First it was Obama vs. Clinton. Now it's Democrat vs. Democratic.
Democrats have often taken it as a personal insult when their party is referred to as the Democrat Party, instead of its proper name, the Democratic Party. Their reasoning goes that the word "democratic" implies a positive connotation, and that people who refer to the party otherwise are intentionally trying to take that positive connotation away from them.
As Republican is both a noun and an adjective, the GOP doesn't have this problem.
And normally, this is not a problem on ballots either, as the parties used to define the party name for the government to put on the ballots. But with our new election system (and to be sure, it is not merely a new primary system, but a whole new two-tiered general election system), the candidates themselves write down whatever party they wish. And the Democrats themselves can't decide which is correct. Unless maybe there's a new Democrat Party that is not the same as the Democratic Party ... maybe it's a new way to confuse voters? I blame Karl Rove.
Of course, what this really shows is that most of the time when people say Democrat Party, it is not an intentional slight. We didn't really need this illustration of the principle, but some people did. And here it is.
(Thanks to Republican candidate for the 7th Congressional District, Steve Beren, for the tip.)
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 02, 2008 02:38 PM | Email ThisIt is not that Democrat is negative, to them, but that it doesn't have, to them, all the positive connotations of Democratic.
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 03:00 PMNo, thanks.
Posted by: Gary on June 2, 2008 03:37 PMFirst, what's your factual source for making the statement that "few people who voted for it understood it"?
Second, when you look at the materials and information that the Grange used during the campaign (try blanketprimary.org) there isn't any suggestion that it was returning the state to the "old primary".
We'll see if "most voters" are shocked and dismayed.
Posted by: BA on June 2, 2008 04:48 PMSo I completely understand why some people don't like 872. But it's the same reason I love it. It's like a political vaccine against the craswell disease.
Posted by: AD on June 2, 2008 05:02 PMGary has it right @ 7.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 2, 2008 05:34 PMBA: find me one person who DID understand it. And you are quite wrong about the Grange. And it is so obviously wrong it's pretty funny. The TITLE of the I-872 web site reads, "preserve the blanket primary." This not only is untrue because it does not "preserve" anything, but creates something very different, but it is also untrue because they call it the "blanket primary," when it is completely different from our old blanket primary. Even the URL is a lie!
AD: I mentioned many complaints, all of them perfectly valid, and not a single one has to do with who has what "power." I do care about power though, in one case: the power of people to exercise their right to association, which I-872 steals.
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 05:42 PM1. Ends tax payer money going torwards private organizations.
2. Returns the nomination process back to a process only those who are members have control of.
3. Gives third parties a more fair playing field.
That said, I agree with point 2, but not the others.
There is no money going to private organizations. The parties get no money, period. And yes, the party does get something of value, but that value is not "a paid-for primary." The value is broad public participation. Without that public participation, there would be no need for a primary. The parties do not care about the primary, they just want the participation, and guess what? The people want to participate! So there is no funding of the parties, there is just the people funding their own participation, which the parties are happy to accept.
And as to point 3, I dunno, it seems to me third parties have a MORE level playing field in the system we had before I-872 was (re-)enacted. They had full general election ballot access, and if they got a certain percentage of the vote, they had primary access too. How would this be improved if there was no public primary?
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 06:42 PMI'll watch tommorrow, as Hillary gracefully quits her campaign.
And then we will watch him explain how he plans to tax and spend the hell out of every American to get all his giveaways funded.
Watch out California, you are looking at a 64% tax rate not including sales tax, fees, property taxes, etc etc. Sen your whole paycheck in!
Doubt me? If you are a private business person who makes a decent income, he wants 39%, plus he want to extend the 12% social security tax to everything you make, plus 2.1% more Medicare tax plus 9.3 California Income tax. PLUS RAISING CAPITAL GAINS 10%.
We will be soon right behind, as Gregoire supports a 6% Income tax which she will try to railroad through next year if we don't get Rossi elected.
Posted by: GS on June 2, 2008 07:22 PMThe left quibbles over minutia like this because they know that they have a dirty, defective ideology that if fully understood would be summarily rejected by all voters. So, rather than allow voters to understand how bad the left's ideas really are, they seek pools of uneducated voters, pools of collective voters who vote as they are told, or just dress up their turds to try and make them look pretty.
This is why ultimately the left will lose. It's futile to ever think that force will prevail over persuasion. It won't. Time is on our side.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 2, 2008 07:29 PMIn 2005, Sam Reed proposed regulations to implement the top two primary, and they would have simply listed the major parties by their standard ballot abbreviations -- such as R or D, or REP or DEM.
