This week, as I’ve tried to wrap my head around what the hell actually happened at the Republican caucuses on Saturday, the most important person in helping me understanding it all was Pudge from Sound Politics. He was heavily involved in the process and he’s managed to clear up a few misperceptions I had. First, and most importantly, the primary purpose of the Republican caucus on Saturday was not to select their preferred Presidential candidate. It was to select people to be delegates for the next level in their multi-tiered caucus system. That last part sounds a lot like what we did in the Democratic caucuses, but in ours, the number of delegates to be allotted for each candidate was apportioned according to the numbers of people supporting each candidate in the caucus. In the Republican caucus, there was no such criteria at all. They could’ve sent whichever delegates they wanted, regardless of who they were planning to support. Second, because the delegate form had no indication for presidential preference, many of the precinct captains across the state didn’t report their results correctly, which is what ultimately resulted in Boss Esser throwing up his hands Saturday night and just saying, “Fuck it! McCain wins!” and why it’s Wednesday and they’re still only at 96%.
Now as someone who tends to be a stickler for things like democracy and fairness, I prefer the way the Democrats did things. Pudge, on the other hand, does not:
In the Republican Party, the precincts decide for themselves on what basis to elect their delegates. In the Democratic Party, the precincts are required (by the “elite” “party bosses”) to select delegates based on presidential preference.
You see, by being forced to use a system that democratically allots the number of delegates for each candidate, we’ve completely limited our freedom to be able to send delegates based upon who’s the best dressed, or the tallest, or who can play the meanest harmonica. What the hell is wrong with us?
Hm. This is the second time in a week that Horse’s Ass has misrepesented what I said. Interesting.
I did not say that the Democratic system is not democratic or not fair. I was referring to the fact that many Democrats have attacked us for having a system controlled by the “elite” and “party bosses.” And this is one of many examples where the Democratic system is, in fact, controlled more by those people than the Republican system.
I even stated, absolutely sincerely, that I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with how the Democrats do things. I will quote myself, myself:
I actually don’t mind the Democratic system at all. It apparently works for them, and nothing above is intended to be a criticism of that system; it is, rather, a criticism of those Democrats who claim to be more independent of the “elite” “party bosses” than the Republicans.
Maybe I should become a republican. I play a mean harmonica.
@1
I did not say that the Democratic system is not democratic or not fair.
I did not accuse you of saying it, but anyone reading your quote above would conclude that that’s precisely what you’re implying.
And yes, we ARE more independent of the “elite party bosses” because with the system we have, they can’t interfere with our democratic choices. Tell me, which side had more people claiming that they were “shut out” of the process at their particular caucuses?
@1…Pudge…
Welcome to the club…I get misrepresented around here all the time.
What seems to be a big bone of contention is that Dems think that without proportional representation nothing is fair, while Republicans go more for winner takes all. If a majority of caucus attendees favor a particular candidate, how is it “undemocractic” to elect a slate of delegaes all of whom support that candidate?
Where is it written that place and show are entitled to anything?
If we actually held elections on the Dem theory, Dino Rossi would be governor some 49.999999999999999999% of the time.
Dems got into the PR pickle by trying to be all things to all peole, which means you end up being nothing to nobody.
It isn’t that hard to match up elected and automatic (PCOs) delegates with their stated preference and figure out what candidate won the caucuses. It’s admittedly sad that confusion ensued, which says better caucus training is needed (ours in the 45th District was pristine in this regard), but one thing it is not and that is a scandal on the order of the Lindbergh kidnapping.
Dems can do it their way, and we’ll do it ours…and never the twain shall meet.
The Piper
I did not accuse you of saying it, but anyone reading your quote above would conclude that that’s precisely what you’re implying.
Yes, if they didn’t read the rest of the post.
And yes, we ARE more independent of the “elite party bosses” because with the system we have, they can’t interfere with our democratic choices.
And neither can they interfere with ours. How do you envision them possibly being able to do that?
Tell me, which side had more people claiming that they were “shut out” of the process at their particular caucuses?
Shrug. I saw exactly one person claiming it in the GOP caucuses. Not much of a trend there.
@5
And neither can they interfere with ours. How do you envision them possibly being able to do that?
Easy, not having a formal process allows for a precinct captain to much more easily impose his own agenda. Were you born yesterday?
Now Piper Scott feels like misrepresenting things. Nobody said that the Republicans should necessarily use proportional representation instead of winner take all. Instead, people have said Republicans should use consistent rules rather than letting precinct captains each adjust the rules to get their preferred result.
@7…MikeJ…
I’m all for rules being applied consistently, and certainly in every caucus I’ve ever run, I’ve been scrupulous in letting everyone speak their piece while letting the electoral chips fall as they may.
From the 2008 WSRP Convention and Caucus Rules, here’s how we do it:
“RULE 15 — Election of Delegates to the County Convention
To be eligible for election, as a delegate to the county convention, an individual must be a registered voter in the precinct from which elected. Nomination for delegates, other than the Precinct Committee Officer, to the county convention shall be made from the floor of the caucus. Nominations shall remain open until the caucus chairman shall have called for further nominations three times with no response. Each nominee shall be given a reasonable period of time to express the nominee’s views concerning the nominee’s candidacy. In a Presidential year nominees shall indicate Presidential preference or declare themselves uncommitted. If the number of nominees exceeds the number of delegate positions, the chairman shall appoint an election teller to supervise the election. Those nominees receiving majority vote shall be deemed elected with succeeding ballots conducted until all the delegate positions are filled by majority vote. If more candidates receive a majority vote than there are delegate positions, those candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected. Following the second ballot, the nominee receiving the least votes shall be removed from consideration. In the event of ties for election or elimination, the winner shall be decided by lot. Each delegate to the county convention, other than the Precinct Committee Officer, must be elected from a precinct caucus but need not have been in attendance at the caucus for election.”
