b5media.com

Advertise with us

Enjoying this blog? Check out the rest of the Travel & Culture Channel Subscribe to this Feed

The Seattle Traveler

Washington State Caucus Primer

by Mary Jo on January 8th, 2008

Washington State Caucuses With all the caucuses and primaries going on around the country, here’s a primer on how it works here in Washington State.

  • The Washington State caucus will be on February 9th, 2008.
  • Washington is one of only a handful of states (like Iowa) that uses a caucus system to select the presidential nominees.
  • Caucus goers will gather according to parties at location around the state, and from their break down into smaller groups based on the candidate that they support.
  • Those attendees that are undecided will hear persuasive arguments, negative rhetoric, and perhaps a little old-fashioned whining, as "decideds" try to convince "undecideds" to move to their group.
  • In the Democrat caucuses, the delegates to the state convention will be allocated proportionately based on the number of voters in the candidate’s group.
  • In the Republican caucuses, 49% of the delegates are chosen based on the caucus voters, the balance are chosen as a result of the state primary vote.
  • The Washington State primary will be held February 19th.

Although I always vote in the state primary, I haven’t been to a local caucus in a very, very long time.  I’m going to try to arrange my schedule to be in town for it this year. 

What about you?  Will you be going to a caucus this year?

Photo credit:  flickr

__________________________________

Share This

Related Stories

POSTED IN: History & Information, Sound Like a Local - Local "speak"

69 opinions for Washington State Caucus Primer

  • Ogie
    Jan 8, 2008 at 10:52 am

    I hope to go this year. The last time I went was in 1980 when Jesse Jackson was running.

    This year I a excited about Obama and want to support him on getting our delegates. I haven’t been this excited about a candidate for many years.

    Go Obama!!!!

  • Stephanie
    Jan 9, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    How do I attend a caucus?

  • Amadeo Tiam
    Jan 9, 2008 at 8:58 pm

    I reside in the Puyallup area, actually in unincorporated Pierce county but just two blocks off the Puyallup city limits. How do I register for the democratic caucus? I have generally voted democratic. Thanks!

  • Ogie
    Jan 9, 2008 at 9:32 pm

    Here is the Washington State Democrats website.

    http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php

    On there there is place you can find out where to go for the Democratic Caucus in your area.

    Hope this helps.

  • David
    Jan 10, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    I’m a Democratic Precinct Committee Officer in Shoreline, so I will be chairing the caucus for my precinct. This is a very exciting year.

    Stephanie– You must be a registered voter to vote at your local caucus (there is still time to register– look at your library, fire station, etc.). If you are under 18, but will be eligible to vote as of Election Day in the fall, you can still attend and vote. Find your caucus location (probably different from your polling place) at the website suggested– http://www.wa-democrats.org — they have a caucus finder application, but be prepared to telephone them if the app says it can’t find your location. They are still getting it all online.

    Adameo Tiam– You do not need to register specifically for the caucus if you are a registered voter. Your party affiliation is not part of your voter record so you just show up to your caucus location and declare yourself a Democrat when you sign in. (And if you want to be a Republican or something else later, you can do that too.) So just show up to the caucus– and encourage your friends and family to do so also.

  • Mary Jo
    Jan 11, 2008 at 9:48 am

    Thanks for all the comments and additional information.

    I’ll be adding a new post, and including caucus information and links for both parties.

  • How to Find Washington State Caucus Locations
    Jan 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    […] primer on the Washington State caucuses next month drew a lot of questions and comments about where people need to go to participate in the […]

  • Belle
    Jan 12, 2008 at 11:47 pm

    Washington State caucuses,

    Are as undemocratic a system as I could imagine, people always told me this state was as corrupt as any in the South…little did I know.

  • Mary Jo
    Jan 15, 2008 at 6:26 am

    Sorry you feel that way, Belle.

    Every system has its failures, and we’re not alone in that regard. I believe that it is grass roots, community participation that helps to keep systems honest.

  • Gail
    Jan 15, 2008 at 7:37 pm

    CAUCUS GOERS: DON’T FORGET TO BRING YOUR WASHINGTON VOTERS CARD TO THE CAUCUS! LOCATE IT NOW OR ORDER A REPLACEMENT ASAP!

  • Chris
    Jan 16, 2008 at 11:10 pm

    Belle:

    The caucus system is actually very democratic. Our founding fathers originally envisioned more of an active discussion among voters than we have in the modern age.