But in 2008, with the exact same law to implement, we now get "Prefers WHATEVER Party". And we are stuck with whatever typo the candidate makes on their form, including all sorts of ridiculous permutations.
What we really need is something creative, such as:
Cheech and Chong
(Prefers A Good Marijuana Party)
But the people have the right to pay for it, and they want to pay for
Sure people have the right to pay for it. They do not however have the right to force others to pay for it. Do you recognize a difference?
As for people wanting to participate in the process... If they truly want to participate in chosing a private organizations nominee, there is nothing stopping them. The GOP is chosing to use that primary of which they are not funding for 50% of their delegates. IN other words they are getting a primary paid for by tax payer money. That is wrong in my opinion. It is welfare for a private organization.
It would be a true level playing field if each party funded their own nomination process and all individuals had the same requirements to get on the general ballot. There should be no 'major/minor' party distinction as there was in the past with seperate unequal ballot access requirements.
Posted by: Lysander on June 2, 2008 08:49 PMObviously, you think the public, in collusion with the government has taken away your freedom of association. Well, that issue has been litigated and resolved. The ruling was not close.
You asked for ONE person to be found who DID understand I-872, implying you believe NO ONE in Washington State understood what they were voting on. This is an argument against initiatives as a method of lawmaking in general more than against I-872 in particular. What's your position on iniatives?
Posted by: AD on June 2, 2008 08:57 PMLet's see, I need to find "One" person that understood what we were voting for. You've already excluded yourself, so that leaves...me.
"People have a right to pay..." Wow, how liberal of you.
I have a right "not to pay" for any "private club" selecting their candidates to put on the ballot.
Let's see this fall if the fine citizens are dismayed, or delighted, with this new system.
Posted by: BA on June 2, 2008 09:00 PMWhat Sam Reed proposed in 2005 was not in keeping with the actual text of I-872, nor would it have been constitutionally legitimate given CDP v. Jones.
Travis: sigh. I keep forgetting I was ignoring you. Back to the ignoring.
AD: "So, Pudge, you want the public, utilizing the power of government, to continue to fund the primary (which they want). But, you don't want the public to retain any control over the way that primary is administered. Hmmm.."
No, AD, you are mistaken. The public can have any kind of primary it wants to ... unless it is going to use that primary to nominate a candidate for a party against the will of the party. That is the important part. If it wants to put the Republican name next to a candidate, implying an association between the candidate and the party, then the party must give its consent, or it violates the rights of the membership of that party.
And if the public doesn't like it, they don't have to have a nominating primary. Which is why we NO LONGER HAVE a nominating primary, for the first time in any of our lifetimes.
Obviously, you think the public, in collusion with the government has taken away your freedom of association. Well, that issue has been litigated and resolved. The ruling was not close.
Actually, you're mistaken: it was very close. A majority of justices said that if the "preference," in practice, amounts to an "association," then it is unconstitutional. But a few of the justices refused to rule that it DID amount to an association until they could see it in action. There is a real chance I-872 could go back to the federal courts and be overturned.
You asked for ONE person to be found who DID understand I-872, implying you believe NO ONE in Washington State understood what they were voting on.
No, that was not the implication. The implication was that so few people understood it that you would have a tough time finding one.
This is an argument against initiatives as a method of lawmaking in general more than against I-872 in particular.
No, it is an argument against complicated and deceptive and misleading initiatives.
BA: Hm. I do not see one hint in there that you admit you were wrong when you said, when you look at the materials and information that the Grange used during the campaign (try blanketprimary.org) there isn't any suggestion that it was returning the state to the "old primary". I proved, beyond any doubt, that they did precisely that.
Until you can discuss this honestly, I won't even think about addressing any other points you want to drum up.
Would the primary ballot look any different to the voter?
No. At the primary, the candidates for each office will be listed under the title of that office, the party designations will appear after the candidates' names, and the voter will be able to vote for any candidate for that office (just as they did under the blanket primary).
http://blanketprimary.org/faq.php
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 3, 2008 01:16 AMGrow up.
Posted by: BA on June 3, 2008 06:56 AMWhat reason do I have to continue debate with you when you refuse to acknowledge a fundamental fact, that the Grange -- despite your claim to the contrary -- misrepresented the facts about I-872? I proved it one way (they called "preserving the blanket primary," when it factually did no such thing), and Richard Pope proved it another way (they said explicitly the new primary would look just like the old one).
I am not making excuses for not answering your questions. I wish you would be honest here, so that I could devote my time to answering more questions. But when someone is not debating honestly, I do not continue the debate with them until that is rectified.