Implicit in this is the understanding that candidates for delegate slots will receive support based upon their Presidential candidate preference. Since going to caucuses starting in 1980, that’s always been understood.
What do Dems do if an elected delegate changes his or her mind? Say an Obama delegate says, “Screw it! Kucinich forever!” and supports him at the Dem county convention?
The Piper
@4
I get misrepresented around here all the time.
What seems to be a big bone of contention is that Dems think that without proportional representation nothing is fair, while Republicans go more for winner takes all. If a majority of caucus attendees favor a particular candidate, how is it “undemocractic” to elect a slate of delegaes all of whom support that candidate?
Well done sir, you complain about being misrepresented, then misrepresent the criticism I have. The problem isn’t that we don’t believe in winner take all, it’s that the Republican’s lack of formal process opens the door for winner taking less if the precinct captain tries to work it that way.
@8
Implicit in this is the understanding that candidates for delegate slots will receive support based upon their Presidential candidate preference. Since going to caucuses starting in 1980, that’s always been understood.
I’m sure that this is how it generally works, but according to Pudge, it was not the case in a number of caucuses, where Presidential preference did not factor into the decision.
What do Dems do if an elected delegate changes his or her mind? Say an Obama delegate says, “Screw it! Kucinich forever!” and supports him at the Dem county convention?
Nothing. Same as the Republican side, where the delegates can change their mind as well (technically, I believe an elector in the Electoral College can too, but someone should fact-check me on that).
@8…Lee…
Presidential electors are governed by individual state law, so you’d have to check 51 (D.C. included) statute books.
The Piper
@11
No thanks. :)
@9…Lee…
We have a formal process, and I cited it @8, above.
And Pudge @5 said that only one case of an alleged “shut out” has been reported, so what’s the beef?
The Piper
@ 10:
Presidential Electoral College voters cast their vote in Washington D.C.
IF, they have the inclination to do so they may cast their vote for whomever they wish. It is regulated by state and federal laws, but not one state in the union has a law that the vote must be cast the way the citizens of that state voted.
Although, traditionally, they vote the way their state voted in the winner-take-all electoral system.
There is precedent of an Electoral College voter changing their vote.
@13
And Pudge @5 said that only one case of an alleged “shut out” has been reported, so what’s the beef?
I’ve heard of at least 3 so far from various outlets. And I haven’t heard of a single instance on the Democratic side, even though we had significantly more caucusers to deal with.
As I’ve said before, I think that generally, most of the Republican caucuses ended up being largely democratic. And I think Pudge probably overstates how common it was for presidential preference to be totally ignored. I actually have no beef. The Republicans can certainly do this however the hell they want, but I’ve found Pudge’s attempts to portray the Republican method as being more fair extremely hilarious.
Belay my last. It just occured to me that Electoral College voters meet in their state capitol to vote. Although, some do meet in Washington D.C.
Researching it now.
I just re-read Art II of the Constituion and the 12th Amendment. Nothing binds an electrol voter to vote the way of his state. Some states do have legislation on the books making it a requirement.
In cases where they have not voted with the citizens they are called “faithless electors.”
Pudge
As I’m sure you understand, we consider the requirement to send delegates based on the presidential preferences of the caucus goers to be a protection from the undue influence of party bosses.
For example, the “party boss” at my caucus was an unabashed Clinton supporter. His frustration was evident when we overwhelmingly supported Obama, but he was limited to dividing the group into two sub-groups, who then elected delegates among ourselves. Delegate positions were assigned to each group on a proportional basis.
(As I mentioned, we divided into sub-groups, and all people running for delegate within the group were asked if they would faithfully vote for our group’s preferred candidate. Yes, I suppose that I could break my word and vote for someone else, but I’m not going to.)
Our PCO actually worked rather hard at being fair, even though he was frustrated, so I must commend him. But… It appears that Republican delegates were chosen without this safeguard, and in at least some of the stories that have gotten out, delegates were often chosen by a few strong-willed individuals with little or no input from other caucus goers.
I’m sure that most of the Republican caucuses tried to take the overall desires of the caucus goers into consideration, but in any volunteer organization, you will find some “leaders” that ignore the input and desires of others in the organization.
From conversations with Republicans (yes, I know quite a few) their impression was that the caucuses were intended to choose delegates committed to a particular candidate, much as ours were. This seems to be the way that most other state parties (including Republicans) runs its caucuses, and has caused considerable confusion among Republicans, as well as Democrats and Independents.
Instead, it appears that in many cases, no attempt was made to identify delegates with a particular candidate. Since that appears to have been the system from the beginning, it seems that the main problem you folks had was in not making this clear from the beginning.
So if the GOP thugs – I mean precinct captains – decide to do whatever the Hell they want and that’s the GOP’s version of democracy? What constantly amazes me about these people is that they seem to excel at self-delusion.
They step into a river and IMMEDIATELY start trying to convince everyone that it’s not cold, wet, muddy and uncomfortable. Then they deflect by saying that the Dems stepped into a river once and by the way it WAS cold, wet, muddy and uncomfortable.
Jeesh – no matter how the fool spins it – the damage is done. The national media have correctly portrayed the GOP as a party of thugs and caused the Washington GOP to look like inbred idiots…which is appropriate because they ARE inbred idiots.
@17…GBS…
Washington law on Presidential Electors:
RCW 29A.56.320
Nomination — Pledge by electors — What names on ballots — How counted.
