After the caucuses: What’s next

First, a couple more photos that have come in since our caucus updates ended last night. This one is from Katie McKeehan Hart, who photographed her daughter Mary Kate Hart as they caucused at West Seattle Elementary:

katiewithsign.jpg

This one’s from Josh Sutton, showing how big the group from just one precinct got, caucusing at Chief Sealth High School:

joshcaucus.jpg

ADDED SUNDAY NIGHT: SRO caucus scene at West Seattle High School, from Matt Taylor:

srowestseattlehigh.jpg

Now, the “what’s next” info. First – there is still a statewide presidential primary on February 19; if you vote by mail, you’ve received your ballot by now. The Democrats are not using the results to choose any delegates (they have always used the caucuses instead; here’s 34th District Democrats chair Ivan Weiss’s explanation); the Republicans will choose half their delegates from the primary results, half from their caucuses yesterday. If you’re a Democrat and you’re wondering whether to bother voting, one thing to keep in mind, if you care, is that since the race is still perceived as close, the national media will likely pay attention to the results anyway, regardless of whether delegate-awarding is involved, so if you want your candidate to look good, you might as well show up for this too. (Personally, we never miss a chance to vote for anything.) As fr the long process of converting yesterday’s caucus results to national-convention delegates: The Democrats’ legislative-district caucuses are on April 5; delegates who go on from there will attend county conventions on April 13; then caucuses by Congressional district (here in West Seattle, we’re part of the 7th District) are on May 17, the state convention is on June 14, and the Democratic National Convention is August 25-28 in Denver. Oh yeah, and the actual election … November 4. (By the way, the 34th District Democrats are promising precinct-by-precinct breakouts on their website within a few days; for some unofficial counts, check the comments below our running post from last night.) One more note – just as we were writing this, we received the following from Steve Heck, titled “Open Letter to Washington State Democratic Leadership,” with some points of concern regarding the process, and he thought it might be a point worth discussing here:

Dear Party Leadership,

Although yesterday’s democratic caucus will be widely considered a success based on the unprecedented attendance, I feel I must point out areas in our nomination process that are in dire need of change to ensure a strong healthy party in our state.

Process complexity and redundancy
Although one can argue the merits of the caucus vs the primary, surely no one can defend the need for both. The confusion witnessed in the weeks proceeding and leading up to the day of the caucus was widespread, inexcusable, wasteful and begs the following questions:

What is the point of the purely symbolic primary?

How much money does the party waste holding multiple events to accomplish the same goal? (The postage for absentee ballots alone most reach into the tens of thousands)

How many people have been disenfranchised by the current process? (people who must work on Saturday, single parents without daycare, etc.)

Why should anyone financially support an organization with such a wasteful and inefficient processes?

Information dispersal
In a time when there are more cheap and fast communication channels available then ever before it was startling to witness the lack of accurate, concise information regarding the nomination process. If one did actually manage to determine the location of your precinct despite the poorly organized and underpowered website you were greeted by ill informed and often misinformed volunteers. Simple questions such as “Does my vote count if leave before the caucus ends?” garnered totally different answers depending on who was asked. Clearly no one was confident in the answer.

All of this points to an unnecessarily complex process, lack of focus on and efficient methods of communicating with the party’s volunteers and supporters. Too many people whom for the first time in a decade were willing to participate in our political process were left out in the cold.

How will the process be changed to make the process accessible to all party members in the future?

The party leadership has responsibility to provide an efficient and accessible framework in which all of its supporters can make their voices heard. In one person’s opinion you have let us down and significant change to the nomination process.

Sincerely,
Steve Heck

22 Replies to "After the caucuses: What's next"

  • Arborheightist February 10, 2008 (12:02 pm)

    The answer is you get what you pay for, and all of these people are volunteers. Yes, it’s messy and inefficient, maybe we need to hire some project management consultants – that would be a good use of funds.

    The State Legislature is the ones who instituted the state presidential primary. They need to work with the parties to clean up the primary process. No one’s happy now, except maybe the parties. The Democrats and the Republicans are both to blame for the process we have now.

    If you’ve got a better idea you need to do something about it besides complaining on a blog.

  • quiz February 10, 2008 (12:11 pm)

    I’d argue that complaining about it on a blog is a step towards doing something about it.

