I just got word that the Snohomish County GOP will be featured tonight on KING5 news at 5 p.m., regarding some of the caucus news. Snohomish County reported its counts of preferences of all participants, not just the delegates, and spent today going over all the sign-in sheets and delegate election forms to get those results to the state.
Robert Mak is doing the story, and usually does a good job of informing the viewers about what is actually going on, so you may want to be sure to check it out.
Posted by pudge at February 11, 2008 02:48 PM | Email ThisNope. You're confused.
Abysmal, ain't it?
Nope. You're confused.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 04:17 PMI'm guessing Snohomish county isn't the only problem out there, but those types of problems will work themselves out at the county conventions. The main problem is that our state republican chair may have unduly influenced the nomination of the national party by prematurely declaring a winner. If he done so under the direction of the national party or other candidates, it really could be more than a main problem.
Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 04:34 PMI was never against McCain, FWIW. But, I am also not a "blogger," so you must not be referring to me anyway.
Also, I don't necessarily agree the caucus system is the right way to go. It is one way to go, and it works well. I've seen only one unsubstantiated problem reported with the caucus, this Kim Davis down in Lakewood. She apparently claims she was denied the right to be nominated and to even vote for delegates. If that happened, her precinct should lost all its delegates. But one problem like that, even if true, doesn't reflect the whole.
The main problem is that our state republican chair may have unduly influenced the nomination of the national party by prematurely declaring a winner.
Eh. I don't care. I care about the WSRP. Blame the media for creating a system where that kind of thing happens. You could make the same argument about the Dems in Iowa unduly affecting the nominations, because they are in a similar situation: we don't know how their final delegate count will shape up, yet we treat Obama like he was a big winner. (Granted, the presidential preference was the POINT of their caucus, unlike ours, but still, we don't know who the winner will be until Iowa's state convention.)
If he done so under the direction of the national party or other candidates, it really could be more than a main problem.
Yes, and if the Mormons are buying an election, and if James Dobson hates Baptists ... you sure like to make up completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 04:54 PMSO, SP et al
Let me see if I have this straight:
Election - 2000
Fight like hell in the courts to stop the legal recount as soon as your guy is winning, and ignore irregularities
(ie, Pat Buchanan winning giant jewish vote count in Palm Beach)
href=http://faculty.washington.edu/mtbrett/
Election - 2004
Fight like hell to stop legal recounts (when your guy is winning),
highlight all irregularities in King Co. - but conveniently leave-out and/or conceal all pro-Rossi county irregularities.
Then bitch bitch bitch until today (Feb 11th) despite Sam Reed (R) signing the official ballot count, and conservative Chelan county judge John Bridges Throwing out Rossi's election overturn case, saying - in very conservative legal lingo, mind you:
"To do so would constitute the ultimate of judicial egotism and activism."
Feb 11th, 2008:
McPain is winning by a small amount. Point out irregularities - again, only where McPain is winning - and FIGHT LIKE HELL to get every vote counted.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Note: The primary caucuses are all functions of the respective state parties. When Huckabee compares the WA State GOP caucuses to "Soviet Union", he's talking directly to the WA State GOP.
How's that feel, Commies?
Posted by: mercifurious on February 11, 2008 05:01 PMI wish they would have discussed a little bit more, but Robert Mak made some of the important points: not all the counts are done because they have to reconcile the numbers between the two forms, and the numbers don't mean anything significant anyway, since anyone can change their mind (even between signing the sheet and actually voting in the caucus!).
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 05:03 PMCrazy, man.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 05:12 PMThis was NOT an election. There are no votes to count. There were only delegates selected to go on to the next higher convention - delegates who are not bound.
The WA Democrats used a different system. Most other states use a different system. Don't confuse what they do with what the WA GOP does.
Posted by: Seabecker on February 11, 2008 05:22 PMKing 5 and Mak do not yet understand this.
