— from David Turnoy —
If you have been following the discussion about the caucus on Orcas Issues, you will know that the majority of those making comments favor moving to counting the Democratic primary instead of relying on the caucus to choose delegates for the Democratic Party nomination for president. Because of the messiness of the process, the lack of a large enough venue for our avid participants, and the length of time involved in the caucus process, the suggestion is a good one, and I have agreed to present a resolution calling for a move to the primary at the county convention on May 1.
However, a few Orcas Issues readers expressed positive thoughts about the caucus, and yesterday I had a wonderful conversation with Fred Klein in which he made a terrific suggestion that I would like all of you interested in this topic to consider. Why not combine the idea of a primary with a caucus so that all those who simply want to cast a vote be able to do so by mail or by dropping their ballot off at the caucus? Then only those who want to stay to discuss candidates and issues and to stand for election as a delegate would need to stay. This would greatly reduce the crowd at the caucus, and it would allow all of our folks to participate comfortably without all of the negative factors that were encountered last Saturday.
I would be very interested in feedback on this suggestion. Feel free to post a comment here, or you are welcome to email me at davidgeri@centurylink.net.
As usual Fred Klein has come up with a superlative idea and one that just might lead to consensus among both primary and caucus proponents. Now how can we move this suggestion forward?
I think this option could work well, with one caveat. Ideally, the mail-in option would use the same system as our mail in ballots for other elections. As in, they would be mailed automatically to all registered voters. This would obviously take some coordination with the State and the Republicans, but it would serve the purpose of increasing access to having more people have a say in the process.
In my opinion, a mail in option that requires the voter to go to the Washington Dem’s website, print off a form, and mail, (similar to what was available this year for those that had to miss the caucus for religious, work, military, or other similar reasons) wouldn’t substantially increase turnout. Just my opinion.
Thank you, David, for all your work on this!
Judy, if enough people seem to favor this idea, I will introduce it at the county convention, and hopefully we could move this along to the next level. Anyone who likes this idea, though, is also welcome to write the state Democratic Party and put in a plug.
Paul, your comments are right on. I didn’t go further in my ideas for details about this process in my article above, but I agree that limiting absentee voting to only those with the reasons you mention is ridiculous, that anyone should be able to vote absentee. I also agree that having to print your own form (and 300 people did do that this time) limits the number who will participate. As you suggest, we should have the state mail a ballot just like it does for elections, and you would then have the choice to mail it, drop it off, or bring it with you and stay for the caucus.
Keep the ideas coming!
David, Since you’re inviting ideas, what about proposing at the county convention to do away with the Super Delegate system the Democratic Party elites introduced in the 1980’s. The ability of Super Delegates, mostly members of Congress bought and paid for by special interests, to determine the Democratic nominee for President is undemocratic in the extreme, an embarrassment to the Democratic Party, and far more important than any of the other “disenfranchisement” issues raised in these discussions. The Party nominee should be chosen by the tens of millions of Democrats making the effort to vote for the candidates, not by 450 Party grandees.
I’ll add my thanks to you for running the caucus and your continued efforts to foster dialogue and participation.
Great suggestion, Arthur. You are right about the inordinate impact of the super delegates, an undemocratic control of the masses by the elite.
As long as the primary vote is a counted vote, I say why not!
Arthur, David, I have wondered before about Super Delegates, and am wondering now if the Repubicam party wishes it had that system in place!
My opinion is that I like the fact that Governers get this weighted vote – they are public servants whom I would trust to make important choices. I don’t think of our Govenor as an elite for example.
I see no problem with the idea of caucusing as long as the primary vote is what counts.
I am an independent. I vote for who I think is most likely to be the best candidate. If I believe that a candidate from the Democratic party is the best candidate, and wish to vote for that candidate in the primaries, I have to “declare” that I am a Democrat which something I am not.
I too would like to see super delegates removed from the process. The purported reason for the existence of super delegates is to protect the party from having an inappropriate candidate nominated, such as appears to be quite possible on the Republican side of the house. But the reality is that if a candidate who is deemed inappropriate does get nominated it is a clear indication, to me at least, that the party itself has lost its way. Super delegates won’t help the party get back on the right track, instead they’ll just continue pushing the train down the dead end track.
