Many Democrats have been coming out in the wake of the GOP caucus in Washington claiming that in the GOP, it is the "elite" and "party bosses" who keep down the "average voter." The reasoning is hard to follow; they say that because the delegates are not committed to any candidate, that the delegates somehow become "elite" or "party bosses" and no longer represent "average voters."
Hm.
Let's see.
In the Republican Party here in Washington, no one is required to pay dues. In Washington's Democratic Party, people who wish to be members, who are not PCOs, are required (by the "elite" "party bosses") to pay dues.
In the Republican Party, the precincts decide for themselves on what basis to elect their delegates. In the Democratic Party, the precincts are required (by the "elite" "party bosses") to select delegates based on presidential preference.
In the Republican Party, if you choose not to participate in the caucus, you can still have your voice heard by voting in the primary. in the Democratic Party, you are required (by the "elite" "party bosses") to participate in the caucus to have your voice heard.
In the Republican Party, delegates selected by caucus or primary account for 95 percent of the national convention delegates, with the remaining 5 percent "superdelegates." In the Democratic Party, delegates selected by caucus or primary account for only 80 percent of the national convention delegates, with the remaining 20 percent "superdelegates" (the "elite" "party bosses").
I actually don't mind the Democratic system at all. It apparently works for them, and nothing above is intended to be a criticism of that system; it is, rather, a criticism of those Democrats who claim to be more independent of the "elite" "party bosses" than the Republicans.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 13, 2008 12:02 PM | Email ThisTurning your terrible caucus system into a virtue that allows every precinct to determine their own rules is a virtue? Come on Pudge. You can keep a straight face and say that? It's nothing more than terrible organization and planning.
But, nice try. :-)
Posted by: Timothy on February 13, 2008 12:17 PMI can't believe you just posted this to the front page of Sound Politics. Bravo, Pudge.
Posted by: thehim on February 13, 2008 12:17 PMSorta like so many Soviet apparatchiks owed their positions to Uncle Joe that he had control of the Central Committee and Politburo before any other old Bolsheviks knew it, and he was able to dispose of them singly and in bunches on his way to undisputed 'leadership'.
Obama, rock star or televangelist or whatever he is (executive nor policy maker he isn't), hasn't got an easy path even with all his primary and caucus wins.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 13, 2008 12:23 PMIf the primary is too expensive and such a bad idea, why did the Democrats even allow their candidates to be put on the ballot? Couldn't they have opted out since the primary had no bearing on the delegate selection?
Could inclusion of the Democrats on the ballot be misleading to the general populace about whether their "vote" will count?
No, the Democrats stayed on the ballot because it is a lead generator. Every person that says they are a Democrat, so they can "vote" in the primary, becomes another name and address in the Democratic party rolodex for future use.
Turning your terrible caucus system into a virtue that allows every precinct to determine their own rules is a virtue?
It's called "local control". Perhaps you've heard of that concept before? Isn't that what some are advocating for school districts?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 13, 2008 12:37 PMMaybe no one in the Republican Party is "required" to pay dues, but no one in the Republican Party has any voice or vote in how the party is run either.
In the Republican Party, the PCO's get together every two years to elect a county chair. Once that is done, the role of the PCO is governing the Republican Party is over with for the next two years.
The county chair has total control over the Republican organization for the next two years. If the county is divided into districts, then the county chair may appoint and remove a district chair at will. The district chair has total control over the district.
The PCO's do have the theoretical power to remove the county chair -- if a majority of them attend a meeting and 2/3 vote for removal. However, Republicans aren't even able to gather half of their PCO's to elect the county chair in the first place, so the removal power is simply theoretical.
In the Democratic Party, persons other than elected PCO's may become members of their legislative district organization simply by paying the required dues.
Legislative district chairs in the Democratic Party are elected by a majority vote of the PCO's and may be removed in the same manner.
Members of the legislative district organization vote on all matters of importance at every single meeting in the Democratic Party.
Maybe the actual "democracy" practiced by the Democratic Party is why 250,000 people attended the Democratic caucuses on Saturday, versus only 25,000 people attending the Republican caucuses?
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 13, 2008 12:40 PM"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it.
P.J. O'ROURKE, Holidays in Hell"
You are incorrect. It is not terrible. Simply repeating your fallacious claim -- which is based on nothinig more than the question-begging fallacy -- does not make you look very good, Tim.
Oh..and sticking it to the tax payers to the tune of $10 million dollars to run a barely meaningful Primary election?
Again, another false claim: the voters asked for the primary. Nothing is being "stuck" to them.
Richard Pope: Pudge sounds like Fidel Castro lecturing us on the superior virtues of Cuban "democracy".
