Washblog

1. I disagree with some of your characterizations of how the process works. some of the characterizations sound pretty happy-happy, not too connected with what I see as the reality of participation.

So, we disagree.  I could go point by point, but, I doubt it would change your mind as the characterizations I disagree I've seen debated quite a bit on washblog ... and in bars and drom rooms when I was 18 in '78 in Holyoke MA or in Boston MA.

2. I REALLY disagree with your title.

IF I don't buy your happy-happy characterizations, THEN I engage in 'destructive rhetoric'.

As far as I am concerned, your arguement is:

IF everyone in the Dem party listened to YOU, and IF everyone in the Dem party ONLY spoke in a manner you approve of,
THEN we'd win forever.

we don't win cuz we engage in destructive rhetoric, which appears to be anything but your happy happy speak.

so, who is engaging in destructive rhetoric?

rmm.  

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

by rmdSeaBos on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:43:23 AM PST

---

  I still believe a Feb 5 non-binding primary would provide an opportunity for much greater participation in the caucus process, if we moved the precinct caucuses to April 5th.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:07:17 PM PST

---

I am sorry that we didn't have a chance to discus this at length before the CC meeting last
Saturday. I have always appreciated the thoughtful consideration you always give to the
fundamental issues of Democracy.

But first I want to say this about party "Bosses"
and "Party elites".  The fact is that party
leaders have abused their positions in past years
to manipulate the results. I won't go into the
sorted details of each incident now, but if you
want the whole story give me a call.
I am also very sorry to say, that the rules that
we adopted in Bellingham, give county chairs
unprecedented power at their "discretion" to
decide how many delegates some precincts will
receive.  Another issue is that we have about
700 "winner-take-all" precincts with only one delegate. Precincts in our state are a terrible political division, that very widely depending on which county you live. This creates some very bad distortions which do not result in a fair reflection of Presidential Preference of the caucus attendees.

You said that "However, in the topsy-turvy rhetoric that dominates Washington State politics; those who derided the Pick-A-Party are now howling for it.  With the presidential primary voters will have to pick a party!". The converse is also true, the party has complained about the regular primary, but when the state gives the party the primary that it wants, the party response "no-way".

You said that "Run by volunteers, this process is open and occurs in well-lit and safe venues that host public gatherings." In 2004, 30 caucuses were held in private homes. The fact that the caucuses are run by volunteers, who will have their own favorite among the candidates, is a great weakness. Washington is by far the largest state to use the caucus system. For those people who think that the race will be undecided after Feb 5. -Be careful what you wish for. Our caucus system would not hold up well to the close scrutiny that would come from a close, hard fought, high stakes competition.  

You said that "Motivated participants can work their way to county and state conventions.  There's a fair chance of attending the national convention.  In the process, many people catch the participation bug to continue activism in their communities."  This would have still been the case with the Post Primary Caucus System that we were advocating. This is the system used by most states.

Finally, there is one thing that has bothered me very much about the debate. The argument that the caucuses are more participatory and that party activist should be the ones to make the choice, not causal voters. This is in direct contradiction to DNC rules.
PARTICIPATION
A.    Participation in the delegate selection process shall be open to all voters who wish to participate as Democrats.
1.    Democratic voters shall be those persons who publicly declare their Party preference and have that preference publicly recorded.
State that use the caucus/convention system do so because the state won't hold primary elections that comply with party rules. State's like Colorado and Kansas have gone back to the caucuses because the state de-funded their primaries. Idaho democrats switched to caucuses for 2008 because they wanted to make their choice on Feb 5 before the election is over.

Causes gave us Hubert Humphrey. Primaries gave us Bobby Kennedy.

by Kelly Wright on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:54:04 PM PST

---

I'm glad to get the positive comments about the caucus process.  

I'm looking forward to the day when we've got a more functional election system nationwide -- so we're not trying (the way I see it, anyway) to make the best of a not so great situation.

by noemie maxwell on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:30:54 PM PST

---

One fair possible way

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:46:32 PM PST

---

So what the hell is your point?

Your argument is facetious. You want state-sponsored, multi-party, IRV voting. Why not simply say that rather than using this stalking horse.

IRV voting is a reasonable, if in my view unproductive, debate. Stay with what you are actually arguing for because facetious arguments only hurt your credibility.

Here you are arguing that parties have the Constitutional right to create their own primary system and that this is a benefit - even to the extent of tends of thousands of voters - after arguing exactly the opposite point at other times.

Your diary should be entitled "I want IRV and so I hope for maximum conflict within the parties".

by dlaw on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:58:16 PM PST

---