Any idea how they chose who to poll? I know sometimes they poll only "likely" voters, and to be a "likely" voter you have to have voted in the last election, which many caucusers did not. Just a thought.

I was shocked to find out that Washington had a caucus. I thought it was only for mid-western states that didn't know how to count paper ballots. Why would we have a caucus for the primary and a ballot for the general. It seems antiquated and silly.

The old, stodgy folks in this state will not give up their caucus system easily. They think they know what's best, and want control.

Caucuses do disenfranchise people. I waited two hours to vote in mine. Who else has that kind of time?

I enjoyed the "old school" democracy aspect of of the caucus, but yeah, it's completely unfair. Only people who aren't working during a specific time slot and have a few hours to kill can participate. I'd gladly elect to make it primary-only.

You can send messages to the Dems state party superdelagates and decisionmakers for the next presidential election system here: http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=277

I already sent them a link to the Crosscut article.

Yeah.. cause ya know... anything to make it easier to be an uninformed voter who doesn't have the balls to stand up at a caucus and take a stand for their candidate.

Typical pathetic introverted passive agressive Northwest mentality.

Most voters don't even know a candidates positions, and vote on how they "feel".

Switching to a primary only allows those pathetic shmucks to vote when it is most convenient for them. Heaven forbid they care enough about their country and politics to set time aside in their busy schedules to come PARTICIPATE in the democracy they live in.

America has become the home of the pathetic sloth. Everything is about convenience and anonymity. Forget participation and taking an active learning role in how your state/country is run.

Just give me a drive thru voting experience, 'cause I'm too busy, and need to run to McDonald's for the full meal dollar menu deal.

Geesssshhhh

People with disabilities and/or mobility issues totally get shut out of the process as well. It sucks.

The poll completely ignored the crucial distinction between an open primary (for which Washington voters have repeatedly expressed a preference) and a closed primary (in which only registered party members may vote).

Voting in the general election is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Helping a party select its nominee is a privilege subject to that party's whims. The parties have a First Amendment right to association, including the right to exclude non-members. If you can't be bothered to simply register, let alone volunteering your time and effort, don't be surprised if the party gives you less of a voice in nominating its candidates.

People who demand that the parties let anyone determine their candidates should own up to what they truly are: anti-partisan.

Thanks to our caucus system, Washington will send to Denver a diverse and energized group of delegates elected from the grassroots. If we had a primary, you'd be voting for a slate of delegates--typically large donors and party insiders--chosen by your candidate. That's fundamentally undemocratic.

The one good thing about the caucus system is that it makes it much easier to participate in the delegate process. Now, it's not likely that you would get to be a national delegate, but at least there is a clear path. When voting in Oklahoma and Texas, I wasn't even sure of how to go about it.

@7 Riiiiight, because all of the people at my caucus were totally informed citizens, knowing that Barack Obama "had voted against the war while he was in congress" and all. There are great things about caucusing and discussing politics with your (actually informed)neighbors, don't get me wrong. But just choosing from a bigger pool of potential delegates is not necessarily better, especially when people don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Once again, the ugly head of "I'm All Right, Jack" rears its head amongst elitist Democrats. If you didn't go to your caucus, you're "uninformed", you're lazy, you're a "shmuck", you don't have any balls; you're beneath contempt.

That argument really pisses me off. Reality Check, why don't you come talk to my wife, who knows the issues ten times better than you know the smell of your own finger, about how many balls she's missing? She didn't get to caucus because she had to work.

You think you're some kind of paragon of party virtue because you sat in a room with a bunch of dweebs for a couple of hours? You think that a couple of halting, stumbling one-minute speeches constitute PARTICIPATION? You think people who aren't exactly like you don't count?

Fuck you.

You ain't no fucking Democrat. You're a snob, and a sniveling little retard snob at that. You aren't fit to clean the dirt off my wife's shoes.

I, for one, LOVED going to the caucus this year. I'm excited to be a delegate in the next step, the legislative district caucuses next week. The caucus really brought the neighborhood together, I think it's a great organizing tool for the party.

