The King County Republican Party's convention last Saturday approved the party platform without any amendments or a single word of debate. How did they pull off this miracle? Simple, it is called an absence of a quorum. You see the rules of the convention provide that if a quorum is not present, the platform as proposed by the Platform Committee, including adopted amendments up to the loss of quorum, will be considered approved. Of course, if no one challenges the presence of a quorum, the convention could have theoretically continued as long as a single delegate remained. Someone did though and the convention adjourned just after lunch leaving time to enjoy the globally warm, Western Washington day.
There were several incensed delegates, especially among the die-hard Ron Paul supporters, who lost the opportunity to offer amendments and resolutions. It is not unusual in long lasting conventions to have someone move to adopt the balance of the platform "so we can just go home." The convention quorum rule merely makes it easier sooner.
Quorum would not be an issue if those elected at the precinct caucuses would take their office of delegate seriously. The party by-laws define a quorum as twenty percent of elected delegates. There were over 4,200 of them in King County of which less than a 1,000 bothered to show up. Over a hundred left early and the attendance fell below the 855 delegate threshold.
The end result was not all bad. Republicans got a platform developed by representatives of each legislative district in King County that is reasonably concise, inclusive and reflective of the Republican Party base. Still, some method needs to be found to allow a final voice from the elected convention delegates. The party should consider a system requiring the platform to published earlier and only allowing amendments submitted in writing prior to the convention. This has its drawbacks also but at least it would offer more opportunity to the grass roots. A delegate presented an even better solution when he excoriated those delegates who left early and the over 3000 that did not attend. Essentially he said show up and do your duty! Amen to that.
clearfogblog.wordpress.com
Posted by warrenpeterson at April 13, 2008 11:18 PM | Email ThisBut I do not think it was that they did not show up. They did for the most part show up. I think your sunny day comment and Romney comments are more likely the case. Combined with Party leadership not wanting a debate.
As for the platform... It could have used some stronger language reagarding free speech (ie it includes the right to donate as much to any candidate or campaign at any time).
It also could have done without the inaccurate statement about the Kelo case. I am kind of embarresed that is in there to be honest. I disagree with other parts but that is just opinion. To have a bad fact is far worse.
Posted by: Lysander on April 14, 2008 09:28 PMElecting delegates to the State convention in Spokane was the only important project, and that was done at the district level. I went to the 43rd district meeting and the Ron Paul supporters were almost completely shut-down. There were really nasty anti-Ron Paul slander sheets passed out, some of them by GOP Congressional candidate, Steve Beren, and the RP folks were outvoted and out-maneuvered.
It was clear to me that we were not welcome and I thought that was likely to be the case at the County level as well.
And since the state delegates were selected, the only thing that could have been done at the KCGOP convention was to modify the platform. But honestly, does anyone other than the core of the GOP insiders ever even READ a party platform? Will a party platform get even one more person to join a party? I would be surprised to hear of any.
Party platforms are mostly useless for recruiting party members. They are only good for giving a certain segment of the die-hards something to do to keep them out of trouble.
I saw no reason for me to attend. I'm not surprised we Paul fans were outnumbered.
I'm glad I didn't go.
By the way, I've resigned from the Republican Party. I'm going back to the Libertarian party where I belong. It is obvious that my kind is not welcome in the GOP.
In any case, the GOP is a minority party these days, as is the LP. Fiscal conservatives are a minority within the GOP. I'd rather be in a majority in a minority party (L) than a minority in a minority party (R).
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 14, 2008 10:35 PMSo, to that end, we have to agree. When "your kind" is using the GOP merely to make a political statement without adhering to the principles of the GOP, then you're right: you're not wanted.
When much of your platform reads like it was taken out of a press release from moveon.org, again, you're right: Your kind is not wanted.
While I can no longer speak for the GOP, I can speak for myself when I tell you: Good riddance. And that that nutjob bigot with you.
Posted by: Hinton on April 14, 2008 11:12 PMLysander, I think, is trying to understand. Lysander, I am voting McCain, but am also considering Clinton. I always like two choices. Notice, I didn't say three or four. I personally made that mistake in '92 and voted Perot because I didn't like the way Bush I didn't run a campaign until the last month or so.
Lysander, there is more than a few things that bother me about McCain. The guys in this office laughed at me when I was talking to a guy (megaDemocrat donor) about how a Democrat would be our next President. He thought I meant Obama and Clinton. When I realized what he was thinking, I blurted out, "any one of the three Democrats." I got a chuckle from the phone and guffaws from cubbymates. But, in my opinion, there isn't much difference between the three.
Posted by: swatter on April 15, 2008 07:05 AMI had read the Republican Party Platform, and thought it was great. It was exactly what I would have said myself and I agreed with each and every point.