Posted by: pudge on June 3, 2008 07:46 AMSeems to me that, yes, the current top-two primary system is preserving the definition of the old blanket primary. In fact, you, or anyone else, under the new system, will be allowed to pick one candidate for each office without regard to party lines.
Your bitterness over the situation pervuades your reasoning.
Posted by: Doug on June 3, 2008 07:59 AMAnd it is clear that what we have now is now what we have before. Not only does it not LOOK the same, despite their claims that it would (and this is not Sam Reed's fault: the text of I-872 itself requires that parties be listed as preferences, not as associations like before), but as I-872 makes clear, and the Attorney General states explicitly, we do not even HAVE a real primary anymore. We now have a two-tiered general election. They call it a "winnowing" primary, but in fact it is not a primary at all, it's a first-stage general election.
I know it is hard, but please leave the ad hominems out of it, and debate the issue, or don't.
Posted by: pudge on June 3, 2008 08:10 AMThe Grange said
"The Washington State Grange announced today that the effects of the qualifying (or "top-two") primary proposed in Initiative 872 could serve to benefit minor parties in primary elections for legislative races."
They said
"The Washington State Grange opposes primaries in which voters are restricted to voting for candidates of
only one party and does not want to see political parties gain control of the primary. Initiative Measure 872
establishes a qualifying primary which will give voters the freedom they enjoyed under the blanket primary -- to
vote for any candidate they prefer for each office."
Further they said
"Under Initiative 872, the two candidates with the most votes in the primary win and go on to the general
election ballot. No political party is guaranteed a spot on the general election ballot. Parties will have to recruit
candidates with broad public support and run campaigns that appeal to all the voters."
I voted for a primary system whereby ANYONE that registers can run, and the top two vote getters in the primary advance to the general election. Simple enough.
I understand this system upsets you, because the parties no longer get a free ride paid for by the taxpayers to sort out their party bearer in the general election.
I'm fine if any party wants to fully pay for a primary election. I'm not interested in being taxed to pay for a private group activities.
I'm not, unlike you, going to presume to speak for the voters and say they were all confused and didn't understand what they were voting for. Just because you were confused doesn't translate into assuming others were too.
I give the voters more credit. I suspect they read more than titles, I suspect they read full sentences, I suspect as a group they're more mature.
Posted by: BA on June 3, 2008 08:38 AMUntil you acknowledge that fact, or at least address it honestly in some fashion, nothing else you say on the subject matters to me, because it is clear you are not interested in honest debate.
Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
Posted by: pudge on June 3, 2008 08:52 AMI wonder if the "indecision" you cite on the ballot is due to a confusing filing form. Democrats are used to being identified on the ballot as "Democrat", not "Prefers Democratic Party" (which I agree is a ridiculous way to run an election, though we disagree on the solution). That may be why many filed as "Democrat". I have never heard a Democrat use the term "Democrat Party"; it's just a juvenile irritant used by Republicans.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(United_States)
Posted by: Bruce on June 3, 2008 09:23 AMNo, that is incorrect, sorry. The overwhelming majority of uses of "Democrat Party" are simple mixups between noun and adjective forms. And I've heard many Democrats use it myself.
Posted by: pudge on June 3, 2008 09:28 AMI like how you always seem to be reminded of your pledge to ignore me when I ask you direct questions that you are embarressed to answer.
Posted by: Lysander on June 3, 2008 11:23 AMIt's pretty simple: They did not FALSELY claim this would preserve the blanket primary.
If you had barbecue hamburgers last night and your friend promised that they would preserve your ability to have barbecue hamburgers tonight as well, then served them without pickles....would you claim they lied to you because last night you got pickles and tonight you didn't?
The Grange's initiative did EXACTLY what they said it would, it preserved the voters ability to vote for whichever candidate they wanted to regardless of party affiliation (which by the way is the most significant characteristic of a Blanket Primary).
When they said they will preserve the Blanket Primary, no one with half a brain assumed it would be in the same form as the one struck down by the courts. I could see where those with less than half a brain would take it to mean that they came up with a plan that was exactly the same.
But to assume their plan would be exactly the same as the one just struck down by the courts - no, that would be rather foolish, yet you seem to be basing your total argument on the expectation that they SHOULD HAVE created an unconstitutional primary system just like the previous one because that is what they told the voters? My goodness...
Posted by: Doug on June 3, 2008 01:59 PMIncorrect. They said EXACTLY that.
When they said they will preserve the Blanket Primary, no one with half a brain assumed it would be in the same form as the one struck down by the courts.
Since no one smart believed their lies, that makes it OK to lie? That's not how it works.