Posted by: Seabecker on February 11, 2008 05:28 PM2000: Fight like hell in the courts to stop the legal recount as soon as your guy is winning
Nope. An strong majority -- seven of the nine justices, including liberals Souter and Breyer -- of the Supreme Court agreed that recount was illegal. It absolutely was not a legal recount.
and ignore irregularities (ie, Pat Buchanan winning giant jewish vote count in Palm Beach)
Nope. Those were not ignored. You confuse "not doing something about it" with "ignored," but what could be done? It was the same ballot used in many past elections, and everyone had a chance to review it. Yes, it sucked, but there was nothing that could be done about after the election. This is the same basic reasoning Bridges used, which I supported (see below).
2004: Fight like hell to stop legal recounts (when your guy is winning)
Nope. There was no effort to stop any legal recount in 2004. Some people complained about the second recount, sure, but no one tried to actually stop it, that I can recall. I know I didn't oppose it or try to stop it: the law allowed it. Nothing more to say.
highlight all irregularities in King Co. - but conveniently leave-out and/or conceal all pro-Rossi county irregularities.
Nope. That might be valid to bring up if it fit your argument here, but it doesn't: the point of the court case was not to convince anyone that Rossi won, but that the results could not be trusted, so it is irrelevant that "pro-Rossi irregularities" were not included.
Then bitch bitch bitch until today (Feb 11th) despite Sam Reed (R) signing the official ballot count, and conservative Chelan county judge John Bridges Throwing out Rossi's election overturn case, saying - in very conservative legal lingo, mind you: "To do so would constitute the ultimate of judicial egotism and activism."
Nope. I agreed with both Reed and Bridges. Each had no other choice. Indeed, I correctly predicted that Bridges' ruling would be that although KC Elections was a mess, that the election result would stand. (But one wonders how you can support Bridges' ruling while thinking something should have been done about the problems in Florida ... at least I am consistent.)
McPain is winning by a small amount. Point out irregularities - again, only where McPain is winning - and FIGHT LIKE HELL to get every vote counted.
Nope. You are confused: there WAS NO VOTE for McCain or any other presidential candidate in Saturday's caucuses, only for delegates. And, of course, most of us here -- especially the people posting articles on SP, like me -- are not in any way influenced one way or another by which candidate is winning in WA, but only in explaining and getting to the facts.
Note: The primary caucuses are all functions of the respective state parties. When Huckabee compares the WA State GOP caucuses to "Soviet Union", he's talking directly to the WA State GOP.
Yes, and he sounds as completely silly as you do when he does so.
The sole purpose of the GOP Caucus is to elect delegates to the county convention.
These delegates can support whoever they want, it doesn't matter because their only purpose is to select delegates to the state convention which in turn selects delegates to the national convention.
It is who these national delegates support that matters and they have no obligation to reflect the wishes of anyone down the line (back to the individual voter).
That's screwed up.
Posted by: Rod S. on February 11, 2008 05:55 PMhttp://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_021108POL_huckabee_disputes_SW.b1b974e7.html
deadwood: I think what Pudge is saying is that it's neither "okay" or not okay. It's irrelevant.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 11, 2008 06:06 PMNope.
These delegates can support whoever they want
Yep.
their only purpose is to select delegates to the state convention
Nope.
which in turn selects delegates to the national convention.
Yep.
It is who these national delegates support that matters
Yep.
and they have no obligation to reflect the wishes of anyone down the line (back to the individual voter).
Yep.
That's screwed up.
Nope.
No, to you I am saying that your initial claim was flatly incorrect (trying to tie this to the blanket primary), and therefore any subordinate claim (that it is abysmal) is therefore unsubstantiated.
That said, yes, I don't see any problems with the system. It's as valid a method as any. If you don't like it, and you are in the party, try to change it. If I like your ideas, maybe I'll support them. I am always open to positive change and progress. Many people in the party dislike the current caucus system and want to see it replaced. Fine by me, let's talk about alternatives.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 06:16 PMOf course not! How else would delegates get elected?
Am I saying that their desires on specific issues and nominees are not binding on the delegates they elect? Yes, I am saying that. Just like your desires on specific issues are not binding on the people you elect to public office.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 06:23 PMBut this is irrelevant to the topic. The WA GOP has determined to select half of its delegates via this method and half via primary. Compare that with the WA Dems who select zero delegates based on a primary. Now THAT'S screwed up!
Posted by: Seabecker on February 11, 2008 06:24 PMIf the GOP activists don't want a caucus process that allows direct influence by caucus participants, that's the way it will stay.
