— by Michael Riordan —
A curious event occurred last week here in Washington state: Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by a margin of about 52 to 48 percent in the primary, after losing to him by a whopping margin of nearly 73 to 27 percent during the March caucuses. The primary was however just a “beauty contest” because the caucuses had already determined the number of delegates for each candidate. Bernie received the lion’s share, 74 versus 27 for Hillary.
But despite the fact that this was a supposedly non-binding preference poll, nearly 792,000 still voted in the Democratic primary versus only about 230,000 in the corresponding March 26 caucuses. Which do you think was more representative of the Washington electorate?
The fact that the results of the two approaches are so radically different demands that we take a closer look at the Democratic primary process in this state. We can’t blindly dismiss the primary as a meaningless beauty contest.
Had the party previously decided that its primary — not the caucuses — would determine the number of delegates awarded each candidate, and do so proportionately to their respective vote counts, the results would have been far different: 52 for Hillary and 49 for Bernie. That’s a net shift of 25 delegates.
Of course, one could argue that the turnout would have been different had the primary been binding, but that argument should be applied equally to both Bernie and Hillary supporters. So it cannot explain the great difference between the two results.
This comparison between the two approaches, the only one I know of nationally, can explain what to me had previously been puzzling. While Clinton has been winning state primaries handily by an average of more than 56 percent of the total votes, Sanders has been trouncing her in the caucuses by nearly 2-to-1 margins. One can easily conclude, especially after the Washington primary, that Sanders has been winning caucus states because his fervent supporters — both Democrats and independents — turn out for these caucuses in much greater numbers than do those who prefer Clinton. While not representative of the full electorate, such disparate turnouts can dramatically skew the results.
Do the results of the caucuses in fact represent the majority Democratic Party opinion in these states? As in Washington, I think, the answer in most cases is a resounding “No!” When members can vote in a primary, they predominantly choose Clinton, by margins averaging 56 to 42 percent. But those who can make it to the caucuses overwhelmingly favor Sanders.
Thus one can reasonably continue the above exercise to other caucus states and conservatively redistribute their total of 517 delegates essentially equally — say 259 delegates for Sanders versus 258 for Clinton, instead of the actual result of 334 to 183. That’s a net shift of 75 delegates in all, including the 25 shift in Washington, leading to 1,844 pledged delegates for Clinton and 1,470 for Sanders, according to the current New York Times tabulation.
But guess what? When you include the 541 superdelegates who have so far announced their preference for Clinton, her total delegate count reaches 2,585 — two more than needed to win the Democratic nomination! We wouldn’t need to await the June 7 primaries to learn the inevitable result.
What this exercise clearly tells us is that Washington should abandon its undemocratic caucus process in future primary elections. This year it permitted a dedicated minority of the Democratic Party to capture the electoral process and send a state delegation to the Philadelphia convention that is unrepresentative of statewide Party preferences.
That will probably not change the eventual nomination, but this exercise should tell discouraged Sanders supporters that the system is not always rigged against them. In some cases, as I have demonstrated here, it is actually rigged in their favor. They may rail against the undemocratic inclusion of superdelegates, but in Washington some of them — including Senators Cantwell and Murray and Governor Inslee, all Clinton supporters — will help to correct the imbalance introduced by the caucus process.
Michael…I value your efforts at splitting firewood as an Oddfellow more than those at splitting delegates for the DEM convention…
I respect your opinions but question how, in your writing, they morph into conclusions of fact.
F.L.T.
The reason Hillary wins more in “Democratic” primaries is because so many of them are closed to anyone not registered as Democrats. Bernie is a candidate of all the people, not just Democrats, and when independents are allowed to vote, he does much better than Hillary. If the Democratic Party is smart enough to realize who has the better chance to defeat Trump and prevent our descent into fascism, Bernie will be the nominee.
That’s a valid point, David, but I don’t think it explains Hillary’s 56 to 42 average margin in the primaries. Let’s see what happens in the California primary, which is open to independents. And we still need to take a hard look at how Washington conducts its nominee selection process.
I wonder how many informed voters didn’t bother to vote in the primary. An informed voter knew that the Washington primary is just a beauty contest. Our votes are meaningless and a waste of money for the paper, printing, distribution, collection, and tallying of our vote. Why contribute to a system which appears to have no purpose other than to waste time and money? I know many people that caucused for Bernie Sanders that didn’t bother to vote in the primary for just those reasons. To draw conclusions about which candidate is truly preferred based upon Washington’s seriously flawed primary system is a crap shot at best.
Jim, you are right! Many of us who showed up for a Bernie caucus believed, rightly, that there was no point in voting for he who had already won…. Thus the non-account primary was not very representative of anything except that a number of Hillary voters were frustrated by their loss to Bernie. Either will make an excellent president. I just prefer Bernie and said so at the caucus. Merry
The entire primary process across the nation is archaic. The caucus format is left over from early history when it was not possible to have a statewide election due to poor communication and transportation limitations. It is much like the Electoral College in that regard.