  • Les February 10, 2008 (12:56 pm)

    Notes: the Dem’s have superdelegates, the GOP doesn’t.

    The GOP 34th was a zoo, they never expected the turnout.

    Parties should pay for choosing their candidates, not the state.

  • JoB February 10, 2008 (1:17 pm)

    i would agree that the process could use some work and commend Steve for his comments…

    but i am astonished to find myself defending the process itself.

    maybe that’s because i just love a good discussion…and we got one. but maybe the Republicans have a point with half the input coming from the primary and half from caucus.

    i don’t know. but i think discussion is certainly the place to start.

    what worked.. or didn’t.. for you?

  • WSB February 10, 2008 (1:24 pm)

    WRT “complaining on a blog.” We haven’t gotten around to mentioning it yet but there’s a recent case where somebody got some action on something they were trying to get the city to address … because the city read about it here. Sorry I don’t have the specifics handy, this reminds me I’ve been meaning to post about. No guarantee, PLUS you want to always get your information, complaint, idea, etc. to the decisionmaker(s) FIRST AND FOREMOST … but it’s funny what can happen when ideas get a little sunshine elsewhere, whether it’s a website, a newspaper, a TV newscast, etc.

  • acemotel February 10, 2008 (1:24 pm)

    Steve Heck: Thank you for this perspective, which is the same thing I witnessed. I’m one of those people who has not been involved (much) before. Had I not seen this posting, I would have assumed that it was business as usual. I would have walked away. But I see now that there is much work to do on a local level, if not a precinct level. The people who did the work will feel defensive, and I think they probably did the best they could. They did not anticipate the level of participation. If some of us who attended caucuses will stick around, we might be able to have an effect at the precinct or district. It’s our party, after all. We can vote in / vote out / anyone.

  • Rufus February 10, 2008 (1:54 pm)

    Appreciate the comments by Steve Heck and would like to add that the lack of security/validation in yesterday’s process was disturbing. There was no requirement to show ID or voter registration cards. This raises legitimate concerns about just who was voting at the caucuses…..will there be random checks of the sign-in forms against voter registration records?

    A single, national primary (all states on the same day) by ballot would be a saner and more equitable process.

  • Ken February 10, 2008 (2:16 pm)

    Please read some history and then redirect your letter to the Republicans.

    http://files.meetup.com/520946/Presidential%20Primary%20Background%20Paper.pdf

    Why should anyone financially support an organization with such a wasteful and inefficient processes?

    Yes why would we support those Republicans.
    They can save the state between 7 and 9 million dollars any time they quit using the primary.

    Those moderate Republicans who were trying to save the WAGOP from the theocrats and crazies tried to use the state treasury to do so.
    They failed. Witness the results of the 08 GOP caucus.

    We don’t use a primary because the state does not register voters by party affiliation. The Dems make the caucus as open as possible by using the honor system and holding the area/precinct caucus on a weekend and in urban areas, within walking distance of the precincts.

    The local 34th district paid every last cent used to put on the caucus and all those you interacted with at the caucus were volunteers.
    Months of planning and training material and PCO training sessions held in different times and places so everyone could attend at least one, could not create a system that could survive a 100% increase in the participation unscathed.

    Perhaps if we got rid of the primary, people would not be so easily lulled into a false sense of security. Then maybe we would not still have to be concerned about whether the Republicans are going to nominate the loon, the goon or the Televangelist.

    I am assuming the dollars your so worried about are your 34th district Dems membership dues of between 3 and 15 dollars per year? You are a member right? Or was it the cash you donated at the caucus to help defray the cost of the caucus?

    Those who are not Democrats or are dis-satisfied with both the GOP and the Dems are welcome to start their own party.

    Sam Reed is pushing the primary now because it is in his interest as a partisan Republican to do so.

    Also. Who the “Heck” are you? (Pun intended)

    Why is your opinion important and what are your qualifications other then a proven inability to use Google?

    Those who are Democrats, who were dis satisfied with the training, passion or competence of the PCO of your precinct, or were in a precinct with no PCO, should get a damn clue and volunteer to be appointed to the position or run for the position next time it is on the ballot. (every 2 years)
    Then you can come here and whine with the rest of us about how the leadership never listens to us. :)

    Also note. After the 08 general election.
    Every. Single. Leadership Position.
    In the Democratic party from your local district to the state chair will be up for grabs. If you don’t like the leadership? Run for the position yourself.