When I heard that not having a quorum meant that everything was adopted by default -- I said Great! And left to spend the rest of the day biking on the Soos Creek Trail and getting sunshine at Lake Meridian.
I agree with John. The platform was right on. By 2pm I was ready to go and so were many in the room.
Posted by: Sara Osborne on April 15, 2008 09:40 AMLysander, care to join me in the LP? Our convention is this weekend...
It is obvious you are also not wanted in the GOP.
They seem to want to kick out all those who only agree with them 70% of the time. This is a recipe for continuing their status as a minority party.
By the way, membership in the LP grew 20% last year...
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 15, 2008 03:20 PMWhile you may claim "A quorum has to be 20% of the total number of delegates elected at the Precinct Caucuses," according to the KCGOP.ORG web site this bylaw does not exist. Perhaps, if such a bylaw exists, it says "20" and not "20%".
I invite you to prove me wrong.
Posted by: Richard Finegold on April 15, 2008 09:11 PMI am hoping that I will be proved wrong, by the way.
Posted by: Richard Finegold on April 15, 2008 09:25 PMRather than saying that according to the kcgop website no such bylaw exists, it would have been more accurate to say that because no bylaws are posted on the website, you couldn't check your facts before making a statement. You're making it sound as if they're admitting to error on the website, rather than that they were following the rules which were voted, after debate, into play at convention.
The rules voted on and passed at convention stated 20%.
Posted by: Camille on April 16, 2008 08:00 AMWhat's the number of each rule that stated "20%"? (You said "rules ... stated 20%", so perhaps there are more than one.)
What's the title of the handout/chapter/section/appendix which contained each said rule? If more than one title, please include all titles from broadest to narrowest.
When and where, if ever, did caucus attendees first see each said rule? If the answer to this is location-specific then please answer for your location.
Thanks!
Posted by: Richard Finegold on April 16, 2008 12:20 PMThe convention rules were placed on every seat. A motion to amend the 20% rule to allow for business in case of loss of quorum was debated, voted on, and failed to pass. Therefore, I would suggest that attendees were aware of the rule.
Posted by: Camille on April 16, 2008 03:36 PMRather than asking a specific question about when (date) the TEXT of article 4.1 was FIRST revealed to NEW caucus attendees, I'll ask a different question. In an attempt to make this effortless on your part, I've made it multiple choice; please answer all that apply.
What opportunities this year have you personally witnessed for interested caucus attendees to read the current KCRCC bylaws?
A) During the precinct caucus on Feb 9. Each attendee got a copy.
B) During the precinct caucus on Feb 9. Each precinct got at least one copy.
C) During the precinct caucus on Feb 9. There were ___ copies on a table. (Estimated; "between 1 and 1000" is acceptable if more precise figures are unavailable.)
D) During the legislative district caucus, between March 1 and April 20 inclusive. Each attendee got a copy.
E) During the legislative district caucus, between March 1 and April 20 inclusive. ___ copies available in booths, ___ copies on tables.
F) At the county caucus on April 12. Each attendee got a copy.
G) At the county caucus on April 12. ___ copies were available in booths, ___ copies on tables.
H) It's been available online as a ____ KB file named _____ at the specific URL http://_____ this whole time!
I) None of the above. The only way to see a copy of the KCRCC bylaws as of February 2008 is to go to ____ and ask for it.
My own answer is I, and the blank still eludes me. I remember hearing at a district meeting about a new HQ opening up in Bellevue by Loews on 120th Ave NE, maybe it's somewhere there. The actual address wasn't revealed but I'm interested in visiting. Perhaps there'll be a "field trip" after the April 25th gala?
Yes, I'm annoyed at myself for not exploiting opportunities to read the KCRCC bylaws. However, I'm wondering if I was doomed from the beginning to never have an opportunity for access presented until after the county caucus -- maybe it was outright hopeless and I can blame "the system" and feel better. Red admitted that hir copy was from "last time", presumably 2007 or earlier, so it seems likely that Red has had an identical denial of opportunities this year.
Thanks!
Posted by: Richard Finegold on April 16, 2008 11:22 PMLet's see--Richard is a member of a group that believes it's entitled to a members-only privacy block, but demands that all access to all documentation to another organization be made absolutely open to him in the manner that he demands.
The 20% rule was clear to people in the room, whether from reading the rules, the bylaws, or from the discussion.
Posted by: Camille on April 17, 2008 03:00 PMPost # 5: The Ron Paul people did NOT by and large show up. There were 700 of them. Only about 100 showed up. They made up about 1/6 of the delegates at the caucuses, but they made up only about 1/9th of the delegates who showed up at the King County Convention.
Ruth Gibbs
Ruth Gibbs