Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Hearts and Minds | Have You Seen This Man? »

Monday, February 11, 2008

Re: A Few Thoughts on the Caucus

posted by on February 11 at 12:13 PM

While caucuses do privilege the well-informed (Slog readers, that’s you) and those who do not have to work on weekends, they are more democratic than primaries in one small but important way: They provide a path for ordinary voters to represent their candidate at the national convention. When you cast your vote in a primary, you’re asking some party hack you’ve never met and whom you will never speak to to represent you in Denver.

True, it’s tough to make it through to national from the precinct level—party insiders have the edge. It’s still possible, and I love that.

It does suck that some people are disenfranchised because they work on weekends. So why don’t we do like Maine and permit absentee balloting? Sounds like platform plank…

RSS icon Comments

1

This may just be a rare bit of honesty from the Democratic party. That is, they don't actually give a crap about the opinion of the poor or working class.

Posted by Mahtli69 | February 11, 2008 12:21 PM
2

That's a stretch. The participation rates in non-early caucus states like ours are pathetic. Just wait and see how many more people vote in our irrelevant Democratic primary than participated in the caucus.

Posted by Bison | February 11, 2008 12:23 PM
3

Um, so your neighbors who have to work or can't climb stairs don't actually get to enjoy this magnificent benefit of possibly knowing your delegate either way. And for the vast majority of caucus attendees, they don't really know any more about their delegate than they do this putative party hack, because they only saw him for 30 seconds in a big meeting.

That seems to be the theme for caucus lovers: I'm sorry if it sucks to be you, because it's FANTASTIC for me. Look, I even hooked up!

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 12:26 PM
4

Correction: we do have absentee participation in Washington, at least on the Democratic side. It's called a surrogacy affidavit form.

Posted by Brendan | February 11, 2008 12:31 PM
5

@4: That's for people in the military, Saturday Sabbath observers, or people who have a disability which would prevent them from attending. I am proposing that absentee balloting be expanded to anyone who wants it, and that it should not require a physical proxy.

Posted by annie | February 11, 2008 12:36 PM
6

I think caucuses are horrible. They definitely benefit people with a louder, combative approach. In our precinct this played itself out with a few loud 50 something white men yelling at a few mild mannered woman who were perfectly pleasant but really felt uncomfortable being talked over by a few jerks who made it clear that they think Hillary Clinton is a bitch (ball buster, feminazi and basically too mouthy and 'polarizing').

I went into the whole thing as a supporter of Hillary who was also very pro-Obama. It was only two weeks ago that I was tipped into the Hillary camp.

The Obama supporters in my precinct were a real turn off. The underlying sexism and the nature of caucusing in general sucked! I am trying not to hold this bad experience against Obama but it was really disheartening. It was also very eye-opening. The sexism in our own Democratic party really made me sour about the participating. And, I have always been an engaged activist so I am really bummed out about the whole thing.

I never want to caucus again (and I am a 4 of 4 voter). I really hope we get rid of this system.

Posted by Disheartened | February 11, 2008 12:40 PM
7

So go the other way: all delegates selected by the primary, which allows anyone to vote; and then hold caucuses where people who are keen can talk to their neighbors.

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 12:41 PM
8

Democracy should not be easy and convenient. Nothing easy and convenient is any good. Think microwave dinners or that regrettable drunken hook-up.

I hate that our society is doing everything in its power to in order avoid interacting with anyone outside of our chosen social cirlce.

People who can't make to their caucus because of work have plenty of time (four years between these things, in fact!) to make plans. I, myself, was pissed when I found out that our caucuses were on Saturday, because I had other plans I had to cancel.

My roommate walked down to our caucus site, registered his preference and went home to finish recovering from surgery. So a big "fuck you" to all the whiners who don't want to associate with their neighbors on caucus day.

Real Democracy involves interacting with your neighbors. Real Democracy is inconvenient. Deal with it.

Posted by povertyrich | February 11, 2008 12:50 PM
9

I know folks with kids who finally had to leave b/c it was really tough to deal with kids in the chaotic and cramped rooms.

I also agree that this process shows a real difference between men and women. The men were definitely more irritating to deal with loudly stating their opinions in absolutes whereas the women (on both sides) would start out from a point of consensus stating things like... "I think both candidates are great but here is why I support so and so". (I think some of the dudes in my precinct thought it was called Cock-Ass...and that they should act like a cock or an ass or both!)