My high school civics understanding of democracy is one vote per person. The current system waters down my vote and allows a few select individuals to effectively have thousands of votes each. That’s the kind of election engineering that one would expect to find in a third world dictatorship.
A primary or caucus is not by purpose or design a public election. They exist so that members of a specific political party can decide where to spend the donated funds and collective energy in a way that most members agree on. Super delegates exist in part so that an independent candidate cannot bring in a bunch of one time voters to cause havoc in the nomination process by losing the popular vote but still blocking the nomination by mathematically making it impossible for one candidate to get the requisite number of delegates. It wouldn’t be fair to registered democrats and donors of any amount to the DNC. Independents can still run for office as independents. They just aren’t welcome to use the party infrastructure unless they are part of the party. If you want to get radical, let’s get rid of the electoral college and make multiple parties viable.
By the way, I learned this caucus-time that you can print your form, vote your final preference and drop it off without having to stick around. It still gets counted just fine.
Well said Jim!
Yes, well said, Jim. Anji, Rick Larsen, our elected representative in the House, is also an elected public servant. Upon Bernie’s victory, he was asked if he would now change his support from Hillary to Bernie, and he replied that he will be supporting Hillary up until the convention. Many, many of his constituents have contacted him, expressing their displeasure with his unwillingness to represent the will of the people. So while it would be nice to be able to trust our public servants, democracy is not a spectator sport, it requires constant vigilance in holding the feet of our representatives to the fire.
Great Idea!
Well said, Cindy.
Rick Larsen is publicly elected to serve as our congressional representative. His deal with the private Democratic Party to serve as a super delegate in that party’s private convention is not what he was elected to do, it’s just a side perk.
I’ve read that Jay Inslee has been deluged by requests from Bernie supporters to change his vote – there is also a campaign raising money to support a challenger if he doesn’t. But are super delegates obliged to change thier position based on caucus results?
It is clear that a “Superdelegate” is not bound by that status to vote according to the will of their constituents. Their Super-status is conferred upon them by the party leaders and is, in fact, their own vote. It is, in essence, an insurance move on the part of the party to assure that the candidate of the parties favor will receive the nomination.
Mr Larsen, Mr Inslee, Ms Murray, Ms Cantwell and all the other elected Democratic officials with Super-status have NO obligation to vote according to the result of a Caucus/Primary. I would imagine that their reason for indicating an intent to vote in favor of Clinton is that they do not want to lose favor with the candidate that they feel will likely win, and thus they will need political favors from in the future.
They have officially gone on record with what is most important to them. In fact, they were willing to make that statement well before they ever saw what the inclination of the people was. The question to the voters of Washington will be, are we prepared to hold them accountable for putting their political hedge above the clear statement made by the people? I am not even a party-line voter, but I can assure every one of them that simply by committing to a candidate before ever considering the voice of the people… they all lost my vote.
Jim, I am always baffled by independents who believe they have the moral high ground. The reality is that when you vote for someone you are getting their party way more than the individual. That is the fact. If Al Gore had won the 2000 election he would have supported left leaning Supreme Court Judges. We would not have Citizens United. We would not have the super wealthy buying our elections. In the end the most important thing is the Supreme Court. The republican party is bought and paid for by the wealthy. While the democrats are a far cry from Roosevelt they are way superior to the republicans who are also war mongers.
Fred Klein’s idea is eminently practical. The fact that a person can just print, fill out, sign and drop off the preference sheet would indicate not so much a caucus, but rather a mini primary. This leaves out one feature that has traditionally supported the caucus system: open discussion that in some cases may change people’s minds. The last opportunity for persuasion would be deleted.. I’m not objecting to this suggestion so much as pointing out that we fully understand its implications.
Two comments:
#1 – I think Jim Mc Corrison’s idea is far more viable than Fred Klein’s. Keep the processes separate – and on separate days. Caucuses are for discussing and educating each other, with one exception that might work: Caucuses would have resolutions put forth and elect delegates to take our ideas for resolutions to a county and state convention. I’m still unclear on what happens to our resolutions – maybe David Turnoy could answer; do they go on the ballot or does the DNC just give lip service to our will and shelve our resolutions?
