Post by katietornado on Mar 30, 2016 11:15:04 GMT -5
A Berner on my facebook shared two articles yesterday: one was about how super delegates are bullshit, and the other was about how super delegates should go for Bernie.
I'm rapidly approaching hulk smash levels of rage over this. I'm so fucking pissed off at Bernie Supporters who don't understand how Super Delegates work.
I'm rapidly approaching hulk smash levels of rage over this. I'm so fucking pissed off at Bernie Supporters who don't understand how Super Delegates work.
I don't think it's just this. I think the vast majority of them are so new to politics they don't actually understand how politics works.
Like my friend (who caucused). Who I thought was super intelligent. Telling me one of the primary reasons she is voting for Bernie is she does not trust HRC's foreign policy. Which, that's fair. But when I asked her what Bernie's foreign policy is, she responded with, and I fucking kid you not: "I imagine that he's like many older Jewish people whom the horrors of the Holocaust have made them opt to be pacifists."
My husband said last night, that elections and voting come from a place of emotion rather than any understanding or desire to understand any part of the process or issues. I did not disagree.
Completely agree. WTF to her comment about older Jewish people!?!
5.8% might be the lowest turnout I have ever heard of.
Washington voter who didn't cactus on Saturday. Because you had to be there or send a proxy a week in advance because you were working or dying. I had to go to a baby shower for my sister and didn't feel like I could lie about why I was trying to caucus remotely.
5.8% might be the lowest turnout I have ever heard of.
Eh, check other caucuses. I don't think this is unique.
Would love to see some other numbers!! 5.8 is so so so low!!! Especially for a state that was essentially tailor made for him and when we have been hearing for a year now that the revolution is coming! Team Sanders should be mortified by these numbers not DEMANDING anything.
Completely agree. WTF to her comment about older Jewish people!?!
Right? I had no pointed response to that. I value her friendship outside of this election year. There was no fucking response to that would not ruin our friendship completely with a barrage of expletives and WTFeries.
Just to compare, to a Primary state...this is Ohio:
A spokesman for the secretary of state said Wednesday that the preliminary figures show 41.48 percent of Ohio’s registered voters cast ballots Tuesday. Spokesman Josh Eck says the highest primary turnout was 46.04 percent in the March 2008 presidential primary.
He should have inspired a much higher turnout given all the bloviating he and his followers do all over the Internet about what a big freaking deal he is. I was expecting Vermont level numbers from WA.
He should have inspired a much higher turnout given all the bloviating he and his followers do all over the Internet about what a big freaking deal he is. I was expecting Vermont level numbers from WA.
Wait. What was vermont's turn out?
I'm trying to decide who you hate more, the French or Berners
“We would like to see our representatives reflect a democratic process..."
Are they advocating redoing the vote with a secret ballot primary?! Awesome!!!!
We also, as far as I know, HAVE a primary in May. Unless that's changed in the last 8 years.
WA state primary/caucus just fucking confuses me. The primary is still done, but does not count. The caucuses count but only 5.8% of the registered voting population participated? lulz4ever.
Not that I don't think Bernie would win WA anyway, even with a secret ballot.
At my Precinct Caucus, we talked about this issue! Long story short - BLAME THE REPUBLICANS, especially the past and current Secretary of State of WA. Here's a good Seattle Times article from 2008 that discusses the matter (also paywall):
OLYMPIA — This week, many voters will begin receiving their ballots for the state’s Feb. 19 presidential primary election.
But here’s the catch — well, actually, there are several.
Those ballots won’t explain that voting for a Democrat carries only symbolic weight. To have a say in picking the Democratic nominee, voters must attend one of the party’s Feb. 9 precinct-caucus meetings — 10 days before the primary.
And there’s nothing on the Republican ballots that says they count for only about half the vote. The GOP is choosing roughly half of its delegates through the primary and the other half through the caucuses, also on Feb. 9.
So, say you’re a Republican-leaning voter who is torn between John McCain and Mike Huckabee. There’s nothing stopping you from splitting your vote — you could caucus for McCain, then vote for Huckabee in the primary.
Confused? It’s no wonder.
Political parties in every state have their own peculiar way of nominating presidential candidates. But over the past two decades, Washington’s role in the nomination game has evolved beyond peculiar and now borders on bizarre.
Compared to how it’s done in other states, “we’re pretty far out there,” said Todd Donavan, a political-science professor at Western Washington University.