Maybe the process will get smoother in time but if the Dem's are going to continue using caucuses as the vehicle for electing the nominee then I would say they need to spend more money for training and organization.

Posted by No Cock-Asses! | February 11, 2008 12:53 PM
10

I for one am very happy for the primaries, because they give Slog something to bitch about other than Erica, Ecce or Dan's support of the war.

Posted by Change is good! | February 11, 2008 12:58 PM
11

@9

Keep in mind, turnout was huge. The first thing my precinct officer said was "Oh my! There's a lot of us!"

And Donate money to your District Democrats. In the end, they're more important than which of the two Beltway Democrats gets the nomination.

Posted by povertyrich | February 11, 2008 12:59 PM
12

It does suck that some people are disenfranchised because they work on weekends.

No one can be "disenfranchised" from participating in a party caucus because voters don't have a right to nominate a party's candidate. If a party wants to let you participate in a caucus, vote in primary, or engage in trial-by-combat, that's up to the party. If you're not a member, you can't complain about their rules.

Posted by Olo | February 11, 2008 1:02 PM
13

It's worse than just the Saturday thing, though. I couldn't stay at my caucus to hear the speeches and watch the whole process becuase there wasn't anywhere to sit down and I have knee problems that make it impossible for me to stand still for longer than about 20 minutes at a time. My room was full of elderly people with canes, most of whom left before I did, and I'm sure for the same reasons. They are badly organized, badly handled, and the people in charge give no thought whatsoever to the disabled. It leaves out of the process FAR more than just those who have to work on Saturday afternoons. I got left out too. I was pretty frustrated and disappointed by the whole thing.

Posted by Jane | February 11, 2008 1:02 PM
14

@6 - I agree that loud asses can really dominate in this process. I switched my vote from Obama to Hillary because I was totally offended by a couple of (yes, I hate to admit it, white men) Obama bullies who were tossing coded sexism out at the minority Hillary contingent.

We had 17 Hillary people and all but 2 were woman (compared to like 32 Obama folks). It made me so mad watching these few arrogant men bully the Clinton supporters. I switched my vote because of it, not b/c I support her over Obama but b/c I got a bad taste in my mouth about it. At the time I did not attribute it to sexism but now that I think about it maybe that is what I was reacting too. My change of vote for Hillary was a vote against the bullying and undertones of the conversation. Yuck!

I think we Obama supporters are going to have to be much more careful about the undertone of the attacks we make on Clinton because we really will need 'all of us' to defeat McCain in the general.

Posted by Change | February 11, 2008 1:13 PM
15

Way to take a stand for principle, Change.

Did you bother to say anything to the loud asses, or did you wait for someone else to do it?

I witnessed none of these horror stories at my caucus site. Everyone was pretty fucking excited to be taking part in what will likely be a historic election.

I guess some people just have to complain about something.

Posted by povertyrich | February 11, 2008 1:27 PM
16

povertyrich @ 15 - Yes, I said something several times in the whole group and then finally pulled one guy aside who was particularly bad.

Posted by Change | February 11, 2008 1:32 PM
17

povertyrich @ 15 -- By the way, it finally took my husband telling the one really bad loud ass to can it before he (sorta) listened.

Posted by Change | February 11, 2008 1:34 PM
18

change, obama supporters may not need to take on hillary supporters after march 4th if things go swimmingly well for us. you can just point to the counts and say "scoreboard"

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 11, 2008 1:38 PM
19

@ 6 et.al.

Speaking of changing the rules: at our caucus, the convenor mentioned that participants would have the opportunity to present resolutions at the caucus' conclusion.

A resolution to abolish the caucuses in favor of Tuesday all-day primaries (with absentee opportunities) would seem to be obvious. We'll see if anyone (Pelz) is listening.

The second most obvious resolution in this election is - especially concerning loud-mouthed white men who hate Hillary - this:

"If it is just plain wrong to refer publicly to Barack Obama as a n****r, it is just as morally reprehensible to refer publicly to Hillary Clinton as a b***h*."

This resolution should also apply to the Slog where in my view (yes, Elenchos I'm using a personal pronoun) misogyny equals racism.