    If the system was at all exclusionary, I would be firmly in your camp, but you only need to be a registered voter. That isn’t any more exclusionary than the election is.

    Now, what I don’t understand is why the state has a caucus and a primary, where the primary doesn’t make a whit of difference … now that’s all kinds of messed up.

  • S Brennan
    Jan 17, 2008 at 8:35 am

    Chris,

    I think you are full of it. The caucus is the easiest system to game.

    Here’s an example:

    Culinary Union Intimidating Members to Vote for Obama
    Reported from Las Vegas, Nevada

    There’s nothing dainty about Las Vegas but things are getting rough.

    Intimidation. Pledges demanded. People to vote for Obama or stay away from the caucus.

    Call this union vs. the casino workers.

    I just did an interview with a Culinary union member who was intimidated while eating lunch in the cafeteria at work. She didn’t want to give her name, but she wanted to tell her story. The connection is rough, but her story tells the tale. It’s below in a podcast:

    Culinary Union pressures members to vote for Obama

    Pamela over at Democratic Daily posted on a tip she received about the intimidation.

    Jon Ralston talked about it this morning on MSNBC.

    I just got off the phone with a unimpeachable source that there has been more than one confrontation between union reps and members.

    This is not an indictment against unions, especially considering I joined my first union when I was in my teens, totaling four eventually. Unions are the backbone of the middle class. But in every good group there lies opportunistic cretins. Obama’s supporters are obviously applying Chicago style politics in Sin City and they’ve got three days to get the job done.

    Meanwhile, you’ve got big shots like John Kerry talking about “let the people vote” doing so within a stacked system titled towards the Culinary union, with many of their members who’d much rather vote for someone other than Obama being intimidated and forced to sign pledge cards. Some will fight back, but most will not. From what I’m hearing, this is getting ugly. It’s the opposite side, with the story actually being “make the people vote for me.”

    UPDATE II: After you listen to the tape, think about this. How do the union members get out for the caucus? It’s during working hours so they have to get permission to be let out of their shift. So they have to sign cards, as the woman on the tape said. But according to her, if you don’t sign the pledge card specifically for Obama you can’t go to the caucus. That’s because the company won’t have a record of your intention to caucus. It’s the very definition of coercion.

  • S Brennan
    Jan 17, 2008 at 9:04 am

    Chris,

    What are the provisions for a provisional vote?

    None.

    Disenfranchisement.

    Where the paper trail?

    None

  • S Brennan
    Jan 17, 2008 at 9:14 am

    Here’s another:

    Corruption = Caucus story

    The Iowa ScamThe undemocratic caucuses are a terrible way to choose a presidential candidate.
    By Christopher Hitchens
    Posted Monday, Dec. 31, 2007, at 12:02 PM ET
    Huckabee takes a morning run in Des Moines, Iowa
    It is quite astonishing to see with what deadpan and neutral a tone our press and television report the open corruption—and the flagrantly anti-democratic character—of the Iowa caucuses. It’s not enough that we have to read of inducements openly offered to potential supporters—I almost said “voters”—even if these mini-bribes only take the form of “platters of sandwiches” and “novelty items” (I am quoting from Sunday’s New York Times). It’s also that campaign aides are showing up at Iowan homes “with DVD’s that [explain] how the caucuses work.” Nobody needs a DVD to understand one-person-one-vote, a level playing field, and a secret ballot. The DVD and the other gifts and goodies (Sen. Barack Obama is promising free baby-sitting on Thursday) are required precisely because none of those conditions applies in Iowa. In a genuine democratic process, these Tammany tactics would long ago have been declared illegal. But this is not a democratic process, and besides, as my old friend Michael Kinsley used to say about Washington, the scandal is never about what’s illegal. It’s about what’s legal.

  • S Brennan
    Jan 17, 2008 at 9:42 am

    Here’s Curtis Gans, Director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate take on caucus

    “The turnout in caucuses is substantially lower.

    It is only the party faithful, and only the party faithful that can be organized. Now, there’s a Washington Times article, which showed the different between Missouri in a presidential primary having a voter turnout of 745,000 to a caucus in Missouri, which had a turnout of 20,000 statewide or 0.2% of the previous turnout. Great for rulers, not so great for those that are ruled.

