An open letter to the Washington State Democratic Party, from a new resident

[PatGund]

I recently wrote you all to ask about the caucus process, as I work on the 9th and I wanted to see if I could show up later and take part in the process.

As I am a new resident to the state of Washington, and had previously lived in a state with no caucus, I had some very valid questions and concerns that I wanted answered.

To date, (9 Feb) you have not even bothered to respond to my emails except for an auto-reply.

This is irritating in that:

a) it's quite rude

b) To a new resident unfamiliar with the caucus process, it's more than slightly insulting

c) unlike the Washington State GOP, which is allocating 51% of their delegates to the caucus and 49% to the primary election on 19 Feb, you are allocating 100% of your delegates in the caucus. Which effectively nukes the opinion or vote of anyone who can't make it to the caucus but can make it to the primary.

As such, it looks more and more that I will be waiting until the 19th and casting a vote for Ron Paul. He may not be my primary choice, (at this time I'd prefer to vote for Sen. Obama), but at least if I vote for Paul, I know that my vote on the 19th will be taken into account, unlike a meaningless vote that you will not take into account because it's not a caucus vote.

[yewberry]

1. What?

First of all, you're addressing DUers, not the WA state party. We're not responsible for what you perceive as rude or insulting. I think the system we have in place is stupid, but I'm not going to vote for a lunatic because of it.

If you work on the 9th, no, you can't caucus. Ta-da! There's your answer.

You want to vote for a republican, go right ahead, but don't look for a lot of sympathy here.

[PatGund]

2. Wow. How condescending

Since I've been on DU since 2003, it's not like I'm a newcomer here. So I know DAMN well that this isn't attached to the Democratic Party of any state. Obviously my venting about the stupidity of the Washington State Democratic Party confused you.

So far what I've seen of the caucus system doesn't impress me. Voting in a primary - you have a 12 hour window to cast your vote, Caucus, you have maybe a 90 minute window at best, And based on other posts from other people, I wasn't the only person in Washington who couldn't caucus - or was pissed because the state Democratic party has decided that votes cast in the primary election are meaningless.

It's ironic that the party that's doing more to destroy democracy is at least counting primary votes and allocating some of their delegates accordingly. Whereas the party that's fighting to protect democracy won't.

In terms of disappointments for me, it ranks up there with Kerry's loss and Wes Clark's endorsement of Sen. Clinton.

[yewberry]

3. You reap what you sow.

Venting is great, but you're posting an 'open letter to the WA Democratic party' on a Dem website, in the WA forum. We're not responsible for the state party's failure to answer your questions, and the state party isn't responsible for your inability to get a Saturday afternoon off.

Don't expect me to defend caucuses, because I think primaries are a much better way to handle the process. I do think that the locals did a damned good job of setting them up, at least based on my experience. And the caucus/primary thing? Did you not understand my impression of this particular state quirk? Stated clearly: WA is completely stupid on this issue. The only reason we have a primary is because it's mandated by state law, but when there was an attempt to do away with the caucus, groups on both sides of the aisle objected.

Admire the republicans (who are allowing vote-splitting with their process) and go ahead and vote for one of them. Ron Paul is a whackjob, but if being able to vote for a candidate, any candidate, is what you are looking for, then vote republican. If your inability to caucus for a candidate is equal in your mind to Kerry's 'loss' to Bush in the GE, so be it. I don't think that's a reasonable position, but go for it.

[PatGund]

7. You misunderstand. Again.

Funny, I didn't say I admired the republicans. I merely said it was ironic that the party who's leaders are trying to destroy our democracy are allowing peoples votes to count. It was the same in Florida and the other state that had a "rouge primary". The GOP cut their delegate count in half. The Democratic party refused ALL delegates. Washington state, simular thing. The state decreed a primary, the parties wanted a caucus. The GOP went with a half-and-half situation, the Democratic party refused to acknowledge votes cast in the primary.

As I said, it's ironic that the least democratic party is actually allowing people's votes to count. And the party that we need to restore this country isn't.

From what I understand, the caucus system allows more of the "party faithful" to take part. The primary allows more of the public to take part. Logically, a half-and-half system would combine the best of both worlds for such, allowing those that can take part in a caucus to do so, and those that can't to still take part in the process. The Washington State Democratic Party, by refusing to acknowledge the primary votes, discourages people from voting - which effects other propositions on the ballot too. I completely agree with you it's stupid.

[eridani]

4. Caucus states have far stronger and more active Dem parties

The people who attend are the worker bees who, with people to people doorbelling and phonebanking, can counteract the money whores to some extent.

I'd be willing to go part caucus and part primary for delegate allocation if and only if primary states moved the other way.

[rhett o rick]

5. I would like to debate the delegate selection process but don't think this is the beat

place. Would you start a thread or direct me to one already started where we can debate the process. I would start one but I think I am on a lot of iggy lists.

[PatGund]

6. Agreed

If one must do a caucus system, a half-and-half system seems fair to me.