Nothing to assume, nothing falsely claimed, no lies.
Doesn't hurt to read the full text of what you're voting for too...Pudge, I'm sorry you didn't understand this one when you voted.
Posted by: BA on June 3, 2008 02:19 PMFalse. It has been proven beyond any doubt by Richard Pope.
Again, until you can be honest about this, you won't get me to respond to other points you try to make.
Posted by: pudge on June 3, 2008 02:47 PMThe Grange didn't lie, they preserved a blanket primary for this state's voters, much to the ire of the power hungry party insiders. You knew, as well as all the party insiders, what the initiative was going to do and now you cry ignorance.
And once again, you're being awfully picky construing the FAQ's. It is possible that if a county chose to use a blue primary ballot vs. the white one under the previous blanket primary, then, yes, they lied by saying they wouldn't look any different.
And once again, yes, they said they would preserve the blanket primary, but no, that was not a false statement. If President Bush's plan to preserve Social Security was enacted, would you be crying foul that he lied because it was preserved in a slightly different form? Did the Egyptians preserve their pharoahs' bodies through mummification? Obviously, to you they didn't. You are putting too much of a constraint on the word 'preserve', try using the word 'protect' which is one definition of the word.
Posted by: Doug on June 3, 2008 04:04 PMYes. So what? We have one clear-cut example. Call it a lie or call it a false claim, I don't care. They misrepresented what I-872 would do. No one has directly addressed this fact. You and BA keep just denying it without addressing the actual point.
The Grange didn't lie, they preserved a blanket primary for this state's voters
False. They did no such thing. We do not have a blanket primary now.
You knew, as well as all the party insiders, what the initiative was going to do and now you cry ignorance.
Don't be stupid. I knew some of what it was going to do, yes. I wrote a lot about it. But there's a lot I didn't know. For example, I didn't realize until very recently -- and this was news to EVERYONE I know who I mentioned it to -- that I-872 creates an inconsistency in the law. It creates a new right to, for every Washington voter, in every election, be free from having to reveal political affiliations. However, I-872 did not amend the presidential primary, which DOES have such a requirement to reveal political affiliations.
And I do plan to file suit against the state if this is not changed before 2012. I-872 created a right covering ALL elections, and the presidential preference primary violates that right. Really, this inconsistency itself is grounds for killing I-872, based on previous court rulings, but the politics of the court would never lead them to such a consistent decision.
And once again, you're being awfully picky construing the FAQ's.
You say this as though it matters at all. In order to show deception, you need only one example. We have one clear example. The rest is irrelevant.
It is possible that if a county chose to use a blue primary ballot vs. the white one under the previous blanket primary, then, yes, they lied by saying they wouldn't look any different.
No, you are completely incorrect. Read it again: "Would the primary ballot look any different to the voter? No ... the party designations will appear after the candidates' names." But it IS different AND WILL LOOK DIFFERENT. If it did NOT look different, then I-872 WOULD have been ruled unconstitutional. Read it and weep, from the Supreme Court decision:
Respondents counter that voters will assume that candidates on the general election ballot are their preferred nominees; and that even if voters do not make that assumption, they will at least assume that the parties associate with, and approve of, the nominees. However, those claims depend not on any facial requirement of I-872, but on the possibility that voters will be confused as to the meaning of the party-preference designation. This is sheer speculation. Even if voters could possibly misinterpret the designations, I-872 cannot be struck down in a facial challenge based on the mere possibility of voter confusion. The State could implement I-872 in a variety of ways, e.g., through ballot design, that would eliminate any real threat of confusion.
This says a few things. First, it says I-872 does NOT require the ballot to look the same. Second, it says that IF there is confusion then it WOULD be a valid facial complaint. But the Grange is saying I-872 says it won't be look different, which is both false, and unconstitutional if true! They MUST look different in order to alleviate voter confusion, or it is unconstitutional!
You can't win this argument.
And once again, yes, they said they would preserve the blanket primary, but no, that was not a false statement.
Incorrect.
If President Bush's plan to preserve Social Security was enacted, would you be crying foul that he lied because it was preserved in a slightly different form?
Political rhetoric is a completely inappropriate comparison: here we are talking about statewide initiatives, and there is a specific legal standard in place. Context matters.
Posted by: pudge on June 3, 2008 04:59 PMCare to explain why you are acting so rude torwards me? If you do not want to discuss issues why do you even post blogs like this? I am commenting politely and on topic and you respond with childish insults?
Posted by: Lysander on June 3, 2008 05:17 PMPolitical rhetoric is an inappropriate comparison?