    On one level, you can say it’s a nice thing for the caucuses to have all this grassroots activity and it’s clearly party people. On another level, it gives enormous advantage to strong, organized, ideological minorities. It also eliminates those with second jobs and people lower on the social-economic scale. And you have been witnessing this, you know, week an article which essentially said that five states had been moved, you know, had been moved from holding primaries in their states to caucuses in their states.

    Another element of that move is party ideology. In four of the five states, or three and a half of, you know, the five states, the move was made by Republican-controlled legislatures. Because of the way we district — create voting districts for our representatives to Congress and our representatives to the state legislatures, we have created, essentially, an overwhelming majority of districts for those two offices in which they’re designed to produce the results that one party wins, a one-party district, which means in our system that the most important election for those districts is not the general election, because that’s foreordained, but the primary election.

    The average turnout for a Republican statewide primary — for senator or governor — is 8 percent of the electorate. It is smaller than that for Congress. That, in turn, means that an organized minority of 3.5 percent of the electorate can win the primary and be tantamount to being elected.

    If you want to explain the general rightward drift of the Republican Party over the last 30 years, it is in that phenomenon, because the organized, zealous element of the Republican Party is the religious and secular right. Those people now are in state legislatures. When they argue, you know, that they want to move from, you know, primaries to caucuses, what they’re really suggesting — in an uncontested race, you know, in which George Bush, you know, barring some catastrophe for him, will be the nominee — is that they want to be the delegates to the convention in order to continue the current platform on abortion and a number of other issues, you know? And that’s the likely result of this move.
    “

  • Claire
    Jan 17, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    No one can challenge your right to participate in the caucus except other members of your precinct, so no one will be checking for voter ID. Not only do you not need to have proof that you are registered voter to attend the Democratic caucuses, you don’t even have to be a registered voter. You can, for example, register to vote AT the caucus and still participate, or be under 18 (but 18 by the time of the November election) and participate. Futher, you don’t have to be a “card-carrying” Democrat to participate - you just have to sign something that says that you’re a Democrat at the caucus.

  • S Burroughs
    Jan 19, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Here are couple of Q&As about our primary and caucuses pulled from a document prepared by Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed.

    Q: Can I participate in both the primary and a caucus?
    A: Voters can participate in both the party caucuses and the Presidential Primary as long as they participate on behalf of the same party. [IF participating in both]

    Both major parties plan to hold their caucuses on Saturday, February 9, 2008, ten days before the primary. The parties will invite voters to participate in the caucuses and will require participants to sign an oath declaring their
    party affiliation.

    Voters participating in the Presidential Primary will be asked to sign an oath submitted by the political parties indicating that the voter has not participated in the other party’s caucus process. Each party will receive a list of voters who chose to affiliate with that party in the primary. ###

    Q: What do I have to do to participate?
    A: Every registered voter may vote in the Presidential Primary. Depending on the county, just as in a regular primary, voters will either receive a consolidated ballot or separate party ballots.

    Each voter must sign a one party oath, which will appear in the poll book for those voting at the polls, or on the envelope for those voting by mail. The major parties drafted the oaths to which voters must attest. They are:

    Republican: I declare that I am a member of the Republican party and I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party.

    Democrat: I declare that I consider myself to be a DEMOCRAT and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2008 Presidential election. ###

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

    This last bit of information is what catches my attention. So do I participate in a caucus as a Democrat, my preferred party, or attempt to affect the Republican primary by voting in the primary, all the while feeling some what dishonest because of the wording of the oath prepared for by Republicans?

  • Toni
    Jan 19, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    Why does Washington State have Caucuses on Feb 5th and Primaries in March 5th? I dont understand why does Washington State has both Primary and Caucuses? Can someone explain how this works and why most states just have Primary not both Primary and Caucuses?

  • Mary Jo
    Jan 20, 2008 at 7:13 am

    Thanks for the lively discussion everyone. It was not my intent to make this a political debate, but merely to share information about the caucus so that people could understand how it work and decide if they want to participate.

    I don’t find the caucus procedure intimidating or uncomfortable, but I can understand that some people might.

    As a reminder, the parties provide the nominee(s) for the election (by whatever methodology they lay out) at its convention. The caucus is a part of that process, with varying rules about how a deleate to the state caucus must vote. And, in turn, how state delegates must vote at the national convention.

    It’s a process for the party to select the nominee, not a general election, where everyone gets to vote on who the nominee will be.