It's claims like this that make it hard for me to believe you ever passed the bar, Richard.
On the other hand, it's claims like this that make it obvious that you're a lawyer.
Republican Party "democracy" works in a similar fashion.
So you are saying the American system of representative government is communist?
The county chair has total control over the Republican organization for the next two years.
No, Richard, you're wrong. That is, from what I understand, the case in King County. But it's not the case with the rest of the counties. The county chair in Snohomish, for example, has NO control over who is district chair, except to appoint a temporary replacement.
For example, when I became 39th LD chair in Snohomish County, county chair Steve Neighbors appointed me and called a 39th LD organizational meeting which he chaired, and at which I was elected by the members of the 39th LD committee. And the county chair has no authority to remove anyone.
Further, even in King County, the PCOs that make up the Central Committee -- if they wanted to -- could take away this authority from the county chair at convention.
In the Democratic Party, persons other than elected PCO's may become members of their legislative district organization simply by paying the required dues.
I think of it as mob rule.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 13, 2008 01:01 PMAnd the "elites" you lot go on and on about are your neighbors, who participate as volunteers. This is as opposed to the GOP paymasters, the financial elites.
Your party is on its way out in this state, and you had best look to defending your own seats in the 39th District.
Democracy is "mob rule?" Wow, how "libertarian" of you! That puts you right in there with the Tories and the Bourbons and the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs.
Seems to me you'll make out just like they did.
False. You should learn more about your own party.
And the "elites" you lot go on and on about are your neighbors, who participate as volunteers. This is as opposed to the GOP paymasters, the financial elites.
Riiiiiiiight. Pull the other one. You are aware, I assume, that the Democratic Party in WA consistently raises and spends a lot more money than the GOP, right?
Your party is on its way out in this state, and you had best look to defending your own seats in the 39th District.
We have seats to defend in the 39th? Nah, they are completely safe. We are not going to work hard at all.
Posted by: pudge on February 13, 2008 01:10 PMThe Primary was mandated by the legislature in 1988 under the RCW's. The reasoning was that the people who could not make it to the caucuses would be disenfranchised. In the same RCW, they also noted that only the "Major" political parties could be on the ballot AND that they were not bound by the results of the primary.
Let's see... In 1988 the Governor was Booth Gardner, a very liberal Democrat. The house and senate were both controlled by the Democrats...
How is it again that the Republicans are wasting money on a process that was developed by Democrats, completely subverted by Democrats and only used for the purposes originally intended by Republicans?
Posted by: Ken on February 13, 2008 01:12 PMNope, ivan. It puts him up there with the Madisons and Jeffersons and Hamiltons and Burkes. cf. Federalist 10:
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
What we are talking about, ivan, is the difference between representative democracy (picking delegates who will pick the presidential nominee based on their own best judgment) and pure democracy (everyone gets a say).
As I have stated, I am not criticizing how the Democrats do it. I think some systems work better in some circumstances, and other systems better in others. If this works for the Democrats, great. But to pretend "pure democracy" is always better is, frankly, downright un-American, because when used absolutely, such democracies are unstable and are often incompatible with personal security and the rights of property.
Posted by: pudge on February 13, 2008 01:22 PMComplaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm
Even though this was an argument for the case to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, even under the "new" form of government, we can see how these words can still be true.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 13, 2008 01:45 PMEven Richard Pope, a fellow Democrat, conceded I was correct. As he said, "In the Democratic Party, persons other than elected PCO's may become members of their legislative district organization simply by paying the required dues."
I couldn't care less who ivan is, as it doesn't change the fact that he was incorrect. Now, it might be that in his district, they do not require dues from non-PCOs. But other districts do.
Posted by: pudge on February 13, 2008 01:51 PMI do like the commentary of the various posts. Eric is much too busy to do more than the daily post or couple of them.
I would post on the public blog but I have trouble getting in with all my security precautions.
Topics like this one seem, well, irrelvant, except to the arguing parties. This one seemed to have its origins in the caucuses last Saturday. But, has anyone really tried to figure out the delegate counts. It seems like everyone has a different number. This was definite noted in the early delegate counts, but it seems mind-melding has occurred and all reporters seems to have about the same number (whether that number is good or not is another question).
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2008 02:51 PMMostly, yes. This was more about meme-squashing than any actual issue.
Posted by: pudge on February 13, 2008 03:09 PMI do not give a rip what anyone's bylaws state about dues. Inability to pay dues is not a bar to membership in any Democratic Party organization in this state, and most bylaws state that explicitly.
Misty @ 20:
Politics is not beanbag. So sorry that your delicate little feelings are hurt. So sorry that Stefan is too chickens--t to take comments about his flat-earth global warming denial. So sorry that Stefan will not admit that there is a difference between weather and climate. So sorry that most Sound Politics fans are too ignorant to know the difference. So sorry that we are going to trounce your sorry ignorant butts in this election.