Oh, Fnarfie-poo:

Our caucuses were held in handicapped-accessible venues, and we had lots of old people, young people, moms with kids, the entire cross-section of society.

Nothing "elitist" about them. That dog won't hunt.

And yes, we will be examining "absentee caucusing" for people who have to work. Maine does it and so can we.

People don't go to caucuses and people don't vote in primaries either. So I respectfully but emphatically do not agree with you about caucuses.

My 87 year old grandma, who is lucid and smarter than me couldn't go to the caucus because she couldn't get a ride. My mom, had to work. I went, and was talked down to by an elitist jackass who wasn't there to debate anything. He was so far up Obama's ass that no amount of policy debate would have swayed him. I came away from the caucus feeling like I was shouting the emperor has no clothes and it didn't matter. Oddly reminiscent of how I felt when Bush was elected.

Jeez. I just want to vote. Walk in, walk out. The same way I vote with my dollars.

Caucuses are ridiculous. There are advantages, for sure, but to knowingly exclude a group of individuals from having a vote (those who have to work, either because they cannot negotiate time off or because, you know, they need the money) is absurd.

Ivan, why do you want to reduce the number of opinions heard?

That's what it boils down to. You DON'T WANT TO KNOW what the other 90% of Democrats think.

Maybe you should check out what the Republicans are doing. In all the other populous states, your kind of exclusion is a Republican thing, not a Democratic one.

And more, from Ivan: "Our caucuses were held in handicapped-accessible venues"

Again: "I got mine, Jack". That's your attitude: "MY caucus was accessible, so the overall caucus system must be fair."

Even though you KNOW, because I just told you, that not all caucuses were accessible. So, I guess your caucus is more important than mine?

If only there was a way to find out what EVERYBODY thinks. Hmmm.....

Fnarf @ 18:

In all the other populous states, there is partisan registration. In those states and for that reason, a primary makes more sense than a caucus.

If we had partisan registration here, we would not have caucuses anymore. But we don't, so we will.

We don't exclude anybody, so cut the bullshit, because I'm not buying it. Most people don't work on Saturdays.

If we had partisan registration, people (maybe not you) still would bitch because we had "disenfranchised" the self-styled "independents." Whatever anybody does, somebody will bitch about it.

If you want to get rid of the caucuses, get rid of nonpartisan registration. Until such time, live with them.

The primaries and caucuses AREN'T for the general public. They are partisan-- only for the members of the party that they represent. They are paid for by the party and the members of the party. People tend to forget about that. Forcing people to come out of their homes and interact once every four years is not a BAD thing. Plus, the caucus system keeps people from just voting on a whim, because they like someone's name or something. You have to come out, interact, talk and debate. It keeps the majority of disinterested, uniformed voters at home-- where they should be. And the process is only long if you want it to be long-- once you show up, sign in, and cast your vote, you are free to go. You don't have to stay through the duration. And it's not like the date of the caucus was a surprise to anyone. I normally work every Saturday, but because politics are so important to me, and this election is so important to me, I requested that Saturday off months in advance. There's nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same.

It never stops, does it? "We don't exclude anybody [...] Most people don't work on Saturdays.

Most = everybody in your world. I just told you that my wife had to work on Saturday, along with seven other people (they went 6-2 Obama in an informal lunchroom thing). But "we don't exclude anybody". Huh? Are you completely deaf to how obnoxious and stupid and dishonest that sounds?

There were HUNDREDS of people working right in the neighborhood around my caucus site. More than were at the caucuses. You're wrong, and by your own words you're wrong, and yet you don't see it. Remarkable.

It's almost enough to put one off of Democrats altogether.

Fnarf @ 19:

In the 34th Legislative District, every single one of 18 caucus sites, which comprised 206 precincts and 10,737 attendees (52 per precinct) was fully handicapped-accessible.