    To participate in the nomination process, means you must participate in the party process - with all its good and bad.

  • S Brennan
    Jan 20, 2008 at 9:33 am

    This business of primary elections is out of control.

    When will Washington state taxpayers have the courage to say If you want to hold a “party” primary election, you pay for it–we’re not going to waste taxpayer money on some partisan nonsense controlled by a select group within a party. If the select group wants to make the rules…fine, have the select party officials pay for it.

    The primary is a publicly funded election…not a private function. Those who pay should make the rules, the select group within a party doesn’t pay fo any of this, the taxpayers do.

    As I showed above.

    Study of the American Electorate - “The turnout in caucuses is substantially lower”.
    There’s a Washington Times article, which showed the different between Missouri in a presidential

    1] a primary in Missouri, having a voter turnout of 745,000 to

    2] a caucus in Missouri, which had a turnout of 20,000 statewide

    3] Doing the math that’s a 0.2% of the previous turnout.

    Now Mary Jo, you state you are comfortable with 100% of the people paying taxes for something that less than 0.0?% of the people support and use…fine, many people prefer dictatorship to democracy, but Americans are not supposed to.

    The whole point of voter suppresion is to make one group comfortable with the proccess and another group…well not so much.

    As I said above Mary Jo, on one level, you can say it’s a nice thing for the caucuses to have all this grassroots activity and it’s clearly party people.

    On another level, it gives enormous advantage to strong, organized, ideological minorities. It also eliminates those with second jobs and people lower on the social-economic scale. Both of those results are fundalmentally un-democratic and un-American.

  • Mary Jo
    Jan 20, 2008 at 11:23 am

    WOW! It was never my intention for things to get so contentious!

    This is a destination blog, and while politics are a part of the culture of a city, it is only a very small part of what readers come here to learn about.

    A discussion on the merits (or lack) of the caucus/primary system is certainly valid, and there are lots of people who can add spirited voices to that discussion. However the place for that debate is not here.

    This post was to provide information to people who want to get involved or know more. I’m neither encouraging nor endorsing any candidate or party.

    While I am seriously tempted to jump into the fray here in the comments, that would be counter to the focus and intent of this blog, and negates the reason people come to visit.

    Feel free to leave links to any forum, blogs, or other sources where the debate is going on so that people who are interested can continue to learn and discuss the topic.

  • Mr. Squeaky
    Jan 29, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    Thanks for the information Mary Jo. I came to this site looking for nuts ‘n’ bolts about the caucuses and while I respect S Brennan’s right to express him/herself, I think this is not the proper forum for him/her to do so. Take it elsewhere.

  • S Brennan
    Jan 30, 2008 at 9:07 am

    Squeeky, or whatever your name really is,

    1] This board’s comments were sent to me unsolicited, I did not come looking for them. The standards of the board were presented subsequent to my intial comments, not at the head of the post. If the host has a narrow range of acceptable views to be posted then they should explain that at the outset, not after the conversation vears away from the “chosen path”.

    2] Who cares what some anonymous twit like yourself thinks is proper. Who are you? Nothing but an anonymous troll.

    3] By the standards enumerated in your post…you post is greater violation of the standards you would imperiously impose on others. Not that a busybody like yourself would care about violating your own “ethics”.

    I’m sure you will see you continue to violate your own standards in further postings. I look forward to more of your hypocritical writings, while you look for your “nuts & bolts”….yeah, right.

  • Mary Jo
    Jan 30, 2008 at 4:11 pm

    I guess it´s time for the ¨host¨ to jump in here.

    This is a travel and culture blog, specifically a destination blog for travelers and residents of the Seattle area. My hope is that it provides an overview of things to do and see in this area.

    One of the things to do is to go to a caucus. Like many things written about here in the blog, it won´t be everyone´s cup of tea, but I threw it out there like the other things that I write about.

    It turned into a political debate that was interesting, but not appropriate for a travel blog, and my last comment was an attempt not to stifle the discussion, but to move it to another forum.

    The rules for the blog comments are simple - manners and decency. I have not censored posts. I have allowed lengthy comments with information from other sources. I have allowed disagreement. But the politica nature of this discussion will not take over the essence of what this blog is about.

    Name calling, as in the above comment, is uncalled for. Enough.

    I welcome links to political sites where this conversation, debate, argument and discussion can continue. But the name calling must stop.

