March 15, 2007
Cancelling the Presidential Primary

Rep. Sam Hunt and the Democrats want to cancel the Presidential preference primary.

The Appropriations committee hearing is live on TVW at this moment. A representative from the League of Women Voters just testified and boy was she pissed.

Sam Reed and former Secretary of State Ralph Munro also testified against as did a number of citizens activists and a few county auditors. There was no pro- testimony while I was tuned in.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 15, 2007 04:19 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Like this bill will get anywhere. Arguably if they canceled the primary it would save the parties a ton of money.

This state doesn't have any clout with it's megar eleven electoral votes. Most of the time the party winner has already been picked before the primary reaches our state.

Posted by: Cato on March 15, 2007 04:36 PM
2. Who cares. The parties in WA use caucuses to determine who gets our votes. The primary is completely and totally meaningless. Not even mentioning the fact that it happens in fricken May.

Posted by: Giffy on March 15, 2007 05:14 PM
3. The Presidential Primary is not meaningless. The Washington State Republican Party once allowed one-third of its convention delegates to be selected by the Presidential Primary.

Both major parties can permit all, part, or none of their state's delegates to be selected by the Presidential Primary.

The Presidential Primary statute allows the Secretary of State to call a committee to move the date. Secretary Reed has sent out the inivitations for that meeting -- which will be a public meeting. We may be recommending a primary date around February so our state is in the mix of states that will have timely and meaningful results.

To date, neither major party has decided how many, if any, delegates they will permit to be selected by the Presidential Primary.

Steve Excell
Assistant Secretary of State
Email: SExcell@secstate.wa.gov

Posted by: Steve Excell on March 15, 2007 05:27 PM
4. Who exactly is in charge of the timing of state primaries nationwide? I'd agree that by the time Washington State has its primaries, it's abundantly clear who the winner is.

Instead of cancelling our primaries, why not just move the Washington State date up to be about the same time as those in Vermont, etc.?

Posted by: Ragnar on March 15, 2007 05:38 PM
5. Thanks for commenting Steve. If the parties did what you said i.e. allow delegates to be chosen by the primary then of course we should have it. However holding a primary when they don't just seems like a waste of money. Personally I would amend the bill to say that if the parties do not allow the primary to pick any delegates it does not occur but if they do then it should happen.

Both caucuses and primaries have the pros and cons, but one is enough.

I do like the idea of moving it to Feb should it occur. Personally I wish they rotated though the States so that each State would, at some point, get to be one of the first, without playing leap frog.

Posted by: Giffy on March 15, 2007 05:51 PM
6. State wide Party Primaries should be eliminated entirely, only those who are active in their party should be able to vote on the candidates at a caucaus.

Posted by: Difranco on March 15, 2007 08:25 PM
7. 6. "State wide Party Primaries should be eliminated entirely, only those who are active in their party should be able to vote on the candidates at a caucaus [sic]."

And who'll decide who among us are "active in their party," DiFranco? You?

I'll have to introduce you to Sam Hunt and Hans Dunshee. You'd get on famously.

Posted by: ram on March 15, 2007 08:40 PM
8. We spent $6 million of state money for a Presidential primary in February 2000. The Democrats did not use the primary results to allocate delegates, while the Republicans used the primary results to allocate 10 convention delegates.

Extremely cost effective -- only $600,000 for each Republican delegate allocated.

In 2008, the cost is estimated to be $9 million, since it is significantly more expensive to conduct all-mail balloting. Maybe we can get close to $1 million per GOP delegate allocated next year.

Just think -- $9 million. That is more money than we pay all the members of the King County Clowncil and Seattle City Clowncil put together -- during the entire four year terms they are elected to.

I have a more reasonable proposal -- let the each political party use whatever method it desires to select national convention delegates, and have each party pay all the costs of its own delegate selection process.

Posted by: Richard Pope on March 15, 2007 08:43 PM
9. Agreed...cancel the Presidential Primary and quit flushing money down the toilet.

Posted by: Randy Mueller on March 15, 2007 09:45 PM
10. I have a problem with people I don't know and therefore don't trust, deciding who is allowed to run with my party's endorsement. This smacks of less power to the people, more for the political powers.

Mark my words, we will have Jugo Chavez running against Barbara Boxer with Al Gore as the far right canditate.

Posted by: Elaine on March 15, 2007 10:29 PM
11. The State Republican Party has not yet decided how many of its votes for the presidential nomination will be based on the Primary results. It could be 0% or could be 100%.

Posted by: besuared on March 15, 2007 11:29 PM
12. It could be 0% or could be 100%

And would it really matter? No.

Nominating conventions today are nothing like they were in the 60's & 70's when the people on the floor actually mattered. Today's conventions are big expensive candidate love fests. It's already known who the party's candidate is because they were chosen by a handful of states six months prior.

Maybe we should think about ditching Washington's primary. The whole nominating process will be over come mid-February. It's extremely unlikely that we will even have a choice of candidates by the time the May primary rolls around.

Posted by: Cato on March 16, 2007 08:57 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?