The sad truth is that people are not involved with elections, or in changing the system from the bottom up – which is the only way it can be changed – and you can’t make them be involved if they want to be apathetic – and with the current corrupt system we have, I understand their apathy. So no, Fred Klein’s idea to have caucuses and primaries on the same day is not a complete idea. People need time to think after they discuss the issues. Jim Mc Corrison’s idea, with delegates selected at the caucus to put forth our resolutions, seems to me a more complete idea which would involve the most people.
#2 -Cindy Wolf points out that primaries are for the Party, not the people, so it’s OK for super delegates to pre-pick a candidate and not let an Independent have a chance; that it’s OK to NOT respect or abide by the Will of the People, because it “wouldn’t be fair” to the party and its donors to include someone like Sanders. What a lot of horse-puckey. The DNC is corrupt through and through; as evidenced by their rigidity about sticking with Hillary Clinton and giving super delegates thousands of votes each, to ensure that the people have no real choice.
I hope resolutions were presented at the caucus precincts to eliminate Super Delegates and the electoral college, and that our suggestions for resolutions will be taken to the county and state conventions. I know that our precinct made such resolutions. We don’t need Washington insiders, bought and paid for by banksters, big pharma, the fossil fuel industry, foreign interests like Saudi Arabia, and makers of toxic pesticides and insecticides and GMO food to be corrupting our election process anymore!
#3 I hope someone came up with the idea to reject the DNC’s “ban” on independents running as Democrats. The truth is, the Dems don’t WANT an independent to win. They hope that an independent will never have a chance, because it would be prohibitive monetarily for any independent (besides Donald Trump) to go up against a party backed by corporate monies! The Corporate Party (Republicans and Democrats – now one party in effect) knows that people are sick and tired of their corruption, and the Party fears this – which is exactly why they reject anyone who would dare suggest fixing income inequity, educating our youth, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, taxing corporations (oil companies and banks often pay ZERO income tax!) and stopping aggression wars on countries that never did anything to us that are illegal, and “radical” ideas like that.
Not sure how much energy is left in this thread, but I’d like to take a moment and refocus on the essence of the original question…which was…How can this process be tweaked so that those with minimal time and inclination can have their votes counted in a primary and cast them quickly and easily while still allowing for the rich, nuanced, political conversation which the caucus encourages?
I never suggested that a “last opportunity for persuasion” be deleted.
The truth is that on caucus day, I had plenty of time to spare, and I was both informed and charmed by the respectful, neighborly, and somewhat chaotic process.
When everyone went to separate rooms by precinct with supporters of the two candidates gathered on one side of the room or the other, I enjoyed hearing the thoughtful, alternating advocacy statements. After the votes were tallied, the split of delegates determined, and the delegate selection process had begun, I got to hear some real passion from those who were willing to spend another day in Friday Harbor at the upcoming county caucus…all in all, democracy at its finest.
However this process is refined, it’s obvious that the process be able to accommodate both the needs of a hotly-contested primary/caucus as well as those where an incumbent is running unopposed.
I salute David and Geri Turnoy for their Orcas/Dem leadership, and their openness to advocate changes to the present system.
@Anji Ringzen; you asked if super delegates sometimes went with the will of the people. They don’t have to but in 2008 they did. Many Hillary Clinton supporters switched to Barack Obama. It may be different now; they may be under more pressure to stay with Clinton. The part that I think is bizarre is that they get so many more votes than one person, one vote – so they can stack the delegates pretty quickly to influence an election – either way.
@Anji Ringzen; you asked if super delegates sometimes went with the will of the people. They don’t have to but in 2008 they did. Many Hillary Clinton supporters switched to Barack Obama. It may be different now; they may be under more pressure to stay with Clinton. The part that I think is bizarre is that they get so many more votes than one person, one vote – so they can stack the delegates pretty quickly to influence an election – either way. So in 2008 – the caucuses made all the difference for Obama.