  • The Seattle Traveler Top 5 Posts for January 2008
    Feb 1, 2008 at 8:29 am

    […] Washington State Caucus Primer.  With all the election talk going on, this came as no real surprise.  What did come as a surprise, though, is how quickly a post that I wrote as a very simple outline of the process turned into a bit of a fracas about the validity of the caucus system. […]

  • The Seattle Traveler Top 5 Posts for January 2008
    Feb 1, 2008 at 8:29 am

    […] Washington State Caucus Primer.  With all the election talk going on, this came as no real surprise.  What did come as a surprise, though, is how quickly a post that I wrote as a very simple outline of the process turned into a bit of a fracas about the validity of the caucus system. […]

  • Hello, Mary Jo
    Feb 1, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    I am still confused. I tried to read all of this, so hopefully I am not repeating a question that has already been asked. Why do we have both caucuses and primaries? Also, after all these years, I am still confused about why we have both the electoral college and the general election. Why both? Why not just have Americans vote as individuals? I don’t get it and I never have. Thanks for your time.

  • r.rosales
    Feb 2, 2008 at 1:13 am

    I thank S.Brennan for the detailed info as to where my tax dollars are going and to the fact that one since I have to work on saturdays the only way my vote will partially count is if I vote Republican.

  • jaclyn
    Feb 5, 2008 at 10:22 am

    Mary Jo- Thank you for all your information regarding the caucuses and primary. I have a 2 questions. #1- Do I need to bring my voters registration card?? I don’t know where mine is can i reorder it? #2- how long do you anticipate the caucuses taking? Thank you again for all your information.

  • Melody
    Feb 5, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    While I am opposed to caucuses, I know the only way my ‘vote’ will count is to attend. Not a happy camper here at all. My question, however, is what exactly do people do at a caucus meeting? Just how long will this process take? Not being from or growing up in Washington, I had no idea caucuses still took place let alone what exactly the time frame for one would be.

  • Alex P. (RE: Hello Mary Jo)
    Feb 5, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    Hello, Mary Jo: All very good questions. Here’s the best I can do in answering them:
    1) Why do we have caucuses and primaries here in Washington? Because the citizens of Washington passed an initiative in 1989 that said that we needed a primary. The previous system (caucuses) was still kept around by the political parties. The Republicans use the primary result to decide the majority of their delegates, the Democrats don’t use it at all, as is their right.
    2) Why have both the general election and the electoral college; why not just have a system of one person - one vote?
    This is a trickier question, because it’s….well, complicated and simple at the same time. Technically we only have one system, not two. Instead of thinking about the electoral college and the general election as two different systems, just think of them as one system with two steps: at the general election you are actually voting for a representative (like electing a Senator) who pledges to follow your vote when it becomes her turn to vote with the other members of the Electoral College. The reason we have this system rather than a simpler one is because the United States of America is Federal, Democratic Republic.
    -Federal, meaning that we are a nation with a strong central government built out of semi-autonomous regions (states) that coexist under the Constitution. This is exactly how the framers of the Constitution planned it to be, and that idea is what every politician, civil servant, soldier and citizen swears to uphold.
    -Democratic, meaning that is run “of the people, by the people, for the people” to quote Pres. Lincoln. Another way of putting it is that everyone votes: for Presidents, Senators, Assistant Port Commission Auditors. Whatever it is, we vote on it at some level or another.
    -Republic. This is the hardest part of America to describe. We, as citizens, do not make federal laws. We do not vote on them in congress, nor do we make laws by national initiatives. Instead the Electoral College was made like Congress to be a system of electing wise, qualified people to make our laws. Whether that happens is not my point.

    What is my point is that a one-person, one-vote idea is still Democratic (some would argue it is more so than our current system), but it is not Federal (it does not make differences for individual states and regions) nor is it in keeping with being a Republic (since it bypasses the role of electing officials). That means it is not allowed by the U.S. Constitution, which is our highest law. To change that would not just require a constitutional amendment, but a major rethinking of how to legally govern the United States.

    The big fear (from the Founding Fathers viewpoint) with an one-person, one-vote approach is that it would lead to people voting as mobs like in the French Revolution (Or in the First, Second, Third, Fourth or Fifth French Republics, or in the Republic of Italy, etc.). That is to say that people can be led into voting based on the worst of human emotions (led by people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Father Coughlin, the KKK, etc.) if we’re not careful. The Electoral college is that safety net, to save us from ourselves if we need it.

