I voted for in the primary.
Too bad, either it was for a “16%er” or Mumbles. Probably Mumbles McCain because your vote wouldn’t count otherwise.
Certainly wasn’t for Huckabee – you and Huck have irreconcilable theological differences.
And your love for killing and torture wouldn’t let you support Paul even though he’s ok on the tax score.
And it sure wasn’t for Hillary – we all know that paranoiac fever in your puny mind fanned by years and years of consuming right wing bullshit – wouldn’t let you do it in a million years.
“I will not tell you for whom I voted for in the primary.”
Yawn!
Just exactly who here could possibly give a shit????
He gets his syntactical skills from from W, evidently.
Uncle Tom is just here to annoy the REAL people. Let him Clarence his way through life with the attention he deserves. If, indeed, he IS black, he put it on with a brush.
Only one from. I get my syntactical skills from the brain damage I have from being around wingnits too long.
Uhm, wingNUTs. I warned you….
@26 daddy Love
Can you document your claim? I think it would be unconstituional for the State to run an election for a PARTY position w/o the agreeement from that party.
@27 Windie
a fragrant breeze!
The idea that the two parties are independent of governemtn makes no sense when they get priviliges other organizations do not receive.
I have a wonderful idea for an initiative:
Be it resolved, that no funds, personnel or facilities of the State of Washington shall be used to support the activities of any political party unless that same support can be given to all parties.
@22 daddy love
So, by your standards, the Rep party could decide not to accept any Hindues?
Right on-Goldy! What good is a delegate who won’t stay bought and paid for?
One benefit of caucuses to a party that doesn’t get discussed enough is that it fires up the base – the people needed to actually put in the money and energy to win an election down the line.
Seeing all the people on the street walking toward the caucus from blocks and blocks around sure inspired me! And it is good for children to see their neighbors going to vote.
Why must a party select a selection process that least benefits the party’s future prospects?
[ps. I hate this sham primary vote tomorrow. If I support Obamam, do I have to vote in this thing to maintain the legitimacy of my choice? I wouldn’t matter if Clinton wasn’t using these kind of non primaries as spin fodder.]
dl@32
Well we agree on one thing it looks like, the Parties killed the good primary, now we’re stuck with the sucky ones and the caucuses.
To play the extremist a little, washington is a state where the primary is the REAL time your vote matters. We’ve gone democrat in almost every presidential election since 1988, and I doubt anyone here seriously doubts which parties candidate will win in the general election (barring something crazy). This means that our real chance to have an effect is the primary… But the parties have blocked it, knowing its far easier to control under a caucus system.
cracked@43
if the caucuses are a realistic reflection of the electorate, you shoudn’t need to worry about Clinton winning the primary, right? The caucus should have accurately reflected the will of the people.
@24 “Parties are becoming obsolete.”
Only in your wishful thinking, SJ. We’re told the Founding Fathers didn’t want them, but they sprung up instantly, and we’ve had them ever since. Parties do perform useful functions, so if they disappeared, what would replace them?
@27 The people of Washington don’t have a right to choose the Democratic candidate. Only Democrats have a right to choose the Democratic candidate.
Remember, this is a nominating process, not electing someone to a public office.
@27 “None of you guys are even challenging SJ’s points.”
Not true; we have addressed his points. There’s really only one point to make: The general public has no right to nominate the parties’ candidates. That’s the prerogative of the parties.
@27 Comparing our caucus system, which is open to anyone who wants to attend (or qualifies to vote by proxy) and declare himself a “Democrat,” to Tammany Hall, Mayor Daley’s political machine, or Ken Blackwell’s manipulation of the 2004 Ohio election is patently absurd.
On the other hand, the Washington GOP’s caucus, in which caucus-goers don’t get to vote for a presidential candidate, does bear some resemblance to machine politics.
@28 The primary is tomorrow, puddinghead, and GOP caucus-goers didn’t get to vote for a presidential candidate, so where did you get those numbers? Are those the figures Esser made up?
@29 Only you are stupid enough to think Windie made sense. See ## 47-50.
There, I fixed your comment to what you MEANT to say.
RR, be realistic. In WA, nominating a democratic candidate IS electing someone to office… or at least assigning the electoral votes. Because I’m serious about being an independant, I’ve been essentially disenfranchised from this presidential election. Anyways the only thing you get in a caucus vs a primary is more control by the leadership. Like Seattlejew said, organizers have a HUGE advantage in the caucus system, and it takes an immense amount of bravery to speak up vs the pushed agenda.
I really hope Clinton wins the primary, just to make you schmucks look bad.
…
Not enough to vote for her, but it would be sweet.
One reason we don’t have secret voting in our caucus is because we don’t want LaRouchies coming in, pretending to be Democrats, and trying to seize control of our party to promote their cult leader’s perpetual candidacy. The LaRouchies are not welcome in our party.
