Washblog || More Caucuses v. Primary

More Caucuses v. Primary

By emmettoconnell
Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:48:09 AM PST
Section: Washington State Topic: Democrats

The debate going into this weekend on whether to go the primary election route or the caucuses is still going on, so instead of updating my post below, I'm going to start a new post with some updates.

Monday night my local Democratic Party voted to endorse a primary.
Here is a post by Debby Pattin, my state committeewoman and the debate that night.
The Seattle Times editorial from this morning endorsing a primary
League of Women Voters column endorsing the primary.

My concern since then has been on the argument about caucuses and party building, that we should stick with the caucuses because they encourage participatory democracy (my instant reaction here).

Here is one of my other state committee people, Zach Smith, making the argument for participatory democracy and party building in the Olympian article reviewing our endorsement of the primary:

(Smith) said caucuses are key to building the Democratic organization and need to be supported.
"It's where we get candidates for school board, where we get candidates for city council and for the Legislature," he said. "If it wasn't for the caucus system, where they could discuss issues and party politics face to face, we wouldn't have that tool to build representation in our government."

Karen Marchioro, former state chair, making much the same argument in an email from yesterday:

Before I became the State Party Chair I always looked with envy at Oregon’s Party. They had voter registration by party and they had a presidential primary that restricted voters to the party of their registration. Once I became chair I learned that it was because of this system that the Oregon parties were incurable weak. The public’s belief that voting in the primary was all that they needed to do resulted in “drive-by participation” in politics. And the number of names the primary generated was so large that it could not be used in any efficient manner for any political purpose.

When I became State Chair I began with no list of names (and no office for that matter, but that’s a different story). We had no party registration (and still don’t), a blanket primary, and no presidential primary. Using the caucuses as a Party building tool allowed us to develop one of the strongest, largest and best grassroots based Democratic Party in the country. By the time I left office the Washington State Democratic Party had a membership list smaller than only Iowa and California (yes, even bigger than New York’s, Texas’s, Florida’s and all the rest). And we raised more money than almost all of the other states regardless of size. We can be proud that our Washington State Democratic Party is still considered at the D.N.C. as one of the best organized and strongest in the country. All build on organizing the caucuses and using the information we gathered from the committed Democrats who turned out for them to build the Party.

I love caucuses for the same reasons that Zach and Karen do. I got involved in the local Democratic organization directly from my caucus when my PCO at the time signed my proxy application right there in the elementary school gym. But soon after the caucuses were finished, my zeal quickly dissipated. When I was at that first caucus, I thought being involved in the Democratic Party was great. I was grassroots, it was face-to-face, it was everything that Zach and Karen are saying. But, outside of the caucuses, there is little we do as Democrats that embrace participatory democracy.

Outside of the caucuses, we don't encourage participation. So, the party building/participatory democracy argument for me is disingenuous. If we really believed in these things as a party, we would focus more of our attention on them.

What the caucuses are really for is recruiting volunteers that we're expecting carry us through November 2008, then we have no plans on keeping them involved. After the eleciton, we don't really care what happens to these folks, if they stay engaged or not. Participatory democracy doesn't start with caucuses and end with the election, its ongoing.

If we really cared about participatory democracy and building the party beyond a mailing list, the caucuses would be the end result of a civic engagement campaign, not the beginning of a volunteer recruitment campaign. And, we would get a lot more than 2 percent turnout.

< How Your Vote Can Be Tracked to You: San Juan County Ballot Tracking [Updated] | Port Commissioner Recall: What will it take? >

More Caucuses v. Primary | 41 comments (41 topical)

Your personal bad caucus experience

What the caucuses are really for is recruiting volunteers that we're expecting carry us through November 2008, then we have no plans on keeping them involved. After the eleciton, we don't really care what happens to these folks, if they stay engaged or not. Participatory democracy doesn't start with caucuses and end with the election, its ongoing.
If we really cared about participatory democracy and building the party beyond a mailing list, the caucuses would be the end result of a civic engagement campaign, not the beginning of a volunteer recruitment campaign. And, we would get a lot more than 2 percent turnout.

Is nor statewide. And we certainly still have people involved over here from 2004 and 2006 and 2000, and 1994 and possibly 1968.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 01:20:11 PM PST

* 1 none 0 *

Some other references here

Washington needs to hold a Presidential Primary

Caucus vs' Primary

Follow them and read.

It isn't a question of Caucus vs' Primary. At least this year, we can't eliminate caucuses. The primary legislation has no provision for DELEGATE SELECTION!

We can have a viable version of both if the meeting in Bellingham decides to do so.