“In the year in which a presidential election is held, each major political party and each minor political party or independent candidate convention held under chapter 29A.20 RCW that nominates candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall nominate presidential electors for this state. The party or convention shall file with the secretary of state a certificate signed by the presiding officer of the convention at which the presidential electors were chosen, listing the names and addresses of the presidential electors. Each presidential elector shall execute and file with the secretary of state a pledge that, as an elector, he or she will vote for the candidates nominated by that party. The names of presidential electors shall not appear on the ballots. The votes cast for candidates for president and vice president of each political party shall be counted for the candidates for presidential electors of that political party.”
While Washington electors are required to execute a pledge to support the ticket of his or her party, I have yet to find any sanction for an elector who ignores the pledge.
The Piper
@19…BB…
BB? As in the size of your brain?
Did you read my post @8 where I quoted the delegate selection process rules for GOP cacucuses?
I’m content to accept that PCOs of both parties did their best to not only be fair but also appear to be fair. I’ve never either attended or conducted a caucus that was any other way, and I’ve been to a ton of them! I’ve seen them get spirited and intense in debate, but respect for the concept of majority rules has always been adhered to. And in some of those, my guy or my proposal was on the losing end.
What seems to be the big issue here is how resultes were reported up through some of the counties.
No reports of rubber truncheons or bullets to the back of the head have been received.
The Piper
@21
Again, you need to talk to Pudge. This is what he said on Sunday:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/010126.html
That’s the “big issue”. The reporting problem was a secondary issue.
Or we could have a primary system independent of political parties (e.g. Louisiana style). This might be a good idea now when the parties appear to be realigning anyway. It is interesting to note that the one thing the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties agreed on in Washington was rejection of the Louisiana-style primary. This tells me that they all, Libertarians included, value party power above all else.
It would be interesting to speculate as to who would emerge as the top two candidates this year if we had a national primary from which the top two emerged as the final candidates. Maybe Will could redo his quantitative analyses to get at that.
That is the AUTHORITARIAN mind set: “I am 100% correct at any particular point in time — and if you are not in agreement, you are 100% wrong. I can change my mind at any point in time, as well.”
Lee: Easy, not having a formal process
There is a formal process. Why do you state there isn’t?
I’ve heard of at least 3 so far from various outlets.
Where?
I think that generally, most of the Republican caucuses ended up being largely democratic.
ALL of the ones I know of were ENTIRELY democratic, except for (maybe) the one example I heard of.
And I think Pudge probably overstates how common it was for presidential preference to be totally ignored.
Nope. It was very common. It would have been far less common if Romney had done better on Super Tuesday, though.
I’ve found Pudge’s attempts to portray the Republican method as being more fair extremely hilarious.
Again, I never did any such thing. I never talked about fairness. I talked about the fact that the Democrats have, overall, more of the will of their leaders imposed on them, than do the Republicans.
That’s the “big issue”. The reporting problem was a secondary issue.
Question-begging fallacy. The way we do it is a “big issue” just because you either dislike or misunderstand it.
MikeJ: people have said Republicans should use consistent rules rather than letting precinct captains each adjust the rules to get their preferred result.
You, like Lee, are misinformed. There are consistent rules. The caucus chairs (who may be PCOs, or others, but in fact, NOT precinct captains, who don’t live in the precinct they are captains of) cannot adjust any of the rules.
Bagdad: So if the GOP thugs – I mean precinct captains – decide to do whatever the Hell they want and that’s the GOP’s version of democracy?
Nope. No moreso than the Democrats. You’ve been misled.
The national media have correctly portrayed the GOP as a party of thugs
Except that there is no evidence backing up that conclusion. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Piper: Implicit in this is the understanding that candidates for delegate slots will receive support based upon their Presidential candidate preference
Not quite, Piper. Implicit is that they MAY receive support based on their presidential candidate preference.
John: As I’m sure you understand, we consider the requirement to send delegates based on the presidential preferences of the caucus goers to be a protection from the undue influence of party bosses.
Yes, which is silly to project onto the Republican process, since no “party bosses” have any influence over the average delegates.
For example, the “party boss” at my caucus was an unabashed Clinton supporter. His frustration was evident when we overwhelmingly supported Obama, but he was limited to dividing the group into two sub-groups, who then elected delegates among ourselves. Delegate positions were assigned to each group on a proportional basis.
And if this were run like a Republican caucus, then the “party boss” would have been an automatic delegate (for Clinton), and every other delegate would have been for Obama.
It appears that Republican delegates were chosen without this safeguard, and in at least some of the stories that have gotten out, delegates were often chosen by a few strong-willed individuals with little or no input from other caucus goers.
I’ve only seen one example of this, and if it happened, it absolutely violated state rules and those delegates will be removed. The rules absolutely require that every participant have a chance to nominate, that every nominee be given a chance to state their case, and that every participant be given a chance to vote.
Our caucus chairs have no more power to choose delegates “with little or no input from other caucus goers” than yours do.
From conversations with Republicans (yes, I know quite a few) their impression was that the caucuses were intended to choose delegates committed to a particular candidate
Some of them thought that, yes.
This seems to be the way that most other state parties (including Republicans) runs its caucuses
Yep.
and has caused considerable confusion among Republicans
Yes, which is why I made clear at the 38 caucuses I helped with, how it actually worked. After I explained it, no one expressed significant confusion, and no one complained.
Instead, it appears that in many cases, no attempt was made to identify delegates with a particular candidate.
Sure. That’s normal when there’s no seriously contested position, as was the case on Saturday. Again, had Romney done well on Super Tuesday, things would have been very different.
Since that appears to have been the system from the beginning, it seems that the main problem you folks had was in not making this clear from the beginning.
Nope. I see no evidence that this was an actual problem. The problem was in what the state chair announced, and how he announced it.