Posted by BELMONT PLACE | February 11, 2008 1:44 PM
20

@ 6, 9 and 14 -- I am glad to hear that I am not the only one who felt this way. I am a Clinton supporter and I have to admit that I felt intimidated to speak out very much in what was a huge sea of rabid Obama people.

I said a few things (I thought in a very reasonable, civil and respectful way) about why I liked Hillary's stance on Universal Healthcare. Then a white haired man in his 50's yelled at me about Hillary being in the pockets of the pharmaceutical and insurance industry.

Being outnumbered like that and having people yell at me after I stated my feelings certainly did not make me want to stand up and talk again. Other Clinton people sitting near me said the same thing.

Posted by Did not have fun caucusing | February 11, 2008 1:51 PM
21

Change,

I'm glad you did, and I apologize for sort of insinuating that you hadn't.

Posted by povertyrich | February 11, 2008 1:54 PM
22

@4, @5 - don't forget followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As we know, it is religious practice for those of us not blessed to be Pirates (who are exempt from this stricture) to work but not vote on Saturdays, and partake of a spaghetti or noodle meal at some point during the Day Of Work.

Politics of course, is forbidden, except for Pirates, who naturally can do as they please.

Since we were not made in His Invisible Image, we are naturally imperfect, and unable to both work and vote and need Saturday off to party and work instead.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 11, 2008 2:01 PM
23
I also agree that this process shows a real difference between men and women. The men were definitely more irritating to deal with loudly stating their opinions in absolutes

Ah, another story of the evil caucus thugs. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there were but a couple of obnoxious guys in your caucus who dominated the discussion, and you are ascribing their obnoxiousness to all things male. In mine, everyone was actually quite polite, the negativity was kept to a minimum, and (amazingly) people waited their turn to talk.

So ... clearly YMMV.

Posted by tsm | February 11, 2008 2:03 PM
24

the obama supporters at mine were obnoxious and spewing talking points. one was saying how great his red state wins were (want to bet on the red states in the general) and when asked about harold ford and what happened to him in the general - the supportr said that was before his time- really nov 2006 before your time? they think hrc has attacked obama - they don't have a clue what the republicans will do to him.

i'll support him gladly but his supporters had better get a lot better.

Posted by brilliant | February 11, 2008 2:09 PM
25

Hey, povertyrich: no, fuck YOU.

"So a big "fuck you" to all the whiners who don't want to associate with their neighbors on caucus day" you say. Which puts you in the "I'm all right Jack" camp. Fuck everybody else. Got to work? Can't climb stairs? Eat shit and die, nobody cares what you think. Right? That's what you're saying, RIGHT?

What a miserable anti-democratic sack of vomit you are.

200,000 is NOT a great turnout, it's a terrible turnout for a state with what, 3 million Democrats in it?

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 2:19 PM
26

In a state where the general election is more or less mail-in, the caucus system in principle runs the risk of selecting a candidate (for the walk-in minority) who doesn't sit well with the mail in masses. That could in principle hurt voter incentive in the fall.

Posted by kinaidos | February 11, 2008 2:22 PM
27

@14. "i think we obama supporters... uh, if you voted for clinton, i'm hardly going to consider you an obama supporter at this time. you are a clinton supporter.

and yes, bullying is bad. it would be nice if someone stood up to the bullies. but a few bullies don't mean that obama or the numerous other supporters are also sexist. we dislike the bullying as much as you do. and i do speak up when i see it. (and have numerous times here on slog.)

furthermore, one candidate outnumbering another doesn't automatically equate to bullying. it demonstrates popularity. and yes, it is uncomfortable to be in the minority.

Posted by infrequent | February 11, 2008 2:28 PM
28

"furthermore, one candidate outnumbering another doesn't automatically equate to bullying. it demonstrates popularity. and yes, it is uncomfortable to be in the minority."

...which completely ignores the bullying behavior that was described by the posters.

"we dislike the bullying as much as you do."

Unfortunately you only speak for yourself. Clearly there were folks out there caucusing for Obama that think bullying was just swell.

Posted by Bison | February 11, 2008 2:39 PM
29

Fnarf @25

100,000 people showed up in 2004. I'd say doubling the turnout is pretty fucking great.