If they decide to continue with the Feb 9 caucus and suppport a date later than Feb 5 for a primary, then the special session will be called in December like last time and cancel the primary. And the parties (us mostly) will take the shaft.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 01:31:29 PM PST

* 2 none 0 *

The right answer is plainly "both" by RonK Seattle, 04/26/2007 09:27:34 PM PST (none / 0)

Yup, and well thought out ideas are still by gibney, 04/26/2007 10:31:24 PM PST (none / 0)

Who's "we?"

What the caucuses are really for is recruiting volunteers that we're expecting carry us through November 2008, then we have no plans on keeping them involved. After the eleciton, we don't really care what happens to these folks, if they stay engaged or not. Participatory democracy doesn't start with caucuses and end with the election, its ongoing.

Sez who, Emmett? Sez flippin' who? Maybe you have no personal experience of keeping caucus attendees involved, but other areas of the state sure have done it, and continue to do it.

As far as I know, Dwight outlined his plan to turn the situation around at a Thurston County meeting. Maybe you missed it. I know I have heard him outline his plan three-four times in person already. Are you saying that's all talk, then? Based on what?

Don't you read Dina's posts here about organizing in her neighborhood? That's our District, the 34th. Dina and I plot strategies for her neighghborhood and her precinct every week or so. What do you think that is, if not conscious, goal-centered party-building?

Don't be so quick to point fingers. Democrats all around the state are doing exactly what you say they aren't doing. Maybe you need to get out more.

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

by ivan on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:32:39 PM PST

* 3 none 0 *

I did see it, I was disapointed by emmettoconnell, 04/26/2007 03:47:04 PM PST (none / 0)

I haven't heard in person, but I've read by gibney, 04/26/2007 05:33:42 PM PST (none / 0)

also by emmettoconnell, 04/26/2007 04:02:39 PM PST (none / 0)
ivan, you & 34th are aberrations, as are by rmdSeaBos, 04/26/2007 07:25:43 PM PST (none / 0)

I hate to say it and get sorta personal by gibney, 04/26/2007 10:29:01 PM PST (none / 0)

I like so apologize for NOT being HAPPY by rmdSeaBos, 04/28/2007 05:07:16 PM PST (none / 0)

Sorry by gibney, 04/28/2007 06:00:07 PM PST (none / 0)

Recent Grassroots Triumphs!!!

Based upon the tens of thousands who particpated in the 2004 caucuses, the Dem party had:

a bounty of volunteers from active districts for peter goldmark, darcy burner ...
hundreds of people to assemple and petition for redress of grievance whenever one of hte fascists-in-chief comes to Seattle, like Rove or some of those other goebels wanna-beees.
hordes and hordes of volunteers to help local school districts out in their recent ballot funding initiatives
hordes and hordes of volunteers to help the WEA put pressure on the legislature so we are no longer funding education worse than ... 40 something other states!

...

just kidding.

all the successes of late are despite the zillions of names sitting in

how many freaking democratic party databases?

are the result of people getting involved AND not waiting for 'the party' to send them an email the day before that f$$$ing puke karl rove showed up a few weeks back.

in this state, we got cow patch grassroots - be part of the food chain for the big boys, and don't get offended if they poop and pee on ya while they are chewing ya up.

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:47:42 PM PST

* 8 none 0 *

The most shocking thing in Karen's email

"And the number of names the primary generated was so large that it could not be used in any efficient manner for any political purpose."

Does anyone who owns a computer really think that ?

by Kelly Wright on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:42:39 AM PST

* 12 none 0 *

That was then by gibney, 04/27/2007 09:04:53 AM PST (none / 0)

so its not a good argument anymore by emmettoconnell, 04/27/2007 12:11:05 PM PST (none / 0)

Well, speculative by gibney, 04/27/2007 12:47:31 PM PST (none / 0)

oh heck no, I love caucuses by emmettoconnell, 04/27/2007 02:00:24 PM PST (none / 0)

PLease see some of my earlier posts by gibney, 04/27/2007 02:42:30 PM PST (none / 0)

The end...

