Submitted by bizgrrl on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 11:41am.
Did you know Washington State has a primary to be held February 19th? In 1989 the Washington State legislature adopted an initiative to, apparently, not only hold a caucus but also hold a primary.
The law states:
The... presidential nominating caucus system in Washington State is unnecessarily restrictive of voter participation in that it discriminates against the elderly, the infirm, women, the disabled, evening workers, and others who are unable to attend caucuses and therefore unable to fully participate in this most important quadrennial event that occurs in our democratic system of government.
A Presidential Primary allows each Washington voter to participate in the nomination process, not just political party insiders who participate in the caucuses.
The Republican Party has elected to use all or part of the primary results to select delegates.
The Democratic Party has elected to never use the primary results to select delegates.
Some of these rules are downright strange. Just as weird is the Texas primary-caucus system. Voters go to the primary and then, with proof of their vote, attend a caucus in the evening. The primary gives 2/3 of the delegates and the caucus the other 1/3. This is why Hillary's demographic advantage in Texas among Latinos may not help her much with delegates. She's not exactly adept at organizing folks for caucuses.
Submitted by JustJohnny on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 12:00pm.
....and an interesting precedent for a state, and state party, to hold both, a primary and a caucus. I suspect the Washington model is similar to the one being bounced around for MI and FL.
I suspect the Washington model is similar to the one being bounced around for MI and FL.
One, that first of all has never been recognized by the Democratic party in Washington and, second, was created because they believe caucuses disenfranchise voters. Why would anyone want to follow that model?
Submitted by JustJohnny on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 2:28pm.
Why would anyone want to follow that model?
...apparently the Democratic Party in Washington State and the absolutely enormous turnout of Democrats who came out to Caucus yesterday.
I certainly understand your passion on the topic, and appreciate your position. I hope the the shot-callers (DNC and FL Dems) have the same sense of passion and decorum that we share on this board when discussing the matter. There is a lot of grey area in between "no delegates" and seating the "primary delegates". I just hope that it is an even playing field for both of our candidates.
Some of these rules are downright strange. Just as weird is the Texas primary-caucus system. Voters go to the primary and then, with proof of their vote, attend a caucus in the evening. The primary gives 2/3 of the delegates and the caucus the other 1/3. This is why Hillary's demographic advantage in Texas among Latinos may not help her much with delegates. She's not exactly adept at organizing folks for caucuses.
....and an interesting precedent for a state, and state party, to hold both, a primary and a caucus. I suspect the Washington model is similar to the one being bounced around for MI and FL.
One, that first of all has never been recognized by the Democratic party in Washington and, second, was created because they believe caucuses disenfranchise voters. Why would anyone want to follow that model?
...apparently the Democratic Party in Washington State and the absolutely enormous turnout of Democrats who came out to Caucus yesterday.
I certainly understand your passion on the topic, and appreciate your position. I hope the the shot-callers (DNC and FL Dems) have the same sense of passion and decorum that we share on this board when discussing the matter. There is a lot of grey area in between "no delegates" and seating the "primary delegates". I just hope that it is an even playing field for both of our candidates.
Post new comment