    Informed criticism is welcomed. Even caustic criticism can be helpful. But uninformed criticism ?

    Let’s see how that works out.

  • WSB February 10, 2008 (3:02 pm)

    Ken, as the party (not political) host here, I would note that everyone’s opinion is important.

    I also appreciate your points about working within the system to make a difference – I see this point often made at the community council/association meetings we cover, where many community members don’t participate until they have an ax to grind about something and then they show up demanding that the group do something about it – at which point I saw one such group president recently make a quite eloquent statement that it would be nice to see such community members show up to participate in the rest of the work as well, rather than just the issue in which they’ve taken an interest. And I have one more point. For all the websites and mailings, the workings of all this ARE often obscure and confusing to people. And they have the right to say so. The post-caucus feedback emerging from first-timers should be as valuable to party leaders as the feedback from longtimers. Interestingly, the King County GOP is promising an online questionnaire on its site tomorrow regarding caucuses:
    http://www.kcgop.org/
    Much as I admire the Democrats’ online efforts (especially the 34th DDs’ comprehensive website), I don’t see any evidence they are going to do the same. Data point.

  • The House February 10, 2008 (3:45 pm)

    I consider having that child hold that sign child abuse.

  • Ekim February 10, 2008 (4:36 pm)

    I consider having that child hold that sign early education.

  • Ekim February 10, 2008 (4:37 pm)

    Although it might be sign abuse.

  • Steve Heck February 10, 2008 (4:38 pm)

    First of all thank you for all that have commented on my letter. The intent was literally to stimulate conversation and hopefully to get some insight as to why the process is the way it is. Unfortunately there was little of the later. Just more rhetoric and I have to say some pretty nasty republican-style fear mongering.

    Can you defend the cost of a superfluous popularity contest (I mean primary)?
    Does it really matter that membership costs $3-$15 and (yes I am member)? Waste in tiny increments in still waste and in the aggregate matters. And yes, I’ve been a member since 04.

    I purposely did not argue for either a primary or caucus, just the fact that we do not need both. But I do staunchly argue that whichever single option is pursued must be more accessible -and that means more than “within walking distance”. It means that people that are not available in a specific location in a two hour window of time should still have the right to have there vote counted. In fact the inspiration for my letter was in direct response to a conversation with a woman WORKING DURING THE CAUCUS. She was nearly in tears when she heard my response to the question “You mean my vote doesn’t count just because I COULDN’T go to the caucus?

    Also, I would like to clarify that I meant absolutely no malice in my comments regarding the volunteers, simply wanted to point they obviously were not armed with clear, concise information. Something that costs little to no money to provide.

    And lastly as to who the “heck” am I? (BTW- Thanks Ken, I haven’t that one since third grade…genius). I am a concerned citizen of West Seattle who sees a process that is not working for it’s intended purpose. Am I in need of further credentials to voice my opinion in a public forum? As far as your argument that I am simply whining and don’t have the guts or the fortitude to do anything else, I assure that this is simply a matter of timing. Now that I fully understand how unfair and wasteful the process is I will becoming more involved. Who knows Ken, maybe we’ll be opponents in a local race. I look forward to it.

    Thanks to WSB for the forum. It’s truly democratic.

  • Ken February 10, 2008 (8:17 pm)

    ok I have had a nap and promise to behave :)

    Since some people will not open PDF files lets quote a few items from the link I provided.

    History of Delegate Selection in Washington State
    Prior to 1988, political parties in Washington State used the caucus system to select delegates for the national conventions.
    In 1988, the caucus system resulted in Pat Robertson being selected as Washington’s Republican nominee for President. Political polls indicated that Pat Robertson would not have been the choice of Republican voters in the state, most of whom would have selected a more moderate
    candidate.
    Frustrated with this outcome, a citizen sponsored Initiative to the Legislature generated over
    200,000 signatures to support a presidential primary. Supporters believed that a presidential
    primary would be less restrictive and less discriminatory.
    The 1989 Legislature adopted the citizen initiative without change, thereby providing for a
    presidential primary in the State of Washington.

    Notice the part about Republicans complaining about the religious nuts hijacking the caucus? This will become ironic in the next few days as the religious nuts (Huckabee) complain that the Republicans (Ed Rollins) subverted the caucus in unspecified ways.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004175292_webhuckabee10.html

    Also note: the republicans became less and less happy with the primary system as time went on.