@53 “RR, be realistic. In WA, nominating a democratic candidate IS electing someone to office… or at least assigning the electoral votes. Because I’m serious about being an independant, I’ve been essentially disenfranchised from this presidential election.”
Point #1: Show me in our state laws where getting the Democratic nomination entitles a candidate to any public office.
Point #2: Unless someone else (e.g., GOP vote suppression operatives) kept you from voting, you disenfranchised yourself — either by choosing not to vote, or by throwing your vote away on a minor party candidate who had no chance to win.
Windie, you’re spouting nonsense. Democrats don’t have a duty to lose elections. Our candidates have to compete under the same rules as everyone else. If we’re the most popular party in Washington it’s because we offer what the majority of voters want. It’s up to our party to choose our candidates and positions; it’s up to the voters to vote for us, a competitor, or not at all. We don’t have to let independents or Republicans have a say in choosing our candidates or positions, and we choose not to, same as all the other parties. If you don’t like being frozen out of the nomination process, then participate in a party. If you refuse to do that, you have no complaint.
You’re still not being realistic.
In fact, you’re being deliberately dense.
@54 Oh please. Show me any evidence EVER of anyone successfully doing that. By successfully I don’t mean a few smartasses, I mean someone actually getting enough people together to change the vote. Its a myth, and a myth based on the parties deep distrust of the people.
@55
1) Do you REALLY believe that either Clinton OR Obama would do anything less than win by a significant distance in the WA general election? Winning the nomination doesn’t guarantee you the presidency, of course (well maybe a bit in this cycle :p), but the state has trended so strongly Democratic for the last 20 years that there should be no doubt in anyones mind whose going to win.
2) I’m voting, even knowing that my vote is meaningless. Its meaningless because the Dem party is afraid of the citizenry.
@56 wait, you think the dems have a chance from losing? lol
Seriously tho, you’re still spouting that same paranoid mumbo-jumbo about election raiding. It doesn’t work. Show me evidence if you’re going to continue to use that as a point.
I’ve let it get some off point however, lets leave me out of it for a second, and just look at caucus vs. primary.
Even with a ‘pick a party’ primary, you’re still giving YOUR OWN MEMBERS more freedom to choose who they want without being overtalked or intimidated. The style and function of a caucus can have an extremely chilling effect on dissent… Thats why the parties like ’em.
Seattle is a great example of what happens when you don’t allow parties. The mayor and council members have to raise tons of money to get their message out, and have no party organization to help them get the vote out. We end up with them being beholden to the existing establishment elite. It also means incumbants are very hard to beat.
So many people don’t get it. The Republican and Democratic Party are private entities. It’s up them them and them alone how they choose thier candidates. The caucus system works just fine – they folks that are most interested show up – there are execptions for interested people that are infirm or in the military. If Balter and the other news reporters would study the system and educate folks on the reality of the subject we’d have a lot less people expressing half baked opinions when then have no understanding of the reality of the process.
how many of you people stumping so hard for the current system are washington natives?
I bet not damn many.
OMG
WTF?
BBQ!
Pithy comment
Don’t get me started!
Clueless Idiot: Naaah, you aren’t worth the pixels.
Windie @45
Actually, since the Democratic party long ago and repeatedly since has been very clear that the caucus is the only way Democratic delegates will be chosen, tomorrow will only tell us the preferences of those too ignorant to know it means nothing or those too obsessive to let it slide even though they know it means nothing. I’m embarrassed to be in the latter camp. And I’m sorry that the WA Secretary of State has gone out of his way to mislead the former.
@64
So of course the party is always right, right?
Sorry I don’t buy it.
Windie sez:
When it comes to determining how to choose its candidates, of course the party has the right to determine the procedure. How can you possibly argue otherwise?
Why should anyone other than actual Republicans choose who represents the Republican Party? Why should anyone other than actual Democrats choose who represents the Democratic Party?
‘Taking the short bus to the primary’
Roger “Where’s the free handouts?” Rodent, and YLB the “I’m unemployed!” need a ride. Did anyone pick them up?
@46 Rabbit ,,,
what to replace parties with?
err ahh .. who ran the Obama campaign? Imagine that on a fractile scale .. it is not hard to imagine campaigns that do not need parties.
This will not happen immediately but will be inevitable if the number of independents continues to grow to a permanent majority. At hat point someone will ask why do we give the parties so much power?
As for the Federalist vs. the Republicans, they did not begin as parties. That evolved because majority rule in Congress implies a need for a dichotomy. That is, however, less true in our system where the executive and the legislature are sperate branches. It si not hard to imagine a legislature where each member id independent and organization is done by transient agglomerations rather than a party.
Why couldn’t that work?
@59 ..
Hunhhh? So if the election were partisan, in our one party city, how would partisan elections be different? You think winning primaries is free?