If yours wasn't, take it up with your LD chair. If yours wan't, somebody dropped the ball. But don't make out like your experience was somehow representative. We were told in no uncertain terms that we had to make our caucuses accessible, and we did our damnedest to make that happen.

Your posts on this topic begin to take on the unmistakable whiff of provocation. The caucuses were a roaring success, but you can't seem to stand it, can you? Always another scab to pick, isn't there?

Fnarf @ 22:

And if those hundreds of people working on that Saturday had been mailed a primary ballot, do you have any evidence that they would have filled them out, or even opened them?

You don't. So calling what I say obnoxious and stupid means nothing to me. I'm guessing that even if we went to some form of absentee caucusing in 2012 you'd still find some flaw in the system that would "put you off the Democrats."

Ask me if I care. We'll find 10 new ones for every one of you.

Fnarf, WTF? Here's the proxy form. Maybe the enumerated reasons for cacusing by proxy should be expanded, but you've gone completely over the deep end on this one. Take your meds!

http://www.wa-democrats.org/pdf/uploaded/16_-_2008_Precinct_Caucuses_-_Surrogate_Affidavit_Form.pdf

@8 - all Dem caucus sites were ADA-accessible.

Just because you had problems, doesn't mean we didn't bend over backwards to make it easy for you.

You are completely and utterly full of shit, Will. You weren't at my caucus. Don't tell me what's what; YOU WEREN'T FUCKING THERE.

And as to transit - you can call and reserve paratransit if you're retired.

Again - all the sites were chosen so you could get to them. And we still ran out of room due to even larger turnout that is bigger than any we have had in our more than 100 years of holding caucus elections for this state - which is how we always elect delegates.

If you haven't clued in after 100 years ... well, you need a lot more than a wheelchair ...

Also, by requiring registration at the caucusus, the parties get to build lists of committed members--pretty useful stuff. Lots of voters are committed party members but don't have spare funds to contribute to a campaign and so don't make it on to the party's radar screen.

Look, the only exceptions were retirement homes - which by law are ADA-accessible - and people's houses. Take it up with your district - but my bet is what you don't think is "accessible" is in fact "ADA-compliant".

Now go back to bed, Fnarf.

Proxy votes in caucuses are only allowed for those who have disabilities, are outside the area for military service, or follow a religious observance. They are not allowed for those who simply can't get rides, have to work, who have to take care of small children, or who aren't legally "disabled" but who can't stand around on a gym floor for over 2 hours. The facility may have been ADA accessible under normal circumstances, but it was so overcrowded that there was nowhere to sit or even stand comfortably.

Caucusing IS exclusive of many people. Fortunately, I was able to go. But I do not delude myself into thinking that it was or is possible for everyone to do the same, regardless of any so-called fault.

Ivan, arguing with Fnarf on this point is pointless because Fnarf is dishonest and could give two fucks in a dead rat's ass less about the handicapped not being able to get to a caucus, he's just using them as a rhetorical point to buttress his argument.

Also Fnarf, if your wife is so smart and well-informed then why is she married to a pathetic, puling little douchebag like you?

This has GOT to be changed. Yes there are a few good things about caucus (getting to discuss issues with your neighbors being one of them) but the disadvantates FAR outweigh any good. People ARE disenfranchised. It is ridiculous and we've got to change it.

What kind of "roaring success" gets only 200,000 people in a state of six million?

Would everyone fill out their ballot? No, of course not. Would more than 200,000 fill it out? Of course they would.

In what universe is "more than 200,000" less than 200,000?

Why don't you want to hear from the others?

Could you enumerate the party platform positions that are served by restricting access to the election? What does it serve, besides the power needs of a bunch of sniveling little Wills in Seattle, who like to make themselves feel important by controlling a process that everyone sound have access to?

We've heard from Andrew, who is explicit about not wanting to hear from more people. What's your reason? Why are you arguing against DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION? What agenda are you trying to protect? The Democratic party could use more democracy, not less. Whatever happened to ideas like "get out the vote"? What do caucuses have to do with Democratic ideals and positions? NOTHING, that's what.