    In 1992, Washington State held its first presidential primary. In that year, the Republicans used 100% of the primary results to select their delegates to the national convention.
    In 1996, the Republicans designated 50% of delegates based on primary results. In 2000, 33% of Republican delegates were allocated based on primary results. In both 1996 and 2000,
    Republicans used the caucus system to apportion the remaining delegates.

    (Yes that seems to be a typo but that’s Sam Reeds document so ask him what really happened in 1996)
    _
    _

    On to 2007, or What have you done to me lately Sam?

    HB 2379 was introduced to cancel the 2008 Presidential Primary. The bill was heard on March
    15, 2007 by the House Appropriations Committee. Secretary of State Sam Reed and approximately one dozen voters and advocacy groups presented strong testimony against the bill at the hearing and the bill subsequently died.
    The Governor, Senate, and House have presented budgets that include $9.7 million for the 2008
    Presidential Primary and supporting voters’ pamphlet.

    The simple facts are.
    The caucus is old fashioned democracy. It is also party politics and an overwhelming majority of those elected by party members voted to once again, use the caucus system and ignore the primary for choosing delegates. This has been the case every year since the 1988 initiative.

    Your letter to the Democrats suggesting that they do away with one or the other overlooks those facts. The party has the power to get rid of the caucus that’s true, but it would require amending the bylaws with an axe and any leadership that did so would probably be replaced and the caucus language returned by popular acclamation of the members at the first opportunity.

    The Dem majority legislature tried to get rid of the primary. Sam Reed and the Republicans blocked that.

    The money that is wasted is taxpayer money. It is spent due to an unfunded mandate passed by initiative abuse by republicans. Not a new scenario but also not something the party leadership can do anything about.

    BTW: you might want to speak to Jackie since members are listed in the margins of the newsletter here in the 34th. She obviously overlooked your form and dues this year.
    http://www.34dems.org/newsletters.htm

    The vast majority of those who did not attend the caucus, are not those who have to work on a Saturday afternoon. Their are millions of registered voters in WA who don’t even fill out the ballots that show up in the mail. Tens of thousands have already ignored the clear instructions printed on the primary ballot and had them thrown out due to an inability or disinclination to follow the instructions.

    There are about 50 in my precinct (of 400) who have not voted in any election since Dixie Lee Ray.

    The vast majority of those disenfranchised did it to themselves by staying home.

    When democracy is “convenient” we get people voting for the most familiar names (note how the Republicans recruit people with the last name of “Johnson” to run for judge-ships.)

    We are unlikely to meet in a political contest since I aspire for no higher than my PCO position. One must live in the precinct to run for PCO.
    But it sounds like you have an excellent chance of taking over as PCO in your precinct. Good luck

    May we both volunteer for the presidential preference caucus planning committee in 2012 and make the experience better for all attendees.

  • Ken February 10, 2008 (8:47 pm)

    Note to WSB.

    I do not deny the confusion and complexity in the system. You know I have been complaining about some of it myself here as well as trying to settle some of the glaring ambiguities in the party documentation. The Dems are not above reproach.

    Usually the 34th dems hold a post mortum at the next regular meeting. Ivan will be able to tell you.
    A feed back from the public would be a good idea as well but forgive me if I suspect the republicans will dev/null the comments and sell the email addresses to republican campaigns or use them for their own direct mail targets. I have heard this means I am a cynic.

    This caucus re-enforces a lesson I have to learn over and over. Never assume someone in charge knows what they are doing. I will be recruiting competent people to run for PCO in precincts in my area that either have none of have those who are a mite too confused to be doing the job. I will volunteer for the next caucus planning committees no matter how painful it seems at the time, and I will never ever assume that if the documents state that the area caucus coordinator is to supply something to the precinct chair, that such an item will magically appear.

    I can probably do enough complaining about the process of caucusing to start a forum topic about it … maybe tomorrow.

    As a former media person, could you critique the local media coverage of the caucus vs primary coverage this year? Can confusion over the process in any way be blamed on the inability of local media to get granular for fear of losing viewers at the break?

    I felt it was slightly better (umm less inane) than previous years but I admit I don’t watch any local tv news unless the cat disembowels the remote and I cannot change the channel.