Sure, it'd be great if every registered Democrat turned out, but then all you whiners would be whining even more about how inconvenient it is to participate in your Democracy.

Primaries and caucuses always have relatively small turnouts. Not that many people care that much about wonky party machinations. Even in states where lazy fucks get to vote from the safety of their kitchen tables.

Posted by povertyrich | February 11, 2008 2:56 PM
30

You caucus-haters all fail to understand the one step this state must take -- it is not negotiable -- before the parties even THINK about getting rid of them.

That step is partisan registration. Without it there is no primary -- not ever.

Deal or STFU.

Posted by ivan | February 11, 2008 3:04 PM
31

My precinct turned out over one-third of all registered voters for the Democratic caucus. That's not too much less than a typical primary turnout, and perhaps there might have been a few Republicans at their equivalent event.

While Obama cleaned up in the six precincts at my site, there wasn't a hint of acrimony in any of the caucuses. As site coordinator, I was very, very happy about that ... no headaches for me!

Posted by N in Seattle | February 11, 2008 3:09 PM
32

What Ivan said!

On more than one occasion, I've marveled that Washingtonians appear to be more forthcoming about their sexual preferences than their political preferences. Sometimes, it seems like they're more likely to tell you their HIV status than their political party of choice.

As someone who grew up in a party-registration state, and who had always resided in party-registration states before moving here, this astonishes me.

Posted by N in Seattle | February 11, 2008 3:22 PM
33

So, Povertyrich, fewer than 10% of the Democrats is a "pretty fucking great" turnout? I think I'll stand by my "anti-democratic" comment. Why don't you want to hear from the other 90%?

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 3:50 PM
34

Compared to 2004, yes, it's prety fucking great. DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PARTICIPATED IN OUR DEMOCRACY THIS TIME AROUND! What don't you understand about that?

You will never, ever, ever get a majority of registerd voters to turnout for a primary election, whether it's by ballot or caucuses. Ten percent is probably a large chunk, compared to caucuses past. Most people, even people who will show up in November, simply don't care that much.

And where do you get that I don't want to hear from the other 90%? Let 'em all come on down to the caucuses in 2012. I'll be happy to talk politics over a cup of PTA coffee.

Ain't Democracy grand!

Posted by povertyrich | February 11, 2008 4:07 PM
35

They CAN'T, fuckhead, because they HAVE TO WORK.

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 4:14 PM
36

You're stretching like a sprinter just before the 100 yard dash, Fnarf.

Posted by povertyrich | February 11, 2008 4:27 PM
37

And the system would completely break if turnout was even as high as an offyear school levy vote. It almost broke in a lot of places with just 200,000. The system is designed to exclude, to keep party control with a small number of insiders. That's anti-democratic.

So is your casual dismissal of anyone who can't caucus as "lazy fucks". I'm not a lazy fuck; I went to my caucus. My wife isn't a lazy fuck; at her workplace they held a pretend caucus, pretending their voices are of interest to the Politburo (6-2 Obama, by the way).

People who are shy are not lazy fucks. Neither are old or poor people who don't have computers and thus can't find their caucus location. Neither are people who can't climb stairs, or can't stand for long periods. Explain to me again how all these people SHOULD be excluded from voting? And how dedicated democratists like you, with your shirtsleeves rolled up and your fumbling little one-minute speeches and your little scraps of paper are somehow participating in REAL democracy? You think? You think you know more about the issues than kitchen-table voters? Really?

I think you're full of crap. I think you hold your high-school civics theater more important than hearing the voice of the people. I think you hold those of your neighbors who don't submit themselves to your bureaucracy and your bullying tactics as less worthy of being counted. I think, Mister "fuck you", that you embody the spirit of those shouting Obama supporters. You LIKE it that way. Filling out a ballot, where's the aggro in that? Right? Am I right?

Maybe you'd be happier if you took your eighteenth-century town hall politics back to the eighteenth century, and let the rest of us participate in the modern world. And VOTE.

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 4:31 PM
38

i have an elegant solution; caucus provides the referendum vote for the primary to either confirm or refute the results of the primary.

.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 11, 2008 4:59 PM
39

i have an elegant solution; caucus provides the referendum vote for the primary to either confirm or refute the results of the caucus


.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 11, 2008 4:59 PM
40

Don't pull a muscle, there Fnarf.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about someone you don't know.

