Washblog

This was just posted on Postman's blog by John Pollock a well-respected Party leader from the islands. I thought it was very succinct.

The following text is from the "2008 Call for the Democratic National Convention"

"It is understood that a State Democratic Party, in electing and certifying delegates and alternates to the Democratic National Convention, thereby undertakes to assure all Democratic voters in the state full, timely and equal opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process and in all Party affairs..."

No delegate selection process will guarantee 100% compliance with these requirements. However, using the presidential preference primary for delegate allocation is the closest to meeting them. Requiring caucus attendance to participate discriminates against the disabled and house bound, members of the armed forces, workers who cannot take time off, members of religious groups whose activities on caucus days are restricted by their religious teachings, and Democrats not proficient in the English language. The presidential preference primary, implemented by mail-in balloting, allows all of these groups full participation. Maximizing a voter's opportunity to participate should be the number one criterion in selecting the Democratic Party's delegate allocation process.

by Greg Rodriguez on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:11:16 PM PST

---

Quite a few people who got involved in Democratic Party politics then stayed involved.  Now that we know more about the process, we should be much better at retention in 2008.  

Presidential primaries are determined by money spent on a corporate-dominated media system that essentially is a shill for Repub talking points.  Money didn't help Dean in Iowa, because the new Interet fueled activism had yet to figure out how to connect up with and supplement the old fashioned humman connection party politics.  Kerry understood Iowa well enough to hire a crackerjack organizer who focused on connecting with all the local Dems who organized the caucuses.  Dean spent way too much time talking to the influx of outside volunteers instead of local party organizers.

In retrospect, the letter writing campaign from people outside the state was ineffective--the effort would have been better spent on local organizing.  A task that is far more suitable for outsiders connected to the Internet is last minute GOTV calling, which MoveOn used to great effect in 2006 with its spectacularly user-friendly phone script tool.  We're learning, and we've just started.

Something old (we need more active old-fashioned ward heelers)
Something new (those Internets tubes)
Something borrowed (more consistent and effective messaging)
And more states will turn blue.

by eridani on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 03:22:01 AM PST

---

I have been a registered voter in Washington State since turning 18 in 1995. Of the three caucuses since then, I have only been able to attend one. I will also miss the 2008 caucus. In 1996 I was disenfranchised from the process of choosing a Presidential nominee because I was a student at a college out of state. In 2004 (as well as 2008) my residence was (and will still be) overseas. I maintain my Washington State voter registration, and vote in every election via mail, but I am disenfranchised from the process of choosing a Presidential nominee. I may be in a unique position, but that does not mean that my voting rights are any less valid.

And then there is the 2000 caucus that I did attend.

The PCO showed up 30 minutes late. In that time, several people left out of frustration and confusion. Bear in mind this a caucus, so losing several people means the attendance is cut in half. Once the caucus started, the PCO proceeded to try to bully first timers who had expressed an intention to vote for the candidate other than that preferred by the PCO. The meeting degenerated into a series of `Points of Order' from myself in an attempt to get the PCO to respect the other caucus goers.

The PCO then proceeded to open the floor for resolutions. After several were considered, the PCO introduced a series of resolutions (sorry, memory is a little fuzzy, but the number was in the teens) he had downloaded from some website. He knew nothing about these issues, and in many cases had not even read his own resolutions. The result is that many people completely new to the Democratic Party were being asked to vote on resolutions that nobody (including the person raising them) knew anything about. At the very least these should have been tabled and considered at the next district party meeting (which is exactly the motion I eventually raised and was passed),

Why is this important? It is difficult enough getting first timers to attend a caucus. When the PCO then shows up 30 minutes late, does not treat people with respect, and wastes their time so that they do not get out until 11:00 PM, people are turned off from the process. Is this an isolated case? Probably, but when you are relying on people with a stake in the outcome of the process to run that process, you open the door for abuse. Furthermore, given the number of PCO needed to run state-wide caucuses, there will inevitably be some `Bad Apples', or at least some people lacking the qualifications to run the process adequately.