Look, I'm playing your sad little game. I went to my caucus; I'm an Obama delegate. I'll be at the district convention with all the other sad little wanna-be players. But unlike you, I'm not afraid of my neighbors' opinions. I'm not afraid that DEMOCRACY might interfere with the selection of my chosen candidate. And I'm not afraid to open up my closed little private party to the real world.

Listen up, Will. You're wrong.

My caucus was moved because of overflow. It was moved to the third floor.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You NEVER know what the fuck you're talking about; you are the stupidest, wrongest motherfucking blog commenter in the history of the universe.

YOU WEREN'T THERE.

Fucking assholes, the whole lot of you. Wile_e_coyote, you say that to my face and you're going to need some expensive dental work.

Fnarf @ 34:

I get that you would prefer a primary. So are you ready to require, by law, partisan registration in this state for voters to participate in primaries that nominate candidates for general elections? Yes or no?

I don't mean "pick a party" when you fiull out your ballot. I mean "register as a Democrat, or as a Republican, or as a Green, or as a Brown, or as an 'independent.'" and have that on your registration card.

Yes or no? Because that's where it starts, and nowhere else.

Sure. Doesn't matter to me either way. I'm a Democrat.

Heaven forbid someone have to get off their lazy ass and once, ONCE, every four god-damned years, spend a few minutes in a line or hours in a crowded room, to contribute a vote and maybe even a voice to democracy. Wow. What a lot to ask for, Dan.

Would you like everything to be comfy and convenient? What the hell ARE you willing to get out and do for a democracy? Why not just install easily-tampered-with Diebold software as part of all Windows Vista Operating Systems and the next Apple or Linux Upgrade so we don't even have to interrupt our slogging?

We get the democracy we deserve, the one we're willing to work for. Or not. Maybe that explains the Bush Dark Ages...

Wow,

Fnarf is a doucebag.

And by the way, I like how Wile_e_coyote is attacking me for "butressing my argument". Because, you know, having actual facts to support an argument is so ridiculous.

As for your "proxy form": this is just more of what I'm talking about: fifth-string party hacks futzing over trivial rule details instead of figuring out who people want to be their nominee. By, you know, asking them.

At my caucus, my PCO and his secretary (his wife), who has been PCO for ages, spent most of his time fooling around with the confusing paperwork. His secretary used "a spreadsheet someone gave me" to figure out how the delegates were to be allocated -- so confidence-inspiring. I'm pretty sure that the form listing our alternate delegates was filled out incorrectly, or possibly even that we selected them on an incorrect basis; we picked four Obama alternates (for the four primary ones), and one Clinton alternate; but the form just listed 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. So, if an Obama delegate doesn't show, do we pick the 1st alternate, even though that's a Clinton delegate? Nobody knows.

This isn't democracy, it's junior high civics class. The process is unnecessarily complex -- and like all systems that are unnecessarily complex, it serves to exclude. A rational person, when confronted with the way things were done there in that room, would conclude "this is bullshit, I got things to do".

Our caucus system is designed to record the will of a small-potatoes rural community meeting in the Grange Hall down by the VFW, not a modern electronic powerhouse state with six million residents.

Gee, seriously?, I don't know what a "doucebag" is, but doucebags get to vote too.

I'm with Fnarf on this 100%. The same thing happened at my caucus site (unless it was the same caucus site), with the overflow and the moving upstairs. But the exclusion of so many opinions is what really bugs me. Caucuses are designed to limit the number of voices that matter, just admit it. If everyone was magically able to take the same day off work and show up, a caucus wouldn't even be feasible with those numbers of people. Look what happened with the "roaring success" this year: a lot of disorganization and confusion. And with the nature of the media today, and the way people who care about it probably talk politics with their friends and neighbors anyway, I wonder how meaningful the "debates" and short speeches that happen at caucuses are.

I'd prefer a primary, open or closed, it doesn't matter to me.