With this year’s wide-open presidential races, Democratic and Republican party leaders say there’s a chance Washington voters could play a major role in deciding one or both of the nominees. It’s doubtful either race will be decided by Feb. 5 — “Super Tuesday” — when two dozen states hold their primaries or precinct caucuses.
But let’s forget all that do-we-matter speculation for a moment. First, a little primer on Washington’s primary and caucuses.
Primary’s tortured past For nearly a century, Washington’s political parties relied solely on precinct caucuses — small gatherings held in homes, schools, churches and firehouses — to allocate delegates to the national nominating conventions.
But that all changed after the 1988 election. That was the year televangelist Pat Robertson and his so-called “invisible army” of Christian conservative voters dominated the state Republican caucuses and conventions.
The next year, the Legislature adopted a citizen initiative calling for a presidential primary. The measure said the party caucus systems were “unnecessarily restrictive” and discriminated against the elderly, disabled and other people unable to attend the gatherings.
But Washington’s presidential primary has had a tortured history.
The Republican Party used the first primary, in 1992, to allocate all of its delegates to the national convention. But it hardly mattered because then-President George H.W. Bush already had a lock on the nomination.
The Republicans then switched to a hybrid approach, using the primary to allocate half its delegates in 1996 and a third in 2000.
The state Democratic Party, meanwhile, has never relied on the primary and instead divvies up all of its delegates through the caucus and convention process.
The presidential primary eventually became so meaningless that the Legislature canceled it in 2004. Lawmakers argued it would be a waste of money, given that the Democrats were ignoring the primary and President George W. Bush had no serious challenger on the Republican ticket.
But the primary was revived for 2008. Hoping to give it more impact nationally, a panel of party leaders and state lawmakers agreed last summer to move the primary up by three months, to Feb. 19.
Once again, however, the Democrats are not using it to select delegates. And the Republican Party will use the primary results to allocate only 19 of its 40 delegates to the GOP national convention.
The state estimates the election will cost about $10 million. So, for those keeping score, that works out to about $526,000 per delegate that will actually be determined by the primary.
People who vote in the primary will have to choose between a Democratic or Republican ballot and will have to sign an oath promising that they haven’t participated in the other party’s nominating process.
Unlike 1996 and 2000, voters will not have the option of using an “unaffiliated” ballot. Though a large percentage of voters in those elections cast unaffiliated ballots, their votes were never counted by either party. So the state decided to scrap that option.
Primary vs. caucuses Whether the primary has meaning remains a subject of much debate.
Secretary of State Sam Reed contends the primary — and not the caucuses — will carry more weight. He said candidates stand to gain a bigger bump of publicity through the primary because it “really is a better representation of a broad cross-section of the electorate.”
There is some evidence that Washington’s primary has mattered to the candidates in the past. In 2000, even though the primary would be used to decide only a handful of GOP delegates, candidates from both parties flocked to the state before the election. They hoped a win here would give them at least a symbolic bounce heading into that year’s “Super Tuesday.”
Still, state Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz scoffed at Reed’s assertions that the primary means more.
“How do you take three-quarters of the delegates being decided through the caucuses and one-quarter through the primary and come up with the math that the primary is more meaningful?” Pelz said.
Pelz, who referred to the primary as a “$10 million public-opinion poll,” is angry that Reed has been aggressively promoting the primary and hardly mentions the caucuses.
It’s a tussle that goes back many years.
Reed’s predecessor, longtime Secretary of State Ralph Munro, was an outspoken critic of the caucus systems who tried in vain to force the parties to use the primary. Munro liked to say that the problem with caucuses is that they require people to argue with their neighbors about politics.
And, like other critics, Munro argued that the caucuses are poorly attended and too easily controlled by a small number of hard-core activists. Under the caucus system, he said, there are “more people going to the boat show than participating in the process.”
The highest turnout ever for a presidential primary in Washington was in 2000, when nearly 43 percent of voters cast ballots. During the hotly contested race for the 2004 Democratic nomination, about 100,000 turned out for that party’s caucuses. That’s less than 3 percent of the state’s voters.
But party insiders staunchly defend the precinct caucuses.
Dick Derham, a longtime Republican activist, said moderates like Munro and Reed hate the caucuses because they have typically favored the more conservative candidates.
And, aside from serving as valuable “party building” events, Derham said, the caucuses are a better way of measuring a candidate’s grass-roots organizing strength.
State Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser said the GOP’s decision to select delegates through both the caucuses and the primary is a “balanced solution.” He said the primary is more convenient for most voters, but added he doesn’t think the caucuses are that big a burden.
“People are busy,” Esser said, “but I don’t think it’s asking too much to take a couple hours to try to help us figure out who the next president of the United States is going to be.”
He should have inspired a much higher turnout given all the bloviating he and his followers do all over the Internet about what a big freaking deal he is. I was expecting Vermont level numbers from WA.
Wait. What was vermont's turn out?
This is Washington State.
We have more important shit to do than caucus.
* Disclaimer: I didn't caucus either, but I had a medical reason and voted via surrogate. Though, now I wonder if it was just tossed out since y'know, it doesn't seem you are notified whether or not your vote counted.
Your vote counted, unless something shady happened, which probably didn't (most PCOs were Hillary supporters, since they were active members of the local Democrat Legislative groups and are knowledgeable about local and federal politics AND BIG Democratic party supporters).
The surrogate ballots were collected by the local Democratic Legislative groups. There they were separated by Precinct, counted and stapled together BEFORE the caucus. Once each Precinct broke apart from the entire group, each Precinct nominated 1 Sanders supporter and 1 Clinton supporter to count all the ballots, from those present and from the stapled surrogate/absentee ballots.
He should have inspired a much higher turnout given all the bloviating he and his followers do all over the Internet about what a big freaking deal he is. I was expecting Vermont level numbers from WA.
Post by mominatrix on Mar 30, 2016 12:24:41 GMT -5
OH MY GOD!
the state of Washington can pay $10 MILLION for a primary THAT DOESN'T MATTER but can't fully fund public education even though the Supreme Court ordered us to, and is fining us EVERY DAY IT'S NOT DONE.
He should have inspired a much higher turnout given all the bloviating he and his followers do all over the Internet about what a big freaking deal he is. I was expecting Vermont level numbers from WA.
Wait. What was vermont's turn out?
Plus how much money did he spend there?
Nothing. He's a socialist so he built a TV studio in Spokane in exchange for air time from the network.
“People are busy,” Esser said, “but I don’t think it’s asking too much to take a couple hours to try to help us figure out who the next president of the United States is going to be.”
...........................
No, it actually might be asking too much.
The irony of our caucus system and the surrogate affidavit to get out of going to the caucus is that, in theory (mixed with some reality of situations in my friends groups) this scenario happens:
Parents of special needs children cannot take their child to the caucus with them due to the child not dealing well with that kind of stress level. Their options: Stay home, don't caucus. Get a sitter. The sitter then, will likely be unable to caucus. But! Because there is a work exemption clause, the sitter could then submit an affidavit cause s/he has to work that day.
C.L.U.S.T.E.R.F.U.C.K.
And sure you can sign an affidavit that you cannot attend due to work, so long as you submit it two weeks ahead of time. When I was working hourly I didn't get my schedule until the Friday before! Bullshit.
The turnout is not surprising. 4M registered voters in WA, assume 50% dem. There were 250K people caucusing, so 10% of dems. Not surprising to me that only 1:10 were able or interested in going at 10 a.m. on a Saturday to get yelled at.
“People are busy,” Esser said, “but I don’t think it’s asking too much to take a couple hours to try to help us figure out who the next president of the United States is going to be.”
...........................
No, it actually might be asking too much.
The irony of our caucus system and the surrogate affidavit to get out of going to the caucus is that, in theory (mixed with some reality of situations in my friends groups) this scenario happens:
Parents of special needs children cannot take their child to the caucus with them due to the child not dealing well with that kind of stress level. Their options: Stay home, don't caucus. Get a sitter. The sitter then, will likely be unable to caucus. But! Because there is a work exemption clause, the sitter could then submit an affidavit cause s/he has to work that day.
C.L.U.S.T.E.R.F.U.C.K.
I like going to the caucuses to talk to others about the issues, because it's hard to find other informed voters to talk to irl. But they really aren't necessary. Caucuses are a fun (for some) privilege.
I can get the same satisfaction and feeling of involvement if I join the local Democratic party groups. They really need to do a better job recruiting and publicizing their meetings.
I wonder if a good middle ground would be to bring back the Voting booths. I prefer voting absentee, but could get behind the option of voting booths or absentee.