I appreciate that in theory caucuses are great. What could be a better democratic ideal than neighbours coming together to debate their choice of leader, as well as other pressing issues? But this ideal is often far from what actually happens. People are disenfranchised because they are unable to physically attend. People new to the process can be bullied by the `Old Hands' who are present at every district meeting and know the process inside and out (note: I am not assigning blame. It is merely inevitable that those party members with more experience will hold an advantage).

The argument is raised that caucuses are a good recruitment tool, but at least in my experience people were actually turned off from the process. Even if this is out of the norm, the purpose of a caucus is not recruitment. The purpose of a caucus is to select the Presidential nominee. Surely, the system that allows the greatest number of people to participate in that process is the better system. What could be more democratic than that?

by ami in berlin on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:39:44 AM PST

---

Pelz is cited in this News Tribune article as saying it's not a good use of public funds to conduct what is, essentially, a public opinion poll -- because the results won't be used by the party.  Do you have an answer to that?  I'm wondering.. will the primary results not be used because Pelz decrees that they not be used?  Or is there a timing issue involved?

The 2004 caucus actually did help "sell" me on the Democratic Party.  I've have stayed on since, though I'm on the verge of resigning my PCO position and just staying on as a member of the local organization.

So many people from my relatively conservative area got up and spoke plainly and openly at the microphone about their political hopes, their disillusionment with the Bush administration, their feelings about the various candidates, their values, what they wanted for their families, the community, and the country.  I was moved by this sincere public openness on civic issues.  And when I got to know the people in the 47th LD, I realized how much work they'd done and how much difference they'd made in local elections.  So I stayed on to join in with them.

However, I agree with Emmett's previous comment that "having caucuses in 2004 had little to do with the influx of new folks into the party, but rather what was happening before the caucuses."   It was my deep concern over the Bush administration that led me to enter the fray -- and I would have found the local Democrats without the caucuses, as Emmett says -- through various activities like the Meetups.  Very very few people from each precinct participated in that caucus.  There were 5 people from my precinct of about 700 adults there, including my husband and myself...  

by noemie maxwell on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:48:23 AM PST

---

We are talking about political party's here. So I don't think it's un-democratic that active members of the Party pick the Party's candidate(s) in a caucus. Generally speaking at least; the people who attend caucuses are also the grass-roots workhorses of the Party.

A primary would mean more dumbed-down TV-ad campaigning with the richest candidate winning.

The idea that a primary would be good for the Party because we'd get the ID's of everyone who picked the Dem ballot is... how can I say this nicely??? ... harebrained! The general sentiment among voters is that the pick-a-party primary messes with their 'right' to an open (smorgasbord) primary. Having their personal information passed to a political party would make the average voter furious... and since Dem's are the majority in the Legislature, we'd get the blame.

Sure the Democratic Party needs to do more (a lot more) to reach out to voters who lean (D). But having the goal of getting their personal info so that they can be innundated with mailers and robo-calls isn't the answer.

by citizensteve on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 12:04:03 PM PST

---

Some of the issues Greg raised over on Postman got a good discussion. The fact is that a Primary would be good for Clinton and this is who Greg is supporting. Even so, if the primary is moved to line up with the Feb 5 super presidential primary this would be positive. Presidential caucuses and the expanded caucus system as a means of delegate selection has many benefits for the building of the local and state party organizations and for legislative challenger and swing district candidates.

 In the universe of primary voters the vast majority will NEVER do anything past casting their vote. The gain in who you might get to take any other step past just voting with a primary list as your tool over a caucus list is less than 2% or an additional 2 people out of every 100 contacts. At the same time the quality of the contacts lost by eliminating the caucuses as the delegate selection system will result in lost revenue for local districts, a great reduction in the influx of new people and a loss of volunteers for local races.

Greg is right that local caucuses poorly run can cause harm and doing platform prior to releasing and thanking caucus attendees and new delegates is a common mistake.

by Particle Man on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 03:55:14 PM PST

---

Is grassroots participation with the caucus system elitist?  If so, then what do we call $2,500+ fundraiser events?

Please don't forget that a local precinct caucus is for people who care to participate.  And these folks are not the actual elite who make four or five figure campaign contributions destined for expensive television advertising.

Democrats also use a proportional system to elect delegates up the ladder to the county, state and national conventions.  This system is fair and inclusive.  I don't see how "old hands" can pressure folks when, at a well attended caucus; most participants will have elected delegates.