They should remove this part from the rules, though. There is no reason to require something from the nominees when you don't plan to use the information the nominees provide:
"Rule 15 - Election of Delegates to the County Convention"
"Each nominee shall be given a reasonable period of time to express the nominee's views concerning the nominee's candidacy. In a Presidential year nominees shall indicate Presidential preference or declare themselves uncommitted."
How can you possibly think Robert Mak's report is a positive for the GOP?
He reported that county delegate totals are like comparing apples to oranges...and then showed that Snohomish reported sign-in sheet info while other counties reported delegate totals, and that there was no clear direction given from the state GOP as to what info they actually wanted.
Mak's report made one thing perfectly clear: the GOP caucus system is broke, and GOP leadership only wants to defend the broken system.
Go ahead, and keep trying to defend this crap. Makes the D's look better and better with every word you write!
At our caucus we picked delegates that reflected the general ratio of preferences of the people there. Huckabee got the most, McCain got some, and 1 each for Paul and Romney. We had a spirited discussion, discussed the party platform, and at the end I made some new friends, conservatives through and through but with slightly different views than mine. I felt good about the whole thing and proud to be an American.
But what I am seeing today depresses me. The whole process is rigged; it's meant to disenfranchise as many voters as possible. The power is concentrated in the hands of the few, the insiders. Luke Esser gets to pick who won, and it just so happens to be his mentor's candidate. That's right, McKenna is McCain campaign Chairman! How messed up is that!?!
Esser has got to go. He's corrupt and he's tearing the party apart.
Posted by: Reaganology on February 11, 2008 07:39 PMThe caucus process seems to be geared toward removing the influence of anyone unable or unwilling to go all the way up through the next conventions.
False.
If the GOP activists don't want a caucus process that allows direct influence by caucus participants
See, what you call "no direct influence by caucus participants" is, in fact, direct influence by caucus participants, as they are the ones who elect the delegates.
They should remove this part from the rules, though. There is no reason to require something from the nominees when you don't plan to use the information the nominees provide
That's an opinion, not a fact. I don't care either way.
barely awake: How can you possibly think Robert Mak's report is a positive for the GOP?
It doesn't say anything negative; it helps explain some of the facts.
He reported that county delegate totals are like comparing apples to oranges...and then showed that Snohomish reported sign-in sheet info while other counties reported delegate totals, and that there was no clear direction given from the state GOP as to what info they actually wanted.
Correct, as I noted on Saturday in a comment, and reiterated in other comments the last two days. I knew this on Friday afternoon, before the caucus.
Mak's report made one thing perfectly clear: the GOP caucus system is broke
Nope. It was not "made clear," and it is not true. Nothing about Mak's report was in any way an indictment on the caucus system, unless you think there is something wrong with electing delegates to represent a group of people; if that's your point, well there's no need to have a report from Mak to make that point.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 07:49 PMWell, as you are apparently not a Republican, that's fine.
At our caucus we picked delegates that reflected the general ratio of preferences of the people there. Huckabee got the most, McCain got some, and 1 each for Paul and Romney.
False. That never happened. Each precinct caucus gets an average of two delegates: some three, most two, some one. You could not have had that many delegates.
The whole process is rigged; it's meant to disenfranchise as many voters as possible.
False. Nothing about it is rigged, and, in fact, it is meant to give all the power to the voters to pick who will represent them.
The power is concentrated in the hands of the few, the insiders.
False. The power is concentrated in the hands of the elected delegates.
Luke Esser gets to pick who won
False.
But as my strong suspicion is that you are a leftwing troll posing as a Republican, it is to be expected that you get so much incorrect.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 08:05 PMYou seem like a smart guy, but you don't read well.
Posted by: Reaganology on February 11, 2008 08:34 PMThen you expressed it incorrectly for what you say you intended.
... you don't read well.
Nope. For a pooled caucus, the pooled caucus is adjourned, the precinct caucuses are called to order, and THEN the nomination and election of delegates can begin. Only the multiple precinct caucuses are active. So saying "At our caucus we picked delegates" -- implying the process of nomination and election -- necessarily means in your precinct caucus. I read perfectly well; you expressed it poorly.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 08:49 PM