The best suggestion that I have heard, presented by Chuck Todd of Meet The Press, and with which I agree, is to have four of five regional primaries on the first Tuesday of successive months. All registered members of that party would be permitted to vote. No caucuses, no super-delegates !! Follow the Constitution, “One Man, One Vote” !!
Caucuses are archaic and un-representative. Did you know that 500 total voters participated in the Wyoming Republican caucus in a state with over 300,000 citizens.
Further, though I agree with Bernie Sanders on many issues, his candidacy as an independent is a marriage of convenience. His entire political career has been as an Independent. If he hadn’t participated with the Senate Democratic party while in Congress, he would have had no committee assignments, no support on submitted legislation, and would have spent his career in a back office in the Senate Building.
Too, I can’t imagine a President Sanders having sufficient support in Congress from either party to be an effective leader of the country. Granted Secretary Clinton is certainly not Mother Teresa. However, after 25 years of service at the highest level of government on the international stage, my expectation is she is the best choice among a very strange collection of candidates. I am hugely disappointed that the Republicans could not select a better final candidate from the SEVENTEEN that filed for the presidency.
There must be a better way. I agree with Michael Riordan that the current bifurcated process in Washington State is ineffectual and diminishes the impact of our state on the national stage.
I agree with those above that stated that the Primary was a non-event in determining the status of the voting public. I too, chose not to vote in the primary. My reason for not voting was that the submission of a primary ballot made your voting information available to the parties for use in future solicitation.
As a non-party voter, the last thing I need is to have Political Party “A” or “B” soliciting me in the future simply because I took part in an election process that had no meaning.
Go to a statewide, open primary. Get rid of super-delegates. And don’t allow ANYONE access to our voting data.
With all due respect, Michael, I’m puzzled why you have chosen not to reflect on how undemocratic the super-delegate situation has become in this election cycle. Many super-delegates committed to Hilary Clinton before Bernie Sanders even entered the race and made his case to the people. Moreover even in some states which have only primaries, super-delegates are entirely committed to Hilary when Bernie won the popular primary. How fair is that? And why by your reasoning, shouldn’t the super-delegates from the state of Washington be divided 52% for Hilary vs 48% for Bernie? How undemocratic can you get when almost 600 elites and party poobahs get to totally distort the nominating process, even based the popular nationwide primary votes. I’m fine if you want to do away with the caucus process but you darn well should do away with the super-delegate system too and go to a straight one-person, one-vote system. I thought that’s what the Democratic Party used to stand for.
This is data. And not an opinion: “Roughly 230,000 people participated in the Democratic caucus, The Stranger reported in March. In contrast, more than 660,000 Democratic votes had been tallied in the primary. Hillary won the primary 53.68% to Sanders 46.32%.” So more folks 1) voted in the primary (and it does not matter) and 2) Hillary lost in the caucus and won in the primary. Again — these are data. Not opinion. Here is the link to The Stranger article: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/05/24/24121754/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-lead-in-pointless-washington-state-primary
I think we all value Orcas Issues as a forum, because of thought provoking discussions like this. A few comments from one who boycotted the Presidential “preference primary” but who will vote in the “real” primary for other offices in a few months:
First, I agree that many Washingtonians don’t vote in the primary because it has little meaning. Given that, we should ask two questions: How much money was spent by the State and counties to put on that “preference primary” which had no other purpose (whereas we could spend very little extra if we held a Presidential primary in conjunction with the “real” primary for all offices that Washington now holds off until August). And then let’s all ask, what would YOU have been done with that money if YOU served in the State Legislature or County Council? Use it for roads? Education? Social services? I doubt many of us outside the Legislature would support a single purpose “preference primary” as the first choice, like our elected legislators did.
Second, New Hampshire, Iowa and other states make an industry out of primaries, attracting huge spending from candidates, campaign workers, news media, and other visitors – plus ad money. Washington’s “preference primary” attracts very little of that, unlike Oregon’s primary which also occurs late in primary season. That is likely because the candidates and the media recognize our Presidential primary as a meaningless exercise. Shouldn’t we make ourselves relevant, and provide Washingtonians a more meaningful voice in the primary system?
Third point: for us to establish a meaningful Presidential primary would require the two parties to act jointly to propose one, like they acted jointly when they sued the state a few years ago to take away our ability to vote in the primary for R’s in some races and D’s in others. Our State Supreme Court basically affirmed the parties’ right to have “their” candidates selected by “their” party members in the way they choose. That’s why the parties can decide whether or not to honor a presidential primary, or instead use a caucus. And it’s why in Washington, each party does it differently.
If memory serves, after that lawsuit Washington tried a declared preference primary one year (only), where we voted for R’s or D’s but not both. But that was so unpopular, our Legislature decided to take the parties out of the normal primary process (at least technically) and maintain control as a state. The August primary candidates no longer run for a party’s nomination (although they may express a “preference” for a party, for the voter’s information). The “highest two” from each primary race move onto the general election ballot. So by “technically” taking the parties out of the process, we Washingtonians can again vote for D’s in some races and R’s in others. Is it good that this system in Washington resulted in two Republicans running against each other in the 2014 General Election to represent Central Washington in Congress? Or that this November, two D’s will probably compete in the Seattle race to replace Congressman Jim McDermott?