Yes, I understand completely, when you agree with the political rhetoric (in the case of PRESERVING social security), that is a completely different matter than when you disagree with the political rhetoric (PRESERVING a blanket primary).
I am also surprised that you believe that all voters should be required to name their political affiliation before voting - as per your statement: It creates a new right to, for every Washington voter, in every election, be free from having to reveal political affiliations.
We're not fascists here, Pudge, voting in this country is not predicated first on a voter telling the people at the voting booth which party affiliation they are. The initiative doesn't 'create' a right, it 'creates' a law. The US Supreme Court rules whether that law violates a right.
You go right on and file a lawsuit and here's a suggestion for you on how you can go about winning: Keep playing dumb, it's going to take a lawsuit based on a stupid electorate in order to win, but it is going to be hard to convince the Supremes that the electorate is not informed. Either that or some party insiders lying about being misinformed bringing a lawsuit.
Posted by: Doug on June 3, 2008 07:47 PMPolitical rhetoric is an inappropriate comparison?
Correct. There is no legal standard for truth in political rhetoric. There IS one for statements made by those who propose statewide initiatives.
I am also surprised that you believe that all voters should be required to name their political affiliation before voting
I am surprised that you are saying I believe such a thing.
as per your statement: It creates a new right to, for every Washington voter, in every election, be free from having to reveal political affiliations.
I made a simple and pure statement of fact. How did you make the illogical leap from my statement of fact to a presumption of a belief I don't have?
The initiative doesn't 'create' a right
That is incorrect. Apparently you don't know I-872 very well. It reads:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The rights of Washington voters are protected by its Constitution and laws and include the following fundamental rights:
(1) The right of qualified voters to vote at all elections.
(2) The right of absolute secrecy of the vote. No voter may be required to disclose political faith or adherence in order to vote.
(3) The right to cast a vote for any candidate for each office without any limitation based on party preference or affiliation, of either the voter or the candidate.
This was never a right before. I-872 was passed. Now it is a right.
Try understanding the issues before you argue them.
Posted by: pudge on June 3, 2008 08:07 PMGovernments (and initiatives) do not create rights. At best they protect existing rights.
Posted by: Lysander on June 3, 2008 08:33 PMFunny thing: When I google "Democrat Party", virtually all the results (at least as far down as I have patience for) are either Republicans or far-right publications, or are Democratic websites that don't actually display the phrase; they've just put it in their html in order to appear in the search results.
I guess only Republicans are prone to those "simple mixups".
Posted by: Bruce on June 3, 2008 09:47 PMYour little study is useless, for two reasons.
Google is going to give you top results based on primarily two factors: how much a page is linked to, and how much "juice" a particular web site has, that is, how valuable/authoritative Google thinks the web site is.
The most highly valuable Democratic and left-wing web sites -- the ones with the most "juice" -- are, obviously, going to be more accurate in the proper use of the Democratic Party name. I mean, duh.
And the other pages, the ones with lots of links to them, are going to be stories about controversies regarding the name.
So just looking at top hits is meaningless.
Nice try though.
Posted by: pudge on June 3, 2008 10:23 PMI read your comments with interest especially the observation that Republican is both a noun and an adjective. This made me think: Oh. So, when some Republicans say "the Republican Party" in their minds they are using that noun as an adjective which is okay to do in English.
So...maybe when Republicans continually say "the Democrat Party" they *aren't* being deliberately erroneous in a disrespectful way.
I hope that's the case. As you may realize, most Democrats have pointed out that "the Democat Party" is erroenous, is perceived as disrepectful, and is not preferred by the Democratic Party.
While we probably can't get inter-party resolution on many issues, one would think there's hope for reaching across the aisle to find a common terminology.
Posted by: Cleve on June 5, 2008 08:10 AMThat's exactly right. Now, some of them certainly mean it disrespectfully. When someone you don't like gets angry at you for what you think is a stupid reason, well, there is a temptation to keep doing it just to keep them all angered up. :-) It's immature, but hey, we're human. That's par for the course.
But I have used "Democrat Party" innumerable times over many many years, and I never once meant it disrespectfully. I stopped using it several years ago when I finally realized it was incorrect.
I agree with Pudge... I do not think most people say 'democrat' party disrespectfully. To be honest I thought saying democratic party was wrong until i read this blog. I just always hear democrat from freinds and family from all political backgrounds and assumed that was the right way.
I will not change either since it sounds wrong to me.
Posted by: Lysander on June 5, 2008 07:00 PMIt's very interesting how differences that aren't so real can brew up -- due to slight differences in words and assumptions and perceptions, etc.
Your comments put me in a better frame of mind upon hearing someone say "the Democrat Party."