Posted by povertyrich | February 11, 2008 5:11 PM
41

I know only what I read. I believe I have interpreted what I read correctly. If I haven't, it's because you have failed to express yourself accurately. Maybe you shouldn't have started off with "fuck you" and "lazy fucks" and the like. Maybe you should, you know, express a glimmer of understanding that a lot of working people can't caucus.

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 5:35 PM
42

"You're making an awful lot of assumptions about someone you don't know."

Jesus, and this is from a guy who's going around calling people lazy fucks because they don't like caucuses. Hello irony.

Posted by Bison | February 11, 2008 5:35 PM
43

Caucuses are bad for people who really want to live in a democracy but can't spare TWO WHOLE HOURS, 120 full minutes every four years to help select a candidate. Oh the humanity!


Oh, and while we're on the subject of boorish Obama supporters, anecdotes of which no doubt delight the Clinton supporters out there, let me bring up the Clinton supporter at my caucus who told us that Obama was a Muslim who had taken his oath on the Qu'ran. From this I can obviously generalize that all Clinton supporters are all deranged hate-filled bigots, right?

Posted by wile_e_quixote | February 11, 2008 7:27 PM
44

Oh yes, nobody could ever have circumstances in their lives that preclude the possibility of them attending a caucus. Clearly they are a bunch of lazy degenerates whose opinions shouldn't matter in a democratic society anyway.

Posted by Bison | February 11, 2008 7:43 PM
45

Fnarf @ one of his many ranting posts.


...or can't climb stairs don't actually get to enjoy this magnificent benefit of possibly knowing your delegate either way.

Fnarf, take your putative concern for the disabled and shove it in your ass. Seriously, I, hate, hate, hate people like you when you spout this shit and feel like kicking your patronizing ass right into next week with my prosthetic foot, and I know that I'm not the only gimp who feels this way. Being handicapped sucks. Being handicapped and being patronized and pigeonholed by self-righteous assholes sucks even more. You could give a fucking rat's ass less about the handicapped, you're just using this point to bolster your argument.


For the record my all of the rooms my caucus location were handicap accessible, the moderator repeatedly asked if there were people who needed special assistance to get to their location. I have no doubt that if there had been someone who wanted to get into a room that by some chance wasn't handicap accessible that they would have found a room that was accessible for them to meet in. Hell, they even had a checkbox on the sign-in sheet that I could have filled out to indicate that I was a "person with disability". I didn't check it because I still would have been at the caucus this year even if I still had two good legs and for that matter was also incredibly good looking and had a 14 inch penis.


I hate to bum your liberal do-gooder high Fnarf, but most handicapped people aren't the helpless, pathetic, Tiny-Tim like cripples that you think they are and the caucuses were not set up as some evil conspiracy to disenfranchise the disabled.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | February 11, 2008 7:56 PM
46

Ivan @30 said:

You caucus-haters all fail to understand the one step this state must take -- it is not negotiable -- before the parties even THINK about getting rid of them.


That step is partisan registration. Without it there is no primary -- not ever.

Unless you're a Republican.

Deal or STFU.

You're proving all the Republicans who say that Democrats are just a bunch of elitists who don't care about democracy right.

Posted by Mike of Renton | February 11, 2008 7:57 PM
47

Mike of Renton:

And you're just proving that you don't know jack shit about politics. You want to get something, you have to give something.

Posted by ivan | February 11, 2008 9:25 PM
48

@47

No, I understand perfectly.

Your party wants me to vote for it's candidate in November. If you're not going accept my input on a who that candidate should be, you're a lot more likely to pick one I won't vote for.

Posted by Mike of Renton | February 11, 2008 11:12 PM
49

48:

Neither you or I nor anyone else get to have things all our own way all the time, for only our reasons.

You want us to choose our delegates with a primary? You want to vote in that primary? I say the price for that is that we get your name on a registration form as a Democrat.

What the fuck does that have to do with candidates? Candidates come and they go. How the hell do you know who "we" are more likely to pick, and who you might vote for?

In other words, you're talking bullshit, right out of your ass.

Posted by ivan | February 12, 2008 5:48 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).