I believe the potential for problems exists because there are not enough opportunities to caucus.  What can we expect from an event that happens only every four years - at that?  (At least we Democrats had an engaging caucus in 2004.)  

What we need is to use the caucus system entirely down the ballot for ALL partisan races.  This way every two years, we'll maintain a culture of participation instead of the elitist funded, professional campaign industry driven primary system that everyone is tired of.

And we need more competition to drive participation.

State controlled nominations have the same effect as a non-partisan system, or even I-872.  They sideline the party faithful.  If real party members can't nominate a person for the ballot, then its only other value is as a soft money conduit.

Don't forget that political associations are private entities.  If you feel their nominating process is disenfranchising, or inconvenient, don't affiliate with them.  "But there's nowhere else to go?" you ask.  Alas, that's part of a bigger affliction gripping our democracy.

Good thing there are real solutions.

Keep your eyes on Pierce County next year.  There will be no state-controlled nominations for county partisan races.  

Soon, a blue-ribbon panel of leaders from a broad array of parties will give the county council its recommendation on how to proceed.  If only for a sense of self-interest, the parties will choose to have an open system or risk to be labeled "elitist".  (But gauging by the rhetoric used by some, this is happening anyway - smoke filled back rooms be damned.)  A motiviated party will want inclusive policies.  Plus - competition will drive innovation.

And with the dynamic of the Ranked Choice system, parties will be able to nominate multiple candidates and let the voters choose who they think is the best to represent them.  (Like the proportional delegate system most caucus attendees will be winners.)  

Pierce County Ranked Choice advocate / leader Kelly Haughton has looked at the filed of county executive candidates and presents a fascinating scenario.  He sees two Republican candidates for the same office potentially, "sending out joint campaign mailers to save money".

Here's a situation that builds on Haughton's thinking.  How about the Pierce County Democrats nominating three candidates for county executive then doing a mailer urging voters to rank them all in order of preference?  

Now imagine the Democrats nominating three candidates for president?

See you at the caucus next year.  It will be fun and also have some frustrations.  But it is grassroots and not by any means elitist.

by knovoselic on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:12:22 PM PST

---

   Something I learned tonight at our monthly county meeting that I didn't know before. I haven't researched for a reference yet.

   It seems that current DNC rules (to keep Iowa and NH happy) penalize states for moving their primaries forward. Washington could lose 30 or 30% (wasn't clear) of our delegates to the Convention if we go down this road, this cycle.

   I was also reminded that for 2000, the WSDCC made a proposal to use the that primary results as a factor in apportioning our delegates. This proposal was rejected by the DNC at that time.

   Granted, it is a new DNC, but?

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:15:21 AM PST

---

--about issues and the public good.  Primary money-fueled general elections favor voters like the guy who explained in the Seattle Weekly four years ago why he voted for Kerry and Rossi.  Seems he thought that Gregoire had a "pit bull" personality, which was fine for an Attorney General, but that someone like Rossi with a "sunny" personality was better suited for being governor.

This fellow should have input into who our delegates will be?  Why?

by eridani on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:38:06 AM PST

---

I think the point being made about a primary here being nothing more than a beauty contest is a correct one if the party(s) decide to select delegates through the caucus system prior to or after the primary. When Greg says it is false to say a primary here would be a beauty contest, he is only correct if major rules are changed.

Some other states having primaries which determine how many delegates each candidate gets based upon the percentage of the primary vote each candidate gets. In these states the delegate name is even on the ballot so to support Edwards for instance you vote for his delegate. In most primary states the party has a separate process to elect the number of delegates for each candidate based upon how many they earned on primary day. In this system almost all the delegate spots go to the entrenched party regulars. Tell me that's not offensive.

So the question is just not as simple as deciding to have a primary and thus creating an inclusive process. And let me be clear, in the end I don't really care which way things go. What I do care about is retaining the ability every four years to breath new life into the party from the local level on up and until I see the whole package with all the details spelled out (at this date a tall order) I am inclined to resist change.  

by Particle Man on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:52:59 AM PST

---

The Spokesman
The Postman
The Chair via The Other Side
 

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:28:27 AM PST

---