Putting the caulk back in "caucus"

[roadrunnertwice]

So I caucused for Obama today. Maybe you did too! Yay Obama. My precinct's caucusers went 14 for Clinton, 12 for Obama. Yay Hillary.

I remain pretty okay with both candidates. Wonder how it's gonna turn out?

Comments

[gyladia.livejournal.com]

What do you mean by 12 and 14 and precinct?
I heard on the radio yesterday that for democrats the primaries are formalities and not really paid attention to, and that they pay much more attention to how people vote in the caucuses, but I've never heard that anywhere else (I am admittedly not as into politics as I imagine a lot of other people are).

[roadrunnertwice]

---BRACE FOR INFODUMP---

The Washington primary system was recently shaken up in some way that I still haven't taken the time to understand and which probably has something to do with internal party wonkery, but the result is that the Washington State Democratic* primary no longer has any bearing on who we nominate for President. (No, I don't know why they're still having one in the first place.) Instead, it's all happening in the caucuses.

The way the caucus works is like a miniature electoral college. You live in a precinct, and the number of registered Democratic voters who live there determines how many delegates your precinct sends to the county caucus. The people who show up at the caucus (I don't know the real name for them, so I'll call them caucusers) for your precinct are the ones who determine who those delegates will caucus for at county. Everyone haggles and argues for about 15 minutes (this is why caucuses are kinda cool), and then the delegates are allocated according to the proportions of caucusers who favor each candidate. They're chosen from among the caucusers, they sign a thingy explaining what they'll be doing at the county caucus, and then the whole thing gets repeated at the county and state levels, after which you have your national delegates to the Democratic convention.

Note the tricky bit here: The number of delegates is determined demographically, but the behavior of the delegates is determined by who is able and willing to spend an hour at the caucus on a Saturday. So caucusers have a disproportionate amount of voting power as compared to a voter in an open primary. My precinct had 26 caucusers haggling over 6 delegates. (Who got split 50/50, since it came out to one delegate per 4.3 caucusers.) I have no idea how many Democratic voters there actually are in my precinct, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that I was voting for fifteen other people, none of whom had a chance to consult me. This is why caucuses are kinda shitty.


_____
* The Washington Republicans decide 49% of their convention delegates with their primary and 51% with their caucus. I can't decide whether this makes more sense or less.

[gyladia.livejournal.com]

...So it would be better to vote Republican in the primary for McCain against Huckabee? I am honest-to-god afraid of Huckabee running for President.

I think 49% and 51% is better than not listening to the people who vote in primaries at all. We have a hard enough time getting people to vote in the first place, why give them more reasons to think their votes don't matter? I don't like the way the electoral college works at all, and I definitely don't like having to drive somewhere to have my voice heard (that sounds incredibly lazy in the face of supporting my freedoms, but I really don't drive anywhere).

As for voting for 15 people you don't know, I almost wonder if politics have ever been any other way (thinking of history, landholders voting, and when everyone could vote, I know my Grandmother was politically aligned with my Grandfather because she listened to him about that kind of thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true for my parents- one believing the other and voting that way).

I wonder if it's not some sort of defense mechanism, changing the way primaries and caucuses work- It's not like a politician can count on the media to give them respect anymore, there isn't much they can say outside of what the party line is or risk being jumped on. The more little people they cut out of the voting process, doesn't that mean it's easier to control who is going to get voted to run for President?

I've always heard about "swing states" and I read about republicans trying to change how the electoral college works: http://www.slate.com/id/2172700/

I can honestly say I don't like politics. The whole process makes me feel sort of helpless and dirty and sad.

[roadrunnertwice]

Well, the one reassuring thing I can tell you is not to worry about Huckabee -- he's toast. Last I heard, McCain's at like 700-some delegates, and Huck's still crawling toward 200. As for what to do about your primary vote, I honestly don't know.

I liked the open primary system a lot better than this caucus stuff.

[jonsonite.livejournal.com]

McCain only barely won Washington, 26% to 24% for Huckabee, and Huck won Louisiana and Nebraska. But yeah, he'd have to win 9 of every 10 delegates from here on out. He'd need more than an Iowa sized miracle to make it happen.


And I think I figured out why we still have a democratic primary, even though it doesn't count--since we've got pick-a-party primary, all it takes to have a democratic primary is one extra ballot per envelope. It isn't like we're investing in a whole separate mailing or having to mail to more people or something.

[roadrunnertwice]

You may be on to something there.

...

...Huh.

You know, that gets me thinking -- given the established procedures of the state dep't (things like checklists, machinery, employee training) and the effort it takes to turn a governmental vehicle with a bit of momentum behind it... I wonder if maybe the math said running a dummy D primary would be cheaper than not running it. At least for this time around.

That would at least explain why the confusion it was bound to cause didn't end up stopping it. Hmm.