Postman: "Demo chair says no way to primary"
State Democratic Party Chairman [Cuba Dwight] Pelz says his party will stick to its caucuses for selecting presidential delegates and will not use the primary even if lawmakers keep it on the calendar.It's almost as if they consider the voters to be dangerous, or something.And that means [Mrs.] Gregoire1 likely will go along with a plan to cancel the 2008 presidential primary
1"I think we have been a model to the rest of the nation and the world at large about how an election system, as close as this one is, can be done with the highest of quality ... This is the biggest display of democracy I have ever seen and I am proud of it and I think it's an inspiration."
It would probably cost a LOT less to publicly finance campaign for appellate judicial positions (i.e. Court of Appeals and Supreme Court) in any given election year, than to hold a so-called presidential primary. Not that they should finance judicial elections either, but there are a lot of better uses for $9 million.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 16, 2007 12:48 PMAt the point we hold the primary:
1) The clear candidate for both parties will have already been chosen three months ago.
2) We're going to spend money on something that doesn't mater and the parties won't accept anyway.
3) Even if the GOP took all of their delegates from the primary results the end result is the person who won three months ago will clearly be the chosen candidate come convention time.
They picked the last Tuesday in February, because the parties like to hold their caucuses right after that. The Democrat primary is purely a "beauty contest", but has signicant symbolic meaning right before the Democrat caucuses -- which tend to be very well attended. The Republican primary has partial meaning, allocating some delegates, and is followed by Republican caucuses which always tend to be more sparsely attended than Democrat caucuses.
I know in February 2000, neither party nomination had been clearly determination when we had our primary. If there had been a primary in 2004, the Democrat nomination would have still been up in the air.
All that said -- WE STILL SHOULDN'T WASTE $9 MILLION SO THE REPUBLICANS CAN ALLOCATE A SMALL PORTION OF THEIR DELEGATES.
This same $9 million would probably be a LOT MORE MONEY than the Washington State Republican Party will actually raise from donors during the 2005-2008 four year cycle (especially if you exclude transfers from other party organizations from this calculation).
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 16, 2007 01:38 PMYes, they can be changed but will it make all that much difference? I went to the GOP caucuses in 2000 and it was pretty much over by then (I believe McCain dropped out the day after) Dumbo had already secured a significant lead. Every other state seems rushing their primary elections to earlier dates.
The way it's heading these days we may just end up with one primary across the entire country and then spend the next 9mo watching the winners campaign.
The primary system is a joke these days. If you don't have a choice or a voice it's really not worth holding a primary in the first place.
"Primaries are for the party, the 'general' is for the people."
It is the parties' prerogative to have or not have a primary. If they don't want to have one, fine by me.
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 16, 2007 04:00 PM
What's wrong with caucusing?
We (Dems) had a presidential caucus in 2004. It was great fun. The give and take between the delegates was great. Speeches. Bargaining. Pleas. Voting for our delegates. It was all huge fun.
Maybe it's just me, but the caucus felt a lot more participatory, inclusive, and democratic than the primaries I've voted in.
Cheers, Jason
After that I decided I like the caucus system.
Posted by: Cicero on March 17, 2007 08:57 PMDo I need to add that if I were an actual member of any party (I'm not) I would strenously insist that King County Elections was not currently qualified for the task?
Posted by: Kirk Parker on March 18, 2007 12:30 AMIt is the right of any group to form a political "party." That is fundamental to free elections. Elections are "free" in precisely inverse proportion to how much Government controls the process. Full Government control of the process is what they had in the Soviet Union and Saddam's Iraq. Of course they did it with the "best intentions."
Political Parties are formed from ideological consensus about what Government should be and do. The Republican Party, for instance, was formed from the political will among moral Americans (those committed to Judeo-Christian principles) to end slavery. It was organized around that ideal and, being based on the politics of what is right (morality) found, and finds, quick consensus around doing what is right, not what may seem to have some temporary benefit to a special interest or winning the next election.
If you want to effect the direction of Government, as, generally, do all activists of any stripe, you must have a political party to unite a coalition around your consensus, run candidates and effect the kinds of public information/campaign activities that accrue to the the synergy of mass activity.
Political Parties have the right to nominate whatever candidate they feel best represents their interest. In this context it IS NOT and should never be, a superficial popularity contest. Their interest is their Platform (the one Rosenberg wants us to ignore). The only way the Republican Party was able to end slavery was because it nominated Abraham Lincoln by Convention. Slavery was too "divisive" to be a "winning issue." Ronald Reagan was considered to be a fringe candidate on the issues. One of those Right Wing Extemists. The propaganda was extensive, as it is today against his successors. "Fringe," they said. But he was nominated by the Republican Party. Many Conservatives thought we would lose for the same reasons they think we'll lose in Washington if we run conservatives. Had there been a national primary he wouldn't have been nominated, ever, for many reasons. Many Americans did not really know him as did the GOP. But once nominated, he was able to campaign directly to the American People over the heads of the Washington DC establishment and the Mainstream media. He won a landslide. (By the way, he won the Republican nominating votes in Washington State, by a 100% CAUCUS system, in 1976.)
Knowledgeable activists attend Caucuses, as well as much more casually involved citizens. But the DISCUSSION in Precinct and Congressional District Caucuses is open to any delegate. That's real Democracy and in the Republican Party it has always led to conservatism. Access to the DISCUSSION in a primary, by contrast, has always been through the liberal media (though the monopoly is fading), who have access to the public's mind for free and make that same access very EXPENSIVE to any candidate, no matter his quality or the popularity of his ideas. They control the PERCEPTION OF VIABLILTY and, to a large extent, the image of the candidates by controlling, censoring and biasing news coverage. That's why a cross-dressing gay rights activist is leading Republican Presidential polls for 2008 right now. That's why liberal Republicans, like Dan Evans, Ralph Munro and Sam Reed, have always wanted an open Primary. They need Democrat and independent liberal votes to win, because they are saboteurs within the Republican Party and want to do the opposite of what the grassroots want.
Nomination by Convention through Caucuses is Democracy.
Nomination by Primaries (controlled by mainstream monopoly media mind manipulation) is Mediocracy.™
/ok, sarcasm off now
Posted by: kim in vancouver on March 18, 2007 10:57 PMI was an alternate-delegate to the national convention in '04, and I'd love to run again. But something tells me I'm not going to make it home for the precinct caucuses, county convention, and state convention. It sucks :(
Oh, and Doug, this soldier would vote for the cross-dresser. Go Rudy!! :)
Posted by: Aaron on March 18, 2007 11:40 PMThe votes of voters who are not declared members of the political party are not considered "eligible" to particpate in a partisan primary. In otherwords, in the view of the political parties, there is no such thing as an "independent" voter in a partisan primary.
If this continues to be the case, despite the initiative of the people that declared for an open presidential primary, they are just wasting the taxpayers money and the time and effort of everyone involved in carrying out the primary.
Posted by: Bob on March 19, 2007 11:22 AMThe votes of voters who are not declared members of the political party are not considered "eligible" to particpate in a partisan primary. In otherwords, in the view of the political parties, there is no such thing as an "independent" voter in a partisan primary.
If this continues to be the case, despite the initiative of the people that declared for an open presidential primary, they are just wasting the taxpayers money and the time and effort of everyone involved in carrying out the primary.
Posted by: Bob on March 19, 2007 11:22 AM