@22…Lee…
In my caucus, while the delegates expressed candidate preference at sign-in, we didn’t do speechs since everyone knew everyone and trusted everyone.
Unlike the Dems, we really didn’t have an all that hotly contested event. Because yours continues to be split down the middle (roughly), there’s a significant issue involved.
Had it been close with us, as it has been in the past, then a more “partisan” tone would have been apparent. As it was, Huckabee supporters at my caucus didn’t wish to be nominated or go to the convention, so it fell to the willing and able.
I’ll bet a lot of Dems out there have seen their caucuses just like that in some years.
One of the genuine downsides of blogging is how “news” gets manufactured sometimes with more hyperbole than reason. As the process grows and matures, this…unfortunate…tendency will moderate and even itself out. Until then, however, a lot of what gets hammered on blogs needs to be taken not with a grain, but with a railcar-load, of salt.
The Piper
Piper:
Thanks for the link here’s he statue regarding penalty for not voting as pledged.
RCW 29A.56.340
Meeting — Time — Procedure — Voting for nominee of other party, penalty.
The electors of the president and vice president shall convene at the seat of government on the day fixed by federal statute, at the hour of twelve o’clock noon of that day. If there is any vacancy in the office of an elector occasioned by death, refusal to act, neglect to attend, or otherwise, the electors present shall immediately proceed to fill it by voice vote, and plurality of votes. When all of the electors have appeared and the vacancies have been filled they shall constitute the college of electors of the state of Washington, and shall proceed to perform the duties required of them by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Any elector who votes for a person or persons not nominated by the party of which he or she is an elector is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/def.....29A.56.340
Thanks,
GBS
@4 “If we actually held elections on the Dem theory, Dino Rossi would be governor some 49.999999999999999999% of the time.”
This is actually a very interesting idea. If we had a system whereby the candidates shared power approximately in proportion to the votes they received than it wouldn’t matter whether one or the other won by 129 votes, and, it would more accurately reflect the will of the people (or at least the voters). (Piper’s percentage is in fact taken to way too many decimal places, but I’m willing to say it’s 50-50 for this discussion.) I know I’m being idealistic here, but such a system would force the governors to work together when in office and might lead to more commonality as opposed to the push towards more and more partisanship we see today. I don’t have specific proposals at this time, but it is something to think about.
@ 28:
you mean like a parlimentary system? Or just for he CEO spot would there be a power sharing?
@25
There is a formal process. Why do you state there isn’t?
Because right on the state’s web page describing the caucus rules, it says:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/WA-R.phtml
Where?
I’ll have to dig. The News-Tribute article is the one I’d linked to, there are two other accounts I’ve read where individuals did not feel that they had a chance to speak for their candidate or nominate a delegate belonging to their candidate. I should’ve tagged them, but I didn’t.
ALL of the ones I know of were ENTIRELY democratic, except for (maybe) the one example I heard of.
Voting for the delegates was democratic, but the decision over how many delegate slots each candidate would get was not.
Nope. It was very common. It would have been far less common if Romney had done better on Super Tuesday, though.
You and Piper can hash that one out, I guess.
Again, I never did any such thing. I never talked about fairness. I talked about the fact that the Democrats have, overall, more of the will of their leaders imposed on them, than do the Republicans.
That’s impossible since our process means that we have absolutely zero will imposed on us.
Piper:
I’m not sure that Governor Huckabee concurs with your assessment that there was “no seriously contested position“. Certainly considering the primary results in other states, and the number of caucus goers in Washington expressing a preference for Governor Huckabee, it would seem to me that those folks are serious.
Of course, it is your party, not mine, and so it is really not my problem, but as much as I disagree with the Republican party, I’d prefer that it not completely self-destruct.
Perhaps the much-vaunted party discipline of the Republicans can deal with ignoring the preferences of the actual party members, but it would not surprise me to find that you have a bunch of folks deciding that since your party doesn’t care what they think, that maybe they will just stay home on election day.
While I want my party to win, I’d rather do so in an open debate, with as many people as possible (even Republicans) participating, so I have mixed feelings about the WSRP apparently trying to turn off as many potential Republican votes as they can.
Still, I’ll take a win either way. If you folks want to have half your team stay home, that’s your choice. Maybe Mr. Rossi can go back into real estate. My office has an open desk.
@25…Pudge…
“Piper: Implicit in this is the understanding that candidates for delegate slots will receive support based upon their Presidential candidate preference
Not quite, Piper. Implicit is that they MAY receive support based on their presidential candidate preference.”
As you stated, at yours the issue wasn’t hot and heavy. Neither was it at mine. Were the GOP contest more neck and neck, candidate preference would have determined voting. In 1988, if you weren’t a Pat Robertson delegate, you were toast! At least in many parts of King County. And we haven’t had a horse race for the nomination this late in the game since then.
In the ordinary course of events, it’s pretty low key.
The Piper
Actually, I will raise my hand and admit that I did say, in a previous thread, that there was a problem with the “winner take all” system. I pointed out in a previous thread that it makes it easier to commit fraud in the electoral process, since all you have to do is select an area where the vote is expected to be very close, and then manipulate the vote by a few hundred. In a “winner take all” system, that can swing an entire election. But when you use a proportional system, then instead of manipulating a few hundred votes, you have to manipulate hundreds of thousands of votes across many different politicaly distinct boundaries – a much harder task to accomplish without getting caught.
I recognize that under the current electoral college system, most states (but not all) use the “winner take all” system to decide the presidential election. But look where it got us. In 2000, a few hundred vote difference in Florida decided the Presidency despite the popular vote to the contrary. In 2004, a few thousand votes in Ohio also decided the presidency, despite substantial evidence of vote tampering in that state.