Sorry Fnarf,

DOUCHBAG.

Swing and a miss, seriously?; you're down 0-2 now. Three strikes and you're out, remember. I'm starting to think you just can't hit the "douchbag".

It was a joke, Fnarf,

Fucktard sounds better anyway. I don't want to fall victim to Trollachracy, I don't think a national primary would be a good idea. Having a caucus might not be the best option for every state though, including WA.

The only reason it seemed otherwise here on Slog is because, of course, those 10 percent are louder and more obnoxious than everyone else.

For crissake. Yes, a caucus is exclusionary. It's SUPPOSED to be exclusive to members of THAT PARTY to choose the PARTY'S NOMINEE. Personally, I don't much care for it, but it is the only way for someone who's not a regular worker bee in the party to get to be a delegate - I went to National in 2004, despite being a complete unknown (I won the election on the basis of a 90-second speech).

If you want a primary, then great. I do too. Let's support partisan registration, then. I'm perfectly happy to register as a Democrat, because I know that it is not going to be tattooed on my forehead; if, at some point in the future, the party goes off the rails and I no longer support their platform, I can CHANGE MY REGISTRATION. What a concept.

I don't understand why the people of this state are such bucketheads about partisan registration. "But I'm an independent!" Fine, then don't vote in the primary - it is the PARTY'S method of choosing THEIR nominee - and vote for whomever you wish in the general. No one is stopping you from crossing party lines in the general!

GAWD!

You're out, Seriously? You have failed to correctly spell "douchebag".

I only hope you can field.

Spencer @ 43 says:

"I'd prefer a primary, open or closed, it doesn't matter to me."
--
It matters to the Supreme Court of the United States, which upheld a U.S. Circuit Court ruling that the "open primary" is unconstitutional.

So no open primary for you, sorry. If people want a presidential primary here, they will have to accept partisan registration to get it.

After this election maybe Fnarf can turn his energy to ridding the country of that stronghold of elitism, the New England town hall meeting. Everyone knows how disenfranching that is.

As for the caucuses, why should just any old party member be allowed to be elected a delegate when the party instead could use hackable software on machines of questionable provenance to elect unknown delegates to a convention held two time zones away. Obviously a primary is far more efficient, and easier, so it *must* be better.

I TOTALLY agree. I attended one here in Nevada and it was the most disorganized mess I've ever seen. A primary would have been quick, clean, and easy, not to mention more people could have voted.

I don't think that's correct.

Other states have open primaries; in Virginia, for instance, any registered voter can vote in any primary (but only one of them).

According to Wikipedia, closed primaries have also been found to be unconstitutional by the US Supremes. These rulings really only apply to very specific wordings for primary law. What was found to be unconstitutional in Washington (but not yet decided by the Supremes) was Initiative 872, not the concept of open primaries.

@35 - so now it turns out your site WAS ADA-compliant, it WAS accessible, but your PCO moved it because too many people showed up?

Man, Fnarf, I had to send two precincts into the park next door and the parking lot next door cause we had too many people. Even though we literally DOUBLED the number of sites and capacity from the RECORD 2006 caucus turnout.

Tough. We tried. So your PCO is a prick - go complain to him/her - stop trying to blame the party which bent over backwards to make it ADA-compliant in the first place.

ok kids - do I need to seperate you?

Here is a question no one is asking - but I'm pretty sure of the answer. For all of you raving about the caucus how many of you attended your caucus four or eight years ago?

My guess is not many. You guys aren't about caucuses...you're about the cult of personality.

There's never been a truer statement: youth is wasted on the young.

You're a fucking idiot, Will. Not only do you not know when the Civil War took place, you also don't know when the last presidential caucuses took place -- even though they were only four years ago. Two thousand FOUR, Will, not six.

And your record-smashing performance incorporates a pathetic three percent of the population of the state. Good on ya, mate.

And I guess I'm not going to get a response to the fact that open primaries ARE legal and are held in other states, am I?

Excuses, excuses.