Washblog

(2) Before long, candidates will list themselves as "Prefers Blondes", "Prefers Partial Shade", "Prefers  Linux", etc.

Dave Gibney Pullman

In most cases, this will make little difference, although in a few cases, the person chosen by party leadership may lose to someone who "prefers Democratic".

So what?  If, with the resources of the Washington State Democratic Party, a candidate cannot even get into the top two, then we're better served by putting our resources into some other race.

Or, perhaps the party leadership should re-think the choice of candidate.  It's our party, and we can figure out a way to endorse the primary winner, should we decide to do so.

Certainly, we, as a party, should be able to decide who gets to use party symbols and endorsements.

But I don't have any problem with the idea that the voters should pick who they want to represent them on the ballot or in the legislature.

Political parties are an important part of our system of government, but they are not in themselves the government.  They are simply a way that like-minded people can gather to effectively support candidates and issues.  That is the basis of the "freedom of association" argument.

As long as we remember that, we won't have any problem with the new system.

I've been down there, I walked a precinct in Covington with Betty. ;-) I've been to at least one non-Party event with Noemie. You know I am not entirely comfortable with the relationship between the Party and campaigns being so cozy that the Party lets the campaigns drive for the most part. I'm not sure you're entirely on board with your own conclusions... any more than as a critic of the Party, almost anything I say in defense of the Party opens me at least to accusations of being a Party apologist.

I think there's a lot of temporizing and selective memory going on at the moment. There are immediate reasons for that, top two being resolutions submitted at the caucuses to abolish the caucuses and populist nature of the Obama campaign. These two factors lead to a lot of internal discomfort within the Party especially given that it would like to convert a lot of these people who showed up into Party members (or at least meat on the off for the campaigns).

Party leaders resigned over the Party's decision to seek to overturn the old primary. That's been downplayed and deflected by blaming it on The Grange, but it's coming home to roost. The Democratic Party hasn't yet come public with its complicity with the Republican Party in this lawsuit: in fact "complicity" isn't strong enough, it was an out-and-out partnership... sure, that doesn't make it a secret... but is it reported on any Party web site? My impression is that mention of this facet is pretty minimal, in fact the only reference I remember recently was one here on Washblog rhetorically asking whether Sam Reed is a Republican or not, and a lot of people probably have no clue what I'm talking about.

I attended a King County nominating convention in 2005, and the sky certainly didn't fall in... in fact people didn't care.

Parties are a special kind of political club/action committee which anyone can join... provided you can get a few of your immediate neighbors to vote for you: what PCO isn't going to pay attention to their neighbors, their constituency, if they start getting heat? You think I wouldn't hold a public ballot in my neighborhood if anybody wanted it? You think that if this interest took the form of blowback, and there was any appreciable counter pressure from above not to hold a public ballot to provide me with direction as the elected delegate, that I wouldn't tell those folks higher up "screw you, I'm the PCO"? In the 36th, as in many other LDs, we already amend our bylaws so that ordinary members can vote to the maximum extend permitted by State law.

It was great to see all of those people interested. Where were they in 2006? I asked them that. "What do you mean, we have to elect delegates? We voted!" "What do you mean, you're going to give our delegates to Clinton if we can't elect them? That doesn't sound fair!" It wasn't quite that baldly put in the ornery '1295, but do those tropes feel as familiar to you as they nonetheless did to me?

Political parties are a special club, with a special place under the law. They're not created or maintained by people sitting in their undershorts at the kitchen table scratching themselves and carefully considering the issues (the "Underpants Party"? hrmmm... instead of a schmooze break, the scratch yourself break? hrmmm...) Who chooses the delegates, when you vote at the kitchen table?

Shouldn't the people who have some say be the people who are invested enough to take time off of work and risk the public scorn, ridicule and embarrassment and at the same time respect of their neighbors who are doing the same? (As me that tonight while I'm standing at Greenlake holding a candle.) (Should the Party be as willing to subsidize delegate's expenses as they are to shuck and jive for campaigns? Should campaigns be willing to foot the bill for delegates pledged to their candidates? Things to consider.)

The major Parties have gotten off easy and there are a lot of people now who want the Easy button. One of the major things they want from the Easy button is not having to deal with blowback. It doesn't make your job or my job any easier, but I think there is a kind of winnowing of those in the Parties which is propelled by the Supremes' decision in this case.

In spite of it all, my neighbors don't want to replace me as PCO. I offered to resign at my caucus, so that someone else could take over before the coming election, so that they'd have the opportunity to know the current crop of potential leadership prior to having to vote on them as their first act of office... "but we like you as PCO!". Crap, so much for that January in Mexico I was hoping for next year!

Where exactly does this notion that "the public" (who asked them?) is going to be disappointed when they find out that the Party is going to choose its nominee come from? We already do it: we endorse candidates.

What happens now when someone loses in the primary and then runs as an independent in the general election. What, exactly, happened with Joe Lieberman and the Party when he did this?

Well we have a long road of pain to walk down before that kind of hypocrisy is squeezed out of the system. We'd better get started.

Where exactly did the notion that "the public" is going to be disappointed come from? One place it may come from is still trying to deflect the truth:

My neighbors tell they want publicly financed elections. If as a result of this they also tell me they want to do away with the primary entirely and go to ranked choice voting and proportional representation, I'll be right there supporting them.

If that results in more choices of Parties, that's more for me to choose from, too... in case this Party decides it wants to keep the "lost left" after all.

Oh the pain! Where's that Easy button?

and an additional question: will either party defend the system that allows two rs or two ds to be the only ballot choices--and will either, or both, promptly attack the same system, in the name of "disenfranchisment"?

Dave Gibney Pullman

--
منتديات دليل مواقع منتدى قريش منتدى صور الكون شبكة اسلاميه العاب مركز تحميل
اداره مواضيع المميزه تعارف اهدائات ترحيب تعارف خدمة الاعضاء الرئيسيه مواضيع اسلاميه مواضيع عامه نقاش حوار السياحه السفر الاخباريه جريمه اثاره الرياضه سيارات دراجات ناريه الاسره المجتمع شباب العربي ابناء ادم عالم حواء بنات حواء عالم الطفل الطفل الطب الصحه مطبخ الزواج الحياه الزوجيه ديكور اثاث منزلي اشغال يدويه الابداعات الشعريه الابداعات الادبيه همس القوافي شعر عذب الكلام خواطر قصص روايات ترفيهيه العاب مسابقات نكت ضحك فرفشه افلام انمي افلام كرتون المكتبه الصوتيه المكتبه السمعيه الابداع التصوير الفوتغرافي فوتشوب فلاش سويتش صور صور ورده تصاميم الاعضاء ابداعات الاعضاء تقنيه الالكترونيه الاتصالات كمبيوتر برامج كمبيوتر برامج ماسنجر ماسنجر هوتميل ماسنجر ياهو جوال موبايل برامج جوال ارشيف مواضيع مكرره مواضيع محذوفه