Washblog

Amazed that so many Democrats are willing to get rid of caucuses

By Sarajane46th
Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM PST
Section: Diary Topic: Democrats

[Front paged: NM]

To a Democratic Party friend:
I hope you won't mind my responding. I respect your long commitment and involvement with the party.

To your last point, we can't confuse over 16,000 caucus-goers in the 46th LD with our 700 members, or with the 100 or so "party wonks" who regularly attend our LD meetings. Obviously, a lot of people caucused who were not "party wonks."  Statewide, there were 240,000 of them, vs. 100,000 in 2004. We even invited people who weren't registered voters, and got over 500 registration forms in our LD.

I'm concerned that people who support the primary, as opposed to the caucus (having both is foolish), are ignoring the fact that this is a state with a 68-year history of domination by the populist Grange movement, which is anti-party. The Grange is why we don't have party registration, which is by far the more sensible plan.

Grange populism and Grange money passed the 1988 presidential primary initiative, which was wishful thinking on their part. They wanted to get rid of caucuses, but that isn't their decision. It's purely a party decision.  Then they passed another both/and approach to primaries, which violated the U.S. Constitution and was thrown out.  The R and D parties had to engage in years of expensive litigation to defend our 1st Amendment right to assemble and select a nominee.

Now, for the very first time, people have to sign the envelope and swear that they are, indeed, Democrats. I know they don't like it, but I just read where Rush Limbaugh urged his dittoheads in Texas to wholesale cross over and vote for Clinton, because the Right would rather have her as our candidate. Not surprisingly, they did so in large numbers, according to turnout figures.  Yes, they listen to Rush in Washington State, too. We simply can't have an open primary where non-Democrats can waltz in and do damage, and the State Supreme Court says we no longer have to.

Any suggestion of a presidential primary without party registration is a non-starter. Someone who has studied independents notes that they are 24% of WA voters, but 2/3 vote with Democrats and share our values. We need to help them realize that they are actually Democrats.  Physically attending a caucus does that.  It's a much stronger step towards identifying as a Democrat than blackening a circle.  I predict that Darcy Burner will do much better in the 5th LD, where the party is very weak, just because of the caucuses.

Changing the public's opposition to party registration, after 68 years of "I don't have to and I won't" is unlikely. So we are left with less palatable alternatives to building a viable and inclusive party.

Our right to choose our nominee should not be confused with everyone's right to vote in November. I, too, urge everyone to vote, regardless of whether or not they agree with me. We need to separate this from the party's selection of its nominee, however. We've come a long way from "smoke-filled rooms." That doesn't mean I want wingnut Lyndon LaRouche to have the same opportunity to be our nominee as anyone else.

Keep in mind that those who support only a presidential primary haven't said who would select the delegates to convention. Are we then back to having the LD or County chair pick names to put on the ballot, or to choose the delegates based on party participation? Really, the caucus system is the path to greatest grassroots participation. Unknown but enthusiastic grassroots delegates always have a shot at becoming national convention delegates.

We are working with a set of values (respect, democracy, everyone should have access to the vote) which is sometimes in conflict with the "facts on the ground" in this very Western, populist state. We have a lot of history, and we have to build a strong Democratic party from where we are, not where we wish we were. We can look at the off-year experience and say that expected attendence at caucuses would be less than 10% of 2008 if people did not believe their attendence counted in delegate selection. If all the delegates were selected by a primary, we would not go to the trouble and expense to hold a caucus--and we would still not have accurate contact information of our supposed party "members."

This leaves us with the less-than-perfect solution of a precinct caucus. We need to work harder to perfect it, based on the very positive experiences of the vast majority of people there. We can do that by reporting and listening to the concerns that people expressed to us, particularly if their schedules didn't allow them to attend. We can't afford to rent the rooms for longer than noon to 3 p.m. Acknowledging that we are largely a volunteer organization without paid staff to process absentee "ballots," we should seriously explore an on-line supplement, with a cutoff date a week before.

Respectfully,
Sarajane

< Toward a Compassionate Society | Have Your Money At or In WaMu?...Update2: Indymac! >

Poll

Precinct Caucus or Presidential Primary?
The precinct caucus is a true grassroots Democratic experience.
The presidential primary is a better way to choose convention delegates.
I'm an Independent and would never register as a Democrat
Why are you bothering me about this?

Votes: 24
Results | Other Polls
Display: Sort:
Amazed that so many Democrats are willing to get rid of caucuses | 17 comments (17 topical)
Some facts I think are in error
   I don't disagree with your main arguments, but. The Grange was responsible for the original blanket primary system back in the 30's. I don't think they were deeply involved in the Initative that established the Presidential Primary.
   It was the 9th Circuit and the the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled the blanket primary unconstitutional, I don't remember if the Washington State Supreme Court was ever asked.
   One other thing which should be remembered. Aside from the word "primary" there is no relationship between Washington's Presidential Primary and Washington's August (used to be September) Primary. They have entirely different histories and purposes.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:52:33 PM PST

* 1 none 0 *

Texas Gal told me Rush is s*** out of luck
Have to clarify with some info from the website of the Texas Secretary of State and called Texas friend with a history of Austin Democratic Party activism.

In Texas, in a given calendar year, the first time you vote in a primary within a calendar year, you can only vote in that party's primaries for the rest of the year.  In effect, by participating in the voting you have 'joined' the party and that is your party registration.  So, any Repub who voted in the Dem primary for President cannot participate in Republican primaries for statewide and local offices - and there were all the congressional, state legislature and local offices (down to the JPs and tax collectors) on the ballot.  Further, you can't vote the other party for the runoff primary.  My friend said that Rush is just sh** out of luck on his idea.  There are more Democrats than Repubs in Texas.  I verified this with: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/primary.shtml

With our signing the ballot, I think I'd be willing to back off of my hard line that I want my party on my voter registration card IF we held people to having to only vote in Democratic primaries for all offices for the calendar year once they vote in ANY Democratic primary.  It's as I suggested before that you join the party at the time of voting.

Poll - Got to respond to each question because apportioning of delegates is being confabulated with the process of electing the individual delegates and conducting local party business.
  "Precinct Caucus or Presidential Primary?"
I want both for different purposes.
 "The precinct caucus is a true grassroots Democratic experience."
Yes, it's a better way to elect grassroots delegates and bring resolutions.  But, not everyone wants to spend that time.  Why are we punishing people (most of whom would gladly check Democrat on a voter registration form, and gladly did sign the ballot) when all they want to do is vote, not talk, not run for delegate, not present a resolution?
 "The presidential primary is a better way to choose convention delegates."
It's a better, fairer and more democratic way to APPORTION delegates IF there is a way commit to being a party member.
 "I'm an Independent and would never register as a Democrat"
Do you still want a say?  Suggest a way that we have party registration and hope that, like in California, the Democrats allow non-partisans to participate in the primary.  Sorry, I'd never accept you being a delegate, though.
 "Why are you bothering me about this?"
This is about democracy functioning.

by ktkeller on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:32:35 PM PST

* 2 none 0 *

I say that if Maine can have absentee caucusing--
--for any reason whatsoever, then we can do the same.  An absentee caucus ballot can be preregistered, and this could be combined with urging people to pre-register.  If they didn't show, their ballot would count for the candidate they supported at the time of registration.  If they attended, they would have the options of switching candidates and persuading their neighbors.

There would be winnowing--people would have to go through some effort to pre-register and would by doing so declare themselves to be Democrats.  I don't see passivity in matters of governance and citizenship as a good thing at all, and it is no sense "democratic" to insist that it is.