But I guess since it’s worked for the Republicans in the past, they could be excused for wanting to stick with that system. But I would think that at least internally, they would be concerned about the potential manipulation of the system.
@28…TwoDogs…& @29…GBS…
Actually, a paliamentary system is more oriented toward party discipline and accentuating differences between parties, something I like.
In GB, when you vote, you do so for a Member of Paliament only. The party electing the most members forms a government with the leader of the party becoming Prime Minister. The only Brits who ever actually voted for Tony Blair were his Sedgfield constituents.
In parliamentary systems, you can have coalition governments during times of national crisis. Churchill’s during WW II had Labour Party leader Clement Attlee serving as Deputy Prime Minister and in other capacities.
But some sort of all-the-time power sharing between competing candidates is antithetical to democratic government. We have elections to settle who should govern and how, not can’t we all just get along? Group hug power sharing is a one-way ticket to stalemate city since irrespective of the results of an election, you still have the same people running the show the same way.
In Washington, ties are broken by the drawing of lots (flip a coin, draw straws, black ball-white ball, etc.). The winner wins, and the loser loses. Them’s the breaks.
That parliamentary governments don’t serve for fixed terms means an election is conceivably always around the corner. In GB, there is a maximum amount of time that can elapse between elections, but otherwise, the PM can call one anytime or one will occur upon the failure of a government to hold a majority in the House of Commons.
In both parliamentary systems and ours, the opposition bides its time, promotes its own agenda, works with the government when possible, and opposes when necessary. It’s not called the “loyal opposition” for nothing.
Perhaps some of the most entertaining TV around is question time in the British House of Commons. You think the rhetoric is rough here? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
The Piper
Implicit in this is the understanding that candidates for delegate slots will receive support based upon their Presidential candidate preference. Since going to caucuses starting in 1980, that’s always been understood.
Ha ha…except, apparently from the news reports I’ve read, when it’s not!
You folks would help yourselves a lot if you would just make that explicit, so everyone did things the same way. Pudge doesn’t think this has anything to do with it at all, for example. But hey – carry on! I would be lying if I said I wasn’t delighted to see you boys falling all over yourselves trying to explain this kerfluffle!
The GOP system is a way to maintain top down control over the process. They have good reason to do it this way as when they don’t People like Ellen Craswell wind up their candidate for governor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Craswell
“Craswell’s outspoken position on social issues — including comments that gay rights were “special rights for sodomites” — damaged her and further polarised the electorate. In November, Craswell was defeated by Locke in a small landslide, receiving only 42.04% of the vote.”
When you only have two or three people show up for your precinct caucus, they might look a lot more ‘disciplined’ I suppose. But when you have 50-150, it helps if everyone has some transparent rules to follow. I have to keep saying it, it must suck to be you right now.
@31:
John, if you’d want to work with that prig, you go on ahead! Snort!
piper @26
“In my caucus, while the delegates expressed candidate preference at sign-in, we didn’t do speechs since everyone knew everyone and trusted everyone.”
That’s kind of what I thought the Republican party was based on: a good ol boys club with the same ol people making the decisions everytime, follow the party line….
I didn’t attend the Republican caucus, and I’ve not talked to anyone who did. However, I would be suprised if most of those who did attend were aware that when they signed in and indicated a candidate preference, that it would ultimately not play any roll in determining precinct vote count. The Republican caucus was simply a poll of the voter preference of those who volunteered to be delegates. The Democratic caucus at times seemed chaotic, mostly due to the unusually high turnout, but in the end I feel confident that at least in my precinct we counted everyone’s vote, and apportioned delegates according to the formula printed on the tally sheet that was provided. I do think it’s time that we moved to a poll vote rather than caucus for the primary simply to allow more people to participate.
I don’t get the disagreement here. Both parties have rules that the members of the party decide on. The parties get to decide how to choose the candidate – Democrats have no influence on how Republcans choose and visa versa. It’s the way it should be.
Just to be Contrary ….
Let me make an argument against the Dem system.
In this system the majority will rule. So far so good, but what if that majority is repressive?
Also, the membership in the parties is, after all self selected. Suppose some disruptive PTA were to decide to invade the Caucuses and take them over? For fun imagine if Ken Hutchinson targeted the D-POW (democratic party of Washington) instead of MS and arranged for say 100,000 fundies to show up at caucuses across the state? How doe democracy deal with that.
Is this unimaginable? Well… consider the claims by HRC that she should get the Michigan delgates. Does anyone actually think that she would have taken 100% of the delegates if Obama ran?
OK, here is the 93 dollar question … who owns the D-POW?
America has already tried fascism and I don’t like it.
As for how the Fascist Party governs itself, I don’t really care, but if their cauci had nothing to do with presidential preference then how the hell can there be a winner?
Personally, I feel that fascists are at their best when they organize firing squads for each other.
Hey, just kidding! I thought I’d throw a little fascist humor in there to liven things up.
The GOP system is a way to maintain top down control over the process.
Michael, that is self-evidently false, since the GOP system is, in fact, controlled by the delegates elected by the precincts. You can’t get more bottom-up than that.
Tlazolteotl, you keep incorrectly saying there is no transparency. Why?
cracked: Only a Democrat could describe normal citizens meeting in a precinct caucus as “a good ol boys club.”
ewp: I would be suprised if most of those who did attend were aware that when they signed in and indicated a candidate preference, that it would ultimately not play any roll in determining precinct vote count.
If they didn’t know at the time, they knew before they voted, as they were clearly informed of this at all the caucuses I was at, and heard about.
