Washblog

   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

---

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

---

--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.

by eridani on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:38:52 AM PST

---

we are discussing this issue at our meeting this wednesday and i feel very strongly about this and this is my proposal. if we bow to the pressure in the party and out to move away from caucus we will never get it back. we voluntarily associate with the party and this is our selection of a nominee to the people, IT IS NOT AN ELECTION. all registered voters can choose in the election in november.

my proposal:
 The question between the $9,700,000 taxpayer funded primary and continuing with the Democratic member supported caucus, we have always used, is, whether it matters if it's Democrats who decide who we put forth forth in the November election. In the taxpayer supported primary (open primary state) it will be whoever wants to. It could be anyone in the caucus system also. The bar is only slightly higher. All one has to do is show up once every 4 years for 3, maybe 4 at the most, hours.

As it stands now, there are 3 cases where a person can request to register their presence by proxy(disability, military service, or religious reasons). Anyone can make themselves available to be a delegate by proxy.

I propose we make proxy available to anyone who wants to register their preference. There would be deadlines, as now, to allow the proxies to be forwarded to the precincts. This answers the many of complaints heard, allows anyone to participate in presidential nominee preference, and as a potential delegate(as they can now). The only caucus function they would miss is electing delegates.

The advantage of this, in our open primary state, is we maintain control of the process. It is my opinion, if we give up the caucus,under current conditions, we are turning our voice over to the corporate media. We will never get it back. They still market to us with the caucus system, as they do now, but we will continue to meet and decide, as Democrats, who we offer the voters in November.

by jpeg47 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:55:43 AM PST

---

that there's absolutely no voter verification involved.  We just walked right in, told them what precinct and were directed on our way.  AT NO TIME did anyone think to ask for PROOF that we were actually registered voters who had a right to be there.

And I wasn't the only person who mentioned this fact.  Others also commented that there was no efforts made to show that the people at our caucus were who they said they were, let alone registered voters.

THAT'S why I'm against the caucuses.  It's too easy to defraud the public.

by Pen on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:00:09 PM PST

---