Posted by: ivan on February 13, 2008 03:14 PMSection 1: The membership of this organization consists of (A) All elected, appointed, and acting 45th District Democratic Precinct Committee Officers (PCOs) and (B) District residents who are at least sixteen (16) years of age, or persons having a place of business in the 45th Legislative District, and who declare themselves to be Democrats and pay dues to this organization.
Care to retract your clearly false statement?
Not if your highly intelligent Legislature and Governor can't even manage the ferry system, Ivan.
Also, you want to talk about "keeping down" the "average voter"--look at how the democrats running these public employee want to ELIMINATE secret ballot for union elections. Talk about squishing the little guy into what the union elites want....
Posted by: Misty on February 13, 2008 04:17 PMJust what my wife and I have been speculating about. What if Obama comes to the convention with a majority of delegates and a clear edge in primary votes, only to be beaten by Hillary "super delegate" trickery? Does the word "disenfranchised" ring a bell? Indeed it could be a ton of fun. And do you think under those circumstances all those young Obama supporters would flock to Hillary? Not a chance.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 13, 2008 04:29 PMA great example that illustrates the general ideological differences between the left and right. It's no surprise that the Democrat system is more oligarchical. Similarly, we find a small minority of media elites and movie industry elites who think they know what's best for all of us. Privatization, decentralization, individual rights are all anathema to the left.
Great meltdown from Ivan above. Of course he could simply not read this blog, but he feels it is his right to comment on Stefan's posts. Maybe he should contact his Legislator and see if Olympia could pass a law requiring Stefan to open his posts to comments.
CHRISTIAN, I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION:
Can you, with good conscience, vote for John McCain when you have every reason to believe that he will continue to push the SPP = North American Union that will become part of anti-Christ's One World Government?
If the choice is between a Beelzebub, Globalist Democrat and a Belial, Globalist Republican, can you with good conscience vote for either???
The War in Iraq is NOT the main issue right now.
The War against Radical Islam is NOT the main issue right now.
Keeping Activist Judges out of the Supreme Court is NOT the main issue right now.
Defeating the Homosexual Agenda is NOT the main issue right now.
Defeating Women's Lib Abortionists is NOT the main issue right now.
Defeating Environmental Wackos is NOT the main issue right now.
DEFEATING THE BETRAYAL OF U.S. SOVEREIGNTY IS THE MAIN ISSUE NOW!!!
This can only be done by refusing to vote for ANY candidate (Democratic or Republican) who does not oppose the continued development of the NAU.
If the sell-out of our U.S. Sovereignty comes, let it come by Obama or Hillary -- NOT by John McCain for whom you voted!!!
I will say it one more time: LOSE OUR SOVEREIGNTY, AND WE SHALL EVENTUALLY LOSE ON ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES -- VERY POSSIBLY SOONER, RATHER THAN LATER!
I SAY: LET'S HAVE IT OUT NOW!!!
As for me and my house, GOOD-BYE REPUBLICAN PARTY! WE HAVE BEEN LIFE-LONG REPUBLICANS, BUT YOU HAVE LEFT US!!! -- Duane V. Maxey, Surprise, Arizona, February 13, 2008.
And on behalf of all Democrats in this state, Pudge, we thank you for helping to keep it that way.
Posted by: thehim on February 13, 2008 07:48 PMThe D's have said no to compassion,and to clean fuel alternatives in exchange for filling the state trough.
The D's are afraid that CTED would be wiped out if we were to lose federal funding.
So we are bribed to be mean and dirty.
The D's have taken the bribe,out of fear of losing CTED JOBS.
The D's just say no to medical marijuana and industrial gas with no sulfur or hardly any carbon emmissions.
The clean fuel could be sold at 1.20 a gallon,and be taxed a dollar per gallon.
Instead of sending our money to OPEC, revitalizing timber industry towns,reducing carbon emmissions,and eliminating the need for carbon taxes, we have to take the money so CTED doesn't lose massive jobs.
Even though the new industries,jobs,taxes,and new economy would generate 5 times the revenue the D's just cant pull away from the federal tit to let it all happen.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on February 13, 2008 08:39 PMIf you're dense.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 14, 2008 12:15 AMDues, of course, are appreciated because they help fund party activities, they are never required.
Posted by: JC on February 14, 2008 10:45 PMThen they aren't "dues" then, are they?
I'm sure all those "voluntary contributions" to fund the party are diligently being reported as campaign contributions, right?
Posted by: jopalm on February 15, 2008 09:30 AM