  • T February 10, 2008 (9:08 pm)

    I understand how come our elected officials endorse one candidate over another before the caucus and primary elections. Now that the people have spoken, I believe that it is the duty of representatives to speak on behalf their constituents. I received this e-mail just awhile ago and had to share it:

    To all,

    Please take a couple minutes to do the following:

    1 – read and sign this petition calling on Senators Patty Murray and Maria
    Cantwell to follow the lead of their Washington constituents and endorse
    Senator Obama for the Democratic Presidential nominee

    http://www.petitiononline.com/wasprdel/petition.html

    2 – Forward this email to all of your contacts who are Washington citizens
    and encourage each and every one of them to do the same. It doesn’t matter
    how old or young they are, whether they’re registered to vote, whether they
    caucused, who they caucused for, or even which party they caucused for. I
    think that most anyone can agree that our elected officials should represent
    the interests of the people who chose them.

    My goal is to have 100,000 signatures on this petition.

    Thank you.

    Charlie Davis

    (I’m including his name since it is the first name on the petition)

  • SLK February 10, 2008 (9:30 pm)

    I have read in the newspaper (Seattle Times) and heard on the radio (NPR) many times in the past couple weeks that the primary is essentially meaningless to the Democratic Party. I’m surprised how many people did not seem to realize this as of yesterday. If those people didn’t go to the caucus and don’t want to declare themselves Republicans, they have already missed their chance to be heard.

    I’m sure the 200,000 people who signed the Citizen’s Initiative requiring a primary were well-intentioned. I believe, as they did, that a primary is a much more democratic and fair process. However, what is wrong with our legislature that they would agree to fund a primary, regardless of whether or not the parties choose to recognize it? And what is wrong with the Democratic Party that they are not taking advantage of 10 million dollars of taxpayers’ money and actually paying attention to the primary?

    It is an incredible waste of money and resources to try to have it both ways. If the parties are going to fund their own caucuses anyway, the State needs to stay out of it. If the State is going to waste $10 million, the least they can do is let ALL citizens (Independents, Libertarians, unaffiliated, etc) participate. It’s their tax money too.

  • WSB February 10, 2008 (11:02 pm)

    For those interested in more about the “superdelegates,” there’s an interesting Washington Post story here. It includes a link to a list of all superdelegates, state by state.

  • WSB February 10, 2008 (11:17 pm)

    Ken – I’m not a former media person; WSB is media too. So just call me a “former CITYWIDE media person.” Anyway, I watched very little local TV coverage because I know exactly how that works and I wasn’t going to find out any real information from it … TV is best for other types of breaking news. (I was always the manager in charge of elections and no matter how much we planned, in the end it’s still a series of minute-thirty reports and you can only give the overview.) Online citywide media did a good job of giving the flavor, and as was the case here in WS, from that flavor, it was clear that the result was going to be Obama over Clinton by a 3-to-1 margin, long before the “official” results came in. I was also very proud of our fellow hyperlocal media sources, most of whom also provided lots of info on what was happening in their respective sectors. But the best job pre-caucus IMO came from Slog, which provided abundant links to “how to caucus” that weren’t easy to find elsewhere until one or two days beforehand. For our part, we started talking about the caucuses almost two months ago, weeks before they started getting much play in the area; the 34th DD’s were already doing outreach by then, but as we noted on that December post, it was impossible to find R info at that time.

  • WSB February 11, 2008 (1:33 am)

    Sorry for three additions in a row but this is worth noting and we may not have another caucus followup post for a while:

    A West Seattle Republican has written an open letter to THAT party’s state operation (here).

  • OP February 11, 2008 (10:22 am)

    Awwwwwww, isn’t that first picture cute? She’s already showing her first sign of dementia!

  • MNGirl February 11, 2008 (2:39 pm)

    Just a note from a caucus attendee….we found the caucus to be an interesting exercise in democracy. Yes, there was some confusion and yes, I agree that you should have to show some ID to register to vote in the caucus. But the volunteers did a great job overall. My biggest concern was that there were 3 precincts meeting in one room and we could hardly hear what our chairperson was saying – really need to make sure that each group has their own room. It was great to see our neighbors and hear what people think…. I do agree that either use the primary or the caucus to pick delegates…not both. My mail-in ballot was postmarked before the caucus and I voted for a different candidate at each place as my decision changed.

Sorry, comment time is over.