    Thanks for asking the questions and for Mary Jo for setting out a forum for the WA. St. primary and all the other fun political questions that it brings.

  • Teresa
    Feb 6, 2008 at 12:01 am

    I think it would be fun to have a Caucus in WA
    state, I don’t remember ever hearing of one before. In fact, all I ever remember in the past
    is that WA state’s votes come in so late that the president has already been decided before our votes count.

    This election is so exciting.
    I’m voting for Barack. I doubt anyone will be out intimidating anyone; not in this state.

    By the way, I know two Republicans that say
    that if McCain makes it, they plain won’t vote
    for the Republicans and would vote Hillary.

    I will vote Democratic, no matter who wins this
    primary.

  • L.D. Rockne
    Feb 6, 2008 at 12:03 am

    Mary Jo,
    I really enjoyed reading all the posts.
    I am from the east side of the mountains in the Tri-City area. We also have things to do and see, like the Columbia River. So don’t forget us as some west-siders have done.
    I have to agree with S. Brennan Post
    of 1/20/08.
    Also if you sign a party oath on your primary ballot it becomes public information and unions can check on how the rank and file voted.
    I’m an independent and refused to sign and sent the ballot in w/o marking a candidate.
    Have a nice day :=)

  • Claire
    Feb 6, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Answering some questions, with the warning that this is just from a Democratic Party perspective. I have no idea what the GOP does.

    “#1- Do I need to bring my voters registration card??”

    No, you do not. You do not even need to be registered to vote - you can register at the caucus. If you aren’t eligible to vote now, but will be by the time of the primary (for example, you’re 17 now, will be 18 by November), you can still participate in the caucus.

    No one can challenge your eligibility to participate in the caucus other than other members of your precinct. So, there’s no “party official” checking a list off to make sure you’re a voter or a party member.

    “#2- how long do you anticipate the caucuses taking?”

    I am hoping that ours will take no more than an hour. If you have a particularly contentious precinct, it could take longer. Because we aren’t doing resolutions this year at the precinct level, it won’t take as long as 2004.

    ” My question, however, is what exactly do people do at a caucus meeting?”

    At your caucus location, you’ll find the table for your precinct. At your table, you’ll sign in that you’re a Democrat. The affividavit is good enough to prove party membership.* On this same piece of paper, you’ll say who you’re supporting.

    The number of delegates your precinct has is based on the number of votes your precinct made for Kerry in 2004. Here, on the Eastside, that number is typically 4 - 6. I hear that in some very Democratic precincts in Seattle, the number is twice that. In rib-rock Republican territory, you might just get one. The percentage of these delegates that will go to the next level up convention (Leg District/County) is based on the percentages in your precinct.

    You might have some people who will sign on to minority candidates (loyal to the end to Kucinich, let’s say), or sign in as “undecided”. If there’s too small of a number in these candidates to actually send a delegate, there’s a second round of voting. People who are loyal to their candidate will try to sway people who are in these minorities over to them. This is where a little grass roots politicking comes in.

    After the second round is complete, you vote for your delegates. I hope, as the PCO for my precinct, and as an Obama organizer for Bellevue, that I would get elected by my neighbors in my precinct to be a delegate for Obama. But it’s up to you and your neighbors who gets to go.

    (A sort of similar process gets repeated at the next level up, to determine who goes to the state convention, and again, to determine who goes to the national convention in Denver.)

    God willing, the whole thing should take no more than an hour. If you can come early to help set up, or stay late to help clean up, your help will be greatly appreciated by the other volunteers.

    *I had an enormous argument with someone here at work who said that you shouldn’t have to sign that you’re a party member to participate. I disagree - it’s like any club - you want to choose the officers of the club, you have to be a member. You don’t like it, start your own club, or join the club and then change the rules.

  • JayGee
    Feb 7, 2008 at 3:49 am

    Alex P said “That is to say that people can be led into voting based on the worst of human emotions (led by people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Father Coughlin, the KKK, etc.) if we’re not careful. The Electoral college is that safety net, to save us from ourselves if we need it.”

    Just would like to point out you stated your OPINION as fact that the worst of emotions are led by all those listed people. Interestingly enough I think we can all agree that the KKK belongs in there but Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? Al Franken? Give me a break moonbat. If your against people using their 1st amendment rights to speak out against current and future government perhaps you could outline for us that democrat stamped far left socialist GOOD emotions we are all supposed evidently supposed to embrace and never question.