The amendment to the delegate selection plan which would have used a primary instead of a caucus just failed at the WSDCC. I think the vote was 119 to 42.

by chadlupkes on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:36:01 PM PST

* 18 none 0 *

What was the text of the amendment? by gibney, 04/28/2007 06:05:35 PM PST (none / 0)

It lost big by ivan, 04/28/2007 08:52:46 PM PST (none / 0)
yeah by wrog, 04/29/2007 12:21:49 AM PST (none / 0)

Jan 8, 2008 by gibney, 04/29/2007 12:24:30 PM PST (none / 0)

not over yet by wrog, 04/29/2007 10:40:17 PM PST (none / 0)

I wouldn't worry too much about 13 H by Kelly Wright, 04/29/2007 11:32:02 PM PST (none / 0)

not 13H.1 by wrog, 05/02/2007 02:05:08 AM PST (none / 0)

The point is.... by Kelly Wright, 05/05/2007 04:55:46 PM PST (none / 0)

yes but *my* point by wrog, 05/06/2007 09:40:52 PM PST (none / 0)
the real problem by wrog, 05/06/2007 09:51:33 PM PST (none / 0)

And damn'it by gibney, 05/06/2007 11:26:27 PM PST (none / 0)

There has been No offiical date change yet by gibney, 04/30/2007 08:56:47 AM PST (none / 0)

What we have done...

What we have done is take a huge HUGE gamble on there being no nominee on Feb 6th. Personally, I don't think that's going to happen.

With 23 states voting on Feb 5, including the six most populace states, there is no doubt we will know who the nominee is on the 6th.

So who's going to turn out for our "party building" caucuses four days after the decision is made? The party faithful... MAYBE, but I doubt it... since it will mean nothing.

And then, in 2012, it's really going to suck because delegates are allocated in direct proportion to the turn out of the prior presidential election. So when no one turns out in 2008... how many delegates will we get in '12?

What we did yesterday was tell the voters of Washington State to go fuck themselves, we voted the State into irrelevance for 2008, we voted to waste money (and time) on venues and supplies for caucuses which very few people will attend and we destroyed our voter file (on which we have spent thousands of dollars).

I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

I promise not to say "I told you so" at the '08 2nd Quarter meeting... no really.

Tom Schmerer
16th LD Chair & SCM

by Tom Schmerer on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:15:42 PM PST

* 25 none 0 *

I agree

I think this was a horrid decision that tells the public that we're "big D" Democrats who don't believe in "little d" democracy.

And I was really disappointed that the pro-caucus people who spoke at the podium basically lied. They kept saying that if we use the primary results that we will lose the party-building opportunity that caucuses provide. BS...the amendment called for using caucuses to choose delegates. We would have been able to get the list of names who took Democratic ballots in the primary PLUS the names of those who attended caucuses. And we would have still been able to do the Challenge from the Chair in working hard to encourage high attendance at the caucuses. Caucuses would still be held for resolutions as well.

by funkycamper on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:44:59 AM PST

* 29 none 0 *

Didn't you notice by gibney, 04/30/2007 10:22:04 AM PST (none / 0)

In the amendment? by funkycamper, 04/30/2007 01:24:31 PM PST (none / 0)

Yup, but not debated by gibney, 04/30/2007 01:40:28 PM PST (none / 0)

Debate? by funkycamper, 05/01/2007 05:19:02 PM PST (none / 0)

Are you surprised by Greg Rodriguez, 05/01/2007 05:32:08 PM PST (none / 0)

Armageddon! by ivan, 05/06/2007 01:17:42 PM PST (none / 0)

Resolutions will not be debated/passed by gibney, 05/01/2007 07:16:41 PM PST (none / 0)

More Caucuses v. Primary | 41 comments (41 topical)

PNW TOPIC HOTLIST

WELCOME AND FAQ
ABOUT

Login


Make a new account
Username:
Password:

HELP

Recommended Diaries

Highland Park in the News again; heard about Nickelsville?
My little neighborhood in West Seattle, near the city line, is the mouse that got up and roared when the City
By dinazina (30 comments)
Seattle Musician posts video-A nonpartisan version of song "Yes We Can"
I'm a singer songwriter from West Seattle and I just uploaded a video to Youtube that I think is relevant in
By lmsings (2 comments)
No Tears From Me for Lonesome Brian Baird
For those of you who have not seen this from the Seattle Times, I have taken Mr. Westneat to task just
By The Left Shue (5 comments)
Bernie Sanders to the richest: via Youtube
What Bernie says -- in 2005 the top 1% of earners made more than the bottom 50% in the United States.
By chadlupkes (3 comments)
Terry Bergeson Has To Go - Do The Math
At the Thursday July 10th 36th Disctrict Democrat endorsement meeting, some people spoke in favor of Terry Bergeson. I thought they
By rmdSeaBos (22 comments)
Eye Candy from 08 Pride Parade
A girl has to have SOME fun. Above, 34th District Obama delegates Dinazina (moi) and Jody Rogers. This year I
By dinazina (7 comments)