The Democratic caucus at times seemed chaotic, mostly due to the unusually high turnout, but in the end I feel confident that at least in my precinct we counted everyone’s vote
We, in the GOP caucuses, also counted everyone’s vote.
Tim Crowley: I don’t get the disagreement here. Both parties have rules that the members of the party decide on. The parties get to decide how to choose the candidate – Democrats have no influence on how Republcans choose and visa versa. It’s the way it should be.
Exactly! I made clear I was not criticizing the Dems. I was only criticizing the Dems who were taking hypocritical pot-shots at the Republicans.
Roger Rabbit: America has already tried fascism and I don’t like it.
You were alive for FDR?
Roger ..
How you doing??
I LIKE the idea of a fascist joke collection.
How many fascists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
None, they don’t got no light bulbs.
What does a feminist fascist fashonist wear to a rally?
@47
“Michael, that is self-evidently false, since the GOP system is, in fact, controlled by the delegates elected by the precincts. You can’t get more bottom-up than that.”
A) Doubt it.
B) As long as you keep sending forward winners like Craswell, Nethercutt and Mike! It works for me.
i’m beginning to see why there is such a lack of intelligent republican representation here. yer lettin wind-up assklowns like pudge and crackpiper run the joint for entertainment purposes, and that keeps the others away. of course most of em in washington are kinda layin low at the moment, and i cant blame em.
oh and i just looked at CNN – theyre still callin McCain the “winner” of Washington state, just as surely as Lesser declared his “hard-fought victory” on saturday. go set em straight on that, will ya pudge? i’ll pray that you get to make your “case” on national TV. that should help us all quite a bit come november…
Lee: Thank you for a wonderful cogent summary of the differences between the Republican and the Demcratic caucuses in Washington.
Anyone who considers themself a republican in Washington state needs to read your blog. It clearly delineates the procedures followed by both parties.
I hope Huckabee’s lawyers and his supporters read this too. I think Huckabee had a clue what was going on – his USSR comment clearly shows that he understands the process in Washinton state.
Of course, as long as the party elites have the desired result then the caucus was a resounding success. Clearly, many new republican voters are joining up to be part of such a strong democratic process – and having their hopes crushed by the archaic soviet style rules that don’t allow any REAL representation….oh, well.
Maybe next time instead of the presidential preference caucus they will call it the delegate preference caucus (non-democratic, instead of republican).
Just ’cause they don’t like democrats doesn’t mean that they have to be non-democratic does it?
@50
i’ll pray that you get to make your “case” on national TV. that should help us all quite a bit come november…
One can dream, can’t they?
Although maybe he should just stick to playing the guitar:
http://effinunsound.com/?p=566
@47
Michael, that is self-evidently false, since the GOP system is, in fact, controlled by the delegates elected by the precincts. You can’t get more bottom-up than that.
But we’re talking about the process of electing the delegates. The process can’t possibly be controlled by the delegates who eventually get elected. That makes absolutely no sense.
The process at each precinct is run by a precinct officer, who is most certainly not at the bottom of the party. This is different from the Democratic system, where the process is formal so that the caucus participants have more control.
Think about Piper’s caucus, for which he was the precinct captain. You and I probably both know Piper well enough to know that he didn’t walk in there and say, “OK, you guys decide what you think is the most democratic way to do this”. He had a particular agenda and he followed it to the letter. Now as much as I like to criticize Piper, I sincerely doubt that he’s the kind of person who would game the system either, and I’m certain that everyone in his caucus was happy with how they were represented.
But that’s probably not true of all precinct captains. I can very easily imagine a precinct captain having an agenda that gave an edge to his preferred presidential candidate and carrying it out. I’ve provided the link for one instance where that likely happened, and if I care enough, I’ll try to dig up the two others I remember seeing this week. The point here, though, is the way the Republican system is set up, it allows for this potential possibility in a way that the Democratic caucus did not. And frankly, I find your attempts to criticize the Democratic caucus for this to be incredibly funny.
@52
Thanks for spelling it out for Pudge.
Kinda fun to watch Pudge, Piper and the rest defending their wonderful party that has had them locked out of the governors mansion since the 70’s, has them as minorities in both state houses, has them locked into 3 of 8 congressional seats (soon to be 2) and can’t win a senate race to save their lives.
The real question is why don’t they throw the bums that run their party out?
McKenna is going to get trounced by Laudenburg too.
@54 Do you have a linkee to a campaign website so I can read about the challenger and perhaps send some turkee?
http://www.ladenburg.org/
re 41: Who counts the votes on the rules they all ‘agreed’ on?
I’m sure you see the problem here. There is no such thing as top-down democracy.
@1, 4 – Somebody break out the violins.
@4 “Dems got into the PR pickle by trying to be all things to all peole, which means you end up being nothing to nobody.”
Is that right?
Social Security. Medicare. Unemployment insurance. Veterans’ benefits. Injured worker’s compensation. Education. Consumer protection. Civil rights. Voting rights. Collective bargaining rights. Environmental protection. Health care. Family leave. Child labor laws. Child abuse laws. Minimum wage laws. Jobs. Peace.
That’s “nothing”?
@56 Thanks!
Hey, everyone, Piper doesn’t know what Democrats stand for! Should we tell him? One at a time now! Take a number, stand in line, and wait your turn. I’ll go first:
“Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
“By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio
“Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.
“All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
“Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; his bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
“Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
“Its noon time, Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.
“Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.
“Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)
“He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
“He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, ‘We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have’.”
@ 61 Thanks RR.
I am sure the Repugs and Libertarians will deny they ever got anything from the big bad social covenent that it social democracy.