    Everyone should also notice that plainly the democrats, as is their MO, have made it as difficult as possible for YOU to have a voice. They much prefer leaving that choice among the chosen few who happen to know how caucuses work in washington. All 100% of their delegates come from caucus that means unless you show up in person to sign a slip of paper your vote is meaningless. The republican side is only half as corrupt. Washington has and will probably always be a far left whacko state but even the democrat side should be a bit worried when their vote hinges on your ability to make it to a certain place at a certain time to get any say on who gets your party nomination.

  • Kris
    Feb 7, 2008 at 9:44 am

    Heated opinions aside, this is all very useful information — thanks everyone!

  • Josh
    Feb 7, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    I think what some people are missing is the fact that the parties are *not* government organizations. They are just groups of people who decide they think in the same way, and work together to put up a candidate for president who will think like they do, and there are no laws to govern that, since it’s a private organization. For example, a few friends could get together, and decide to help one of them run for president - that’s the start of a party, and of course there’s not going to be any national voting on which friend it is who runs. Now, if over the years those friends joined up with other groups who thought similarly, and eventually all those groups covered the nation, they’d be a national party, but it would still be a private thing, and they could choose their candidates any way they wanted, even if it were to have the potential candidates play Rock Paper Scissors or have a big Cage Deathmatch Brawl.

    It may sound like you don’t have any control over who to vote for unless you inconvenience yourself to take part in the caucus, and in a way that’s true, but it’s not any different than if there were no parties at all. Think about it, in the end, you can only vote for people actually running for office; the only difference is, with the party system, the candidates are agreeing to drop out of the race if the party decides against them.

  • S Brennan
    Feb 7, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    Josh,

    Apparently you are not aware that the Caucuses are being run at public expense in publicly owned venues.

    If the Democratic party wants to buy and pay for the infrastructure then it is PRIVATE, until then it’s PUBLIC funds being dispensed.

    Please make a note of it.

  • David
    Feb 7, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    S Brennan,

    Your information about the hosting of caucuses may not be completely accurate.

    I can tell you that the Democratic caucuses of the 32nd district are being held in private homes and in *rented* venues. Many of those rented venues are, in fact, public buildings (specifically, schools), but the district’s democratic organization is paying rent to the school district (according to the district’s usual rental rates) for the use of those venues.

    As far as caucuses are concerned, and to the best of my knowledge, the cost of the infrastructure for the caucuses is in fact being paid for by the parties themselves, through the rental fees charged by the agencies that manage the public facilities.

    As you say, please make a note of it.

  • S Burroughs
    Feb 7, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    RE: L.D. Rockne comment. If your intent is to strictly stay anonymous, unfortunately your vote will not be counted. If you want to make a point maybe others who feel the same way did the same. I’m guessing that those envelopes aren’t even opened though. I admire your principle.

  • S Burroughs
    Feb 7, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    I came a cross this FAQ site yesterday. It’s very helpful in letting you know what to expect. I plan on attending my first caucus ever this year. I’m looking forward to it.

    http://fusewashington.org/about/163/caucus#time

  • E
    Feb 7, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    *Carefully steps around the soapboxes*

    Thank you so much for this resource. I have another question. Must we attend the caucus that’s in our own precinct? Or can we go to any Washington State caucus? I live in Olympia, but I will likely be in Tacoma on Saturday. Can I show up at a Tacoma caucus site, or do I have to report to my own precinct?

  • L.D. Rockne
    Feb 7, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    S Burroughs,

    Re: your post ofFeb 7, 2008 at 2:08 pm,
    I sent my ballot in w/o marking a party affiliation and hope more people do. I did however vote on a non-partisian issue, a local school levy.
    I suspect you are correct in saying my ballot won’t be opened at all. (Even tho the auditor said they would be.

  • mahalie
    Feb 8, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    s brennan needs to get his own blog! i for one think it’s (mostly) good to have a caucus system because only people who really care participate and better yet, people get together in real life, meet their neighbors and (hopefully) have constructive discussions. How often does that happen in this day and age? I’m wearing my (useless) ballot as a mask!

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/mahalie/2251489548/in/photostream/

  • Muhammed Cihad
    Feb 8, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    I am from Sudan , became a US citizen and live in Seattle, I support Obama! Obama wants to bring Muslims together and have a Islamic State! We muslims are sick and tired of Bush and America’s unfair foreign policy on Muslims !Go Obama Allah and Muslims are with U!!!