As I see it, we should scrap the meaningless presidential primary (and spend the money on education instead) . . . unless the two parties jointly commit to a meaningful presidential primary. If they do, I suggest we follow most states and hold the primary for “down ballot” races earlier, in May or June, in conjunction with the presidential primary (one election, one expenditure). Then the key question will be whether the 30-40% of voters who identify as Independents should find it easy to participate (as David seems to support) or whether the primary belongs only to those have registered with a party in advance of election day (as Ed seems to suggest). This year, in other states, both Bernie and The Donald benefitted “HUGE-ly” from independents. Arguably, the independents either helped the more electable candidates, or rewarded candidates who were further from the mainstream (depending on your politics). Which is why the two parties are conflicted about just who should get to vote in a primary, and how many delegates should be selected outside the primary by the caucus goers and party stalwarts or “super delegates” who may be more committed to the party (and perhaps more focused on who can win) than those who might simply return a mail ballot.
I thank Michael for kicking off this discussion by demonstrating why D’s, R’s, and I’s all really need to think about whether our Presidential primary “works”. It’s an important topic, but not an easy one.
I don’t see the two-party system mentioned in the Constitution anywhere…
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are private political organizations that put forward candidates in the *real* elections later on. Their primaries are simply for the purpose of selecting their club’s candidate, and getting lots of free press.
I do hope these private organizations get charged properly for their use of public facilities and labor to run their elections for them…
Bravo Michael for raising this contentious issue and indirectly challenging the conventional wisdom held by many Sander’s supporters, which is that Sanders has been deprived of his rightful delegates by the machinations of the Democratic Party. You’re a brave soul!
I like the headline that Janet posted-
“…pointless Wahington primary…”
I also would agree with Doug. The wasted money is just taking away from useful endeavors like education. Considering that the lack of properly funded education is due primarily to legislators that are too stuck on the D or R next to their name and are not doing the job they were hired to do, the state should put as little effort in to providing them a forum as possible.
I am pleased at and honored by the wealth of good comments that have responded so far to my guest opinion on the WA primaries, and will try to respond to several of them. But first note that Hillary gained another 40 pledged delegates in the Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands primaries over the weekend, versus only 7 for Bernie — the same number as she received in superdelegates during this period. That puts her at 2357 delegates in all, just 26 shy of the 2383 required for the nomination, which she will almost certainly obtain in the New Jersey primary Tuesday evening, the first to report results that day. This will turn the much-anticipated California primary into a beauty contest similar to the Washington primary.
The core conclusion of my piece still stands: that the state caucuses are not representative of the general electorate, at least not for the Democratic party. I see no other way to explain the discrepancy between 56 to 42 percent favoring Hillary in the primaries versus 65 to 35 favoring Bernie in the caucuses. This is clearly borne out in the WA Democratic caucus result versus the primary result, underscoring the problem. Bernie supporters have been turning out for the caucuses in much greater numbers proportionally than Hillary supporters, skewing the results in his favor. If anyone has a better explanation, I am willing to hear it.
But that’s water over the dam, and it’s no use crying over spilled milk (to mix my metaphors). This has however been a useful exercise that I hope our Democratic Party officials (David Turnoy included) will taken into serious consideration in the planning of future nominee selection processes. If so, perhaps the millions of dollars in state funds used to pay for this beauty contest will not have been spent in vain. I agree with Brian Ehrmantraut and Justin Paulsen that political parties are (at least quasi-) private entities and funding an inconsequential primary using our state tax dollars might not be the best way to spend them.
In the last analysis, Hillary has (or will have) won this nomination struggle fair and square, playing according to the rules set down beforehand — and in spite of Bernie’s 75-100 delegate advantage from the unrepresentative state caucuses. She now leads him by nearly 300 pledged delegates, and the only way Bernie can gain the nomination is by flipping hundreds of superdelegates. The chances of that happening are next to negligible, as these are Democratic party loyalists and he has been an outlier independent for decades.
So after Tuesday, I hope the two factions will begin coming together in a unified spirit to fight what will be one of the most important Presidential elections in US history. Bernie has put up a magnificent challenge and his ideas and policies need to be made a major part of the Democratic party platform, toward which end Hillary needs to make the necessary compromises.
As a postscript to Michael’s thoughtful summary, the argument that Sanders has been a victim of closed primaries which exclude independent voters, made by David Turnoy, above, is contradicted using data from Nate Silver’s well-respected political-statistical modeling of just such an outcome. According to the data, when every state is modeled as having an open primary, using the regression models applying the current voting patterns, the results wouldn’t make that much difference in the outcome (See fivethirtyeight.com “The System Isn’t ‘Rigged” Against Sanders”, 26May2016). In addition to the demographic patterns which account for the Clinton victory, Silver’s analysis highlights that only 11 states held closed primaries, and of the 23 states which held open primaries Clinton won 14 while Sanders won only 9.
Thank you, Doug. I learned a lot from your comment.