And that would make them Liars.
bravo mister rabbit, imma repost that as a myspace bulletin for my pals in detroit and seattle if you dont mind.
yep. i want “socialized medicine” just like president Bush enjoys too.
incorrectandleft: If you think Huckabee’s lawyers give a damn about any of this, you either — like many here — have no clue about how it all works, or have no clue about the law, or both.
And you still don’t see the irony of calling the U.S. Constitutional system of representation communist.
Lee: But we’re talking about the process of electing the delegates. The process can’t possibly be controlled by the delegates who eventually get elected. That makes absolutely no sense.
No, you’re confused about what I was referring to, but whatever: the point is that the people elect the delegates, and the delegates control who is nominated and elected. So calling this a way “to maintain top down control” is what makes absoutely no sense.
The process at each precinct is run by a precinct officer, who is most certainly not at the bottom of the party.
Says who? Most PCOs are just normal citizens. Further, most precinct caucuses were NOT run by PCOs. And further, even for those that are, they are usually outnumbered by non-PCOs, and do not have the authority to overrule them.
This is different from the Democratic system, where the process is formal so that the caucus participants have more control.
No, you’re completely wrong. The caucus chair has no real authority: he is required to follow the rules, which state that everyone gets a chance to be nominated, every nominee gets a chance to speak, and so on. And voting follows very strict rules. The caucus participants completely control who is elected as delegates.
But that’s probably not true of all precinct captains. I can very easily imagine a precinct captain having an agenda that gave an edge to his preferred presidential candidate and carrying it out.
That would clearly violate the caucus rules, if this “edge” were provided in any substantive way.
I’ve provided the link for one instance where that likely happened
And (if it happened as described) it broke the rules, which could also happen at Democratic caucus. So this is a nonsensical argument.
The point here, though, is the way the Republican system is set up, it allows for this potential possibility in a way that the Democratic caucus did not.
False. There is NO TRUTH to this.
michael: McKenna is going to get trounced by Laudenburg too.
You have now discredited yourself entirely. Congrats!
Roger Rabbit: Social Security. Medicare. Unemployment insurance. Veterans’ benefits. Injured worker’s compensation. Education. Consumer protection. Civil rights. Voting rights. Collective bargaining rights. Environmental protection. Health care. Family leave. Child labor laws. Child abuse laws. Minimum wage laws. Jobs. Peace.
That’s “nothing”?
Let’s see. Education was first institutionalized at the state level by a right-wing Federalist. Child labor laws were mostly from and Republicans too, as were women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery and other civil rights (the first Civil Rights Act was under Eisenhower, and more Republicans than Democrats voted for the ’64 Act).
Veterans’ benefits were not in any way partisan, nor are “jobs” (what are you smoking there?). Peace since the Civil War has been found far more often in Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
Most of what is left is, at the federal level, both unconstitutional (as per the Tenth Amendment) and unnecessary: Medicare, Social Security, health care, family leave.
I can’t wait for the Democrats to push socialized, universal health care this year … and watch the unions RUN SCREAMING to the Republicans.
Pudge @ 65 said:
Let’s see. Education was first institutionalized at the state level by a right-wing Federalist.
who was that? Jefferson? or the citrzebs of Mass. BEFORE Federalism?
as for ” abolition of slavery ” to my knowledge the first abolition was in the South??
Veterans’ benefits were not in any way partisan, nor are “jobs” really??? who cut the VA? Wasn’t it Humphrey who proposed a gyuanrtyeed right to work?
Peace since the Civil War has been found far more often in Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
By “peace” do you mean defensive wars like WWII or wars of aggression? wasn’t McKinley a Republican? Who invaded Iraq, Kuwait, Columbia, the Phillipines, oh and Reagan’s miniwar?
Most of what is left is, at the federal level, both unconstitutional (as per the Tenth Amendment) and unnecessary: Medicare, Social Security, health care, family leave.
I like the tenth amendment too … now tell me how, under the te nth amendment, the Supreme Court iver rode Florida in the Bush IU election, or how the Feds got the rright to regulate matijuana, or tap phones, or build a prison camp outside of state borders, or regulate drug manufacture, or liscense radio statons, or ????
And if you think Medicare is unecessary, tell us what you would do with old folks who can not afford health insurance?
I can’t wait for the Democrats to push socialized, universal health care this year … and watch the unions RUN SCREAMING to the Republicans.
Bubbelah … the overwhjelming majority of Americans want health care. Why would unions oppose this?
02/14/2008 at 12:20 am
Who the republicans want to vote for within their own regime doesn’t matter. In Washington, freedom-loving Americans have been voting for Democrats for a long time. We’ll win back the entire Congressional delegation – of course WA will go Dem for President – Chris will have an easy time with Dino (I’m a real estate broker) Rossi and we’ll increase our majority in the State house – so like I said, it doesn’t matter what the GOP regime does to its own people in WA – they loooooose anyway!
Pudge: Lee is another of the 16%er clueless idiots who misrepresent what we on the right say about those on the left.
Sometimes you just ignore idiots… Even if they are beloved Philadelphia Eagles fans.
I went back to the http://www.horsesass.org/?p=4267 thread.
This was telling:
Ken S says:
34-1476, W. Seattle: Went 3-1 for Obama, and it sounds like most of the others in the district went about the same.
I talked to someone that was at a Caucus in Bellevue, it was about a 50-50 split there.
FWIW – I signed up as the PCO (precinct chair officer?) for my district, and while it was all easy enough, but there is NOTHING about Caucusing that does much to foster confidence in ‘the system’. I’m a reasonably competent person, but was drafted just last week, with minimal training, I barely had a grasp on what I was leading. The room next door has no one show up as their PCO, so I guess it was chaos, no-one knew what was going on. I think Primaries are much better.
Or this post: Pat says:
My district caucus 25th/153rd was totally disorganized, no committee representative other than a woman who didn’t have a clue what was going on! Ultimately, they finally figured out that we had 11 delegates – 6 went to Obama 5 to Clinton. It was a disappointing process to say the least. I say WA state needs to forget about the Caucus process and go to a primary election that means something!
FricknFrack says:
46-2228 – 4 Obama and 2 Clinton
What mayhem and disorganization!
Oops sorry FnF:
FricknFrack says:
46-2228 – 4 Obama and 2 Clinton
What mayhem and disorganization! Won’t catch ME doing that again. But Roger Rabbit I was a GOOD surrogate bunny and performed as promised.
Had 111 people show (they said last time they had 15)
@ first it was 3.5 Obama, 2 Clinton, .5 Kucinich. Finally had to do a voice yell as to whether to give Kucinich 1 whole delegate. We Clintons yelled “Yes!” Not wanting to give Obama stronger count, but the Obamas yelled louder with a “No”. Danged if in the end the Kucinichs walked on over to the Obama Camp.
We only had three 60 second speeches to get the Undecideds to switch – one per candidate, because all the rest of the time was taken up with the counting. But I did relay some of Roger’s points with some of the other Clinton ladies, while we were waiting for everyone to get in the door (surprised that they opened the doors early but the line snaked out to the end of the parking lot, about 3-4 people abreast).
We had 4 precincts in the Wilson Pacific gymnasium, 3 on the floor and 1 on the stage, the place was wall to wall people! Our poor guy trying to count the signup sheets had the patience of Job! While he was in the MIDST of counting and numbers weren’t adding up, people just kept yanking their sheets and tossing back in the pile (where may or may NOT have been previously counted). He was getting more confused, so people had to tap him on the shoulder with different requests (even though they could SEE he was ATTEMPTING to count). Like, can we donate to the room costs? And money started flying at him. Thankfully, another lady that happened to be sitting nearby “I’ll take care of the money, let him count.” His wife was standing behind him with the youngster, just standing by every time the kid kept draping herself over Daddy. Poor guy, just kept trying to count. Fortunately, a woman from the Clintons helped him, or else we would all STILL be there this evening.
Then we had the fool who seemed to be a 2nd Committee Chairman proudly wearing his Obama nametag. EVERYTIME it looked like the pile of signup sheets was ALMOST counted, #2 would come over to start yacking at #1 Counting guy. So, of course distracted, it got confused and the numbers didn’t match up ONCE AGAIN. By about the 6th or 7th recount, some of the ladies started yelling at #2 Fool to leave the man alone and let him “do his job”. Unbelievable! Plus, of course the cheatsheet only went up to 25 people, so it all had to calculated by his calculator. What an experience. Why the HELL don’t the Dems allow a more professional scenario by following the State Primary instead?
SeattleJew: Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams. Yes, it was shortly before the Federalist Party existed, but it was a very Federalist idea. Jefferson, of course, was never a Federalist.
as for ” abolition of slavery ” to my knowledge the first abolition was in the South??
Huh?
By “peace” do you mean defensive wars like WWII or wars of aggression?
The European half of WWII was a war of aggression just as much as Vietnam or Korea or Iraq.
wasn’t McKinley a Republican? Who invaded Iraq, Kuwait, Columbia, the Phillipines, oh and Reagan’s miniwar?
Yes, and? If you think those things add up to anything close to Korea and Vietnam alone, even excluding the World Wars, you’re seriously confused.
I like the tenth amendment too
Good! The last time I talked to you, you had no idea what it said. Progress is good.
now tell me how, under the te nth amendment, the Supreme Court iver rode Florida in the Bush IU election
I am assuming you are asking how the Supreme Court stopped the illegal count in Florida in 2000. Simple: seven of the nine justices recognized the fact that the counting as being conducted violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment only restricts powers NOT delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, but the power to enforce equal protection of laws IS in the Constitution.
or how the Feds got the rright to regulate matijuana
This is a hotly debated discussion, but it should be noted that most of the conservative justices (Scalia is the one exception) found AGAINST the federal government. It hinges on interstate commerce power in Section 8, whether this allows the federal government to regulate the drug trade, and then, whether that also implies a power to regulate intrastate drugs.
The strongest argument against came from the most strict of constructionists on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas, a hero to potheads everywhere.
or tap phones
That’s a search/seizure. It’s clearly implied under the Fourth Amendment, which restricts only search and seizure without probable cause and warrant. Perhaps you mean “warrantlessly tapping phones”? Yes, I tend to agree with those that say the federal government has no such authority.
or build a prison camp outside of state borders
Oh, that’s easy. That is absolutely clearly implied under the war powers of section 8, specifically, “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” The federal government clearly has the authority to build prisons to hold prisoners, and there is nothing stated or implied that says it should be within the borders of the United States.
or regulate drug manufacture
See above regarding marijuana.
or liscense radio statons
This is somewhat similar to drugs, but the case is much stronger here: as radio waves have no state borders, and no one can “own” radio waves, it is perfectly rational that this should fall under interstate commerce (although again, as with drugs, if it can be guaranteed your radio waves do not travel outside the borders of the state, the question remains).
And if you think Medicare is unecessary, tell us what you would do with old folks who can not afford health insurance?
What did they do before there was Medicare?
the overwhjelming majority of Americans want health care
Um. Everyone wants health care. Do you mean universal health care coverage? No, in fact, they do not. If you ask them in a mindless poll “do you want universal health care” they may say yes, but when you give them an actual plan with clear ramifications including costs, benefits, and restrictions, the number drops dramatically.
Why would unions oppose this?
Most union employees have excellent health care, and they don’t want it changed. They will fight damned hard to keep it.