  • pamela
    Feb 8, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    Washington Please before voting for Obama think twice! Obama had practised islam during his childhood and it is documented! These documents and records will be presented by the Republicans as of he gets the democratic nomination Obama will never see the White House and we will end up with Mccain!

  • Pam
    Feb 8, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    I also sent my ballot in without marking a party affiliation, as I choose to remain an Independent. I do this so my conscience has the freedom to vote for whomever I feel is the best candidate, not someone dictated to me by my political party. I didn’t even choose a candidate this time, as I knew it wouldn’t count, but I hope they open the envelope since I, too, voted for the other, non-partisan issues. Aren’t they required too, if there are other issues?

  • Tom
    Feb 8, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    Attending a caucus is easy! It’s like a community meeting and it usually only lasts an hour or less. You just go in, check in at the front desk and they will give you a piece of paper where you declare your choice for President.

    It is my understanding that in order to participate in the Democratic caucus, for instance, you have to declare yourself a Democrat for that particular caucus. You do this by checking the political party checkbox on the ballot envelope. This doesn’t mean you become a registered Democrat. Washington does not have registration by party.

    Also, you must SIGN the envelope on the signature line.

    It is also my understanding that YOU CAN JUST WALK IN AND REGISTER the day of the caucus tomorrow.

    To find out where your polling place is, go to wa-democrats.org or wsrp.org.

    By the way, the upcoming primaries on Feb. 19th. DO NOT count in terms of the Presidential race. They are basically just beauty contests.

  • L.D. Rockne
    Feb 8, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    pamela
    You Said:Obama had practised islam during his childhood.
    So what? I went to public schools, I’m Lutheran, studied Norwegian, voted both democrat and republican,
    drink scotch, beer from microbreweries, love beautiful women, and have been known to sin. Have I just talked myself
    out of the right to vote?

    You also state: Obama will never see the White House and we will end up with Mccain!
    Pamela, are you saying if Hillary doesn’ get the Nomination you will vote for McCain?

    I’m really tired of hearing women say they will vote for Hillary just because she’s a women, and men saying
    they will support her because Bill will be in the White House.

    Note to Mary Jo: I haven’t had more fun in a long time.

  • Claire
    Feb 9, 2008 at 8:33 am

    The post by “Muhammed Cihad” is probably a troll, a mirror to the one posted by pamela.

    As I hope teveryone knows, the lies about Obama being a muslim etc. are just that, LIES.

    You can read more, here: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php

    It makes my blood boil to read this sort of crap being spread around.

  • Sam
    Feb 9, 2008 at 8:58 am

    My second post because the site failed to identify required fields then wiped out my post - most annoying.

    Although my wife and I, along with our oldest son will participate this year, I think the caucus system is not only increasingly arcane but fundamentally flawed: it disenfrachises those who want to weigh in but simply can’t be there. If participation is a primary goal then this needs to change. In this situation I think the Republicans have taken the correct path in splitting the results (I read 50:50 but someone posted otherwise.)

  • Katy
    Feb 9, 2008 at 9:51 am

    First to Gail, thanks for the info about my voter reg. card, even if you don’t need it, if you are registered and you know where it is, you may as well bring it and you ID. You never know. And to L.D. Rockne, thank you for pointing out that just because a person may have been raised under a certain religion for the first 2 years of his life, does not mean that he continues to hold those beliefs. And by the way Pamela, Obama has been a practicing Christian for several years. That should make you want to jump for joy since it sounds like you must be all about the whole my religion is better than yours thing. And just so you know, NO religion, including our precious all-American Christianity, has ever not taken lives in the name of their religion!

  • Carlo
    Feb 9, 2008 at 10:15 am

    I will be attending my first caucus this afternoon. How long can I expect to be there?

  • joe
    Feb 9, 2008 at 10:56 am

    Can someone tell me…..Do I have to vote the same party in the general as I do in the caucus? If the candidate I want, doesn’t make the general can I switch parties?

  • Lisa W
    Feb 9, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Thanks to S Burroughs…I, too, will be attending my 1st caucus (although I was brought up surrounded by politics and our house was the Precinct Committeeman’s for a while) and am a bit nervous. This time, I need to hear more than just my opinion and view and look forward to the exchange. (And your link was invaluable…thