Please correct me if I am wrong. WA Democratic Primary votes don't count.

[rhett o rick]

Unless I am messed up (a true possibility) the Washington Democratic Party will use the caucus results to decide on their (our) candidate. The votes in the primary are meaningless.

[eridani]

1. Correct, except as a beauty contest n/t

[rhett o rick]

4. Thank you for the response. See my response below. nm

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Correct

Washington's Secretary of State has a FAQ about the primaries here. To quote the section you are asking about:

Q: How will the political parties use the results of the Presidential Primary?

Political parties retain the authority to decide if they will use the Presidential Primary to allocate delegates to the national nominating conventions. The political parties may also use caucus results, or a combination of primary results and caucus results.

The Republican Party used the results of the primary to allocate all of the Washington delegates in 1992, half of its delegates in 1996, and one third of its delegates in 2000. The State Republican Party has decided that it will use the 2008 Presidential Primary to allocate 51% of its delegates. The remaining 49% of the delegates will be allocated based on caucus results.

The Democratic Party has never used the results of the primary to allocate delegates. The State Democratic Party will only use caucuses to allocate delegates in 2008.

The list of how the state Republicans used the primaries does not include an entry for 2004 because the Legislature cancelled the 2004 primary. The rationale was that the Democrats don't use the results anyway, and the GOP had already declared Bush as the sole nominee. Cancelling the primaries saved the state just over $7 million.

[rhett o rick]

3. Thank you for the info. Many Democrats that I have spoken to are not

aware of this. Do you know the rational behind using the caucus verses primary vote? Primary voting seems more Democratic (big D and little d). Caucus system looks like it could be manipulated easier especially with super delegates.

I think the Democratic Party should make it clear to the public that primary voting doesn't count. I did read it in the voters pamphlet but had to search for it. Many Democrats are not aware.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Caucuses are actually *less* easy to manipulate than primaries

Caucus-goers can make a note of the afternoon's results, and share those notes with people who attended other caucuses. Within a day or so, an organized group can gather independent proof that the reported results are actually correct. You do not have that kind of transparency in an election, especially since most counties are moving towards all mail-voting with no guarantee that your ballot was even recieved, much less counted correctly.

As for why, the primaries were imposed on Washington by I-99 to the state Legislature, validated in 1988 and passed by the Legislature in 1989. The first primary was held in Washington as part of the 1992 cycle. The state Democratic party opposed the primary, claming that it interfered with its constitutional rights of free assembly and free speech; as such they boycotted the primary results on general principles in both 1992 and 1996. For 2000, the state Legislature had moved the date of the state primary to coincide with the New Hampshire primary; the state party, citing national rules prohibiting the selection of delegates by caucus before Iowa and before New Hampshire by primary, again declared their intent to ignore the primary results. The 2004 primary was cancelled by the state as mentioned in my above post. In 2008, the party is back again to the "I don't wanna" excuse. As added insult, the caucuses will be held ten days before the primary, making the election even more pointless than they have been in the past.

[rhett o rick]

6. thanks for the information. I would like to pass it along if you don't mind.

Do you know the effect of the super delegates? How much power do they have?

[rhett o rick]

7. If I may, regarding the platform, how specific can it get? I.E. can we put in the platform

that Guantanamo should be closed?

[eridani]

8. No, that would be a resolution

And I think it it's been done. The platform is general principles, like for instance being for universal health care. A resolution would be "Support HR 676".

Templates and examples are at the following link--don't reinvent the wheel.

http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=137

[LeFleur1]

9. Bunk

The assertion that caucuses are less likely to be polluted might be true, but I doubt it. It is true, however, that there are a large number of Washington voters who either cannot get to a caucus because they work during the time of the caucus, or there is no caucus in their area, perhaps illness and difficulty getting around keeps them from attending, or they are out of town. It appears to be a way for the party to choose the candidate, rather than the voters choosing the candidates.

What would be more important to the State of Washington than allowing their citizens to vote? If the State can't afford for the citizens to vote, I suggest administrators, governors, principals of schools, etc. salaries be cut until they have enough money saved so that the citizens of Washington can vote for the candidate of their choice for President.

After this debacle with Bush, and the damage he and his supporters have done, I believe every effort should be made to make it possible for every citizen to vote.
Caucuses are undemocratic.

[eridani]

10. Right. Real democracy is huge cash flows and name recognition

Sloganeering fluff is democracy, not neighbors talking to each other about issues.

[LeFleur1]

11. Neighbors

Neighbors talk to one another about issues all of the time. What does that have to do with anything?

Contributions to campaigns happen whether or not we get to vote.
But funding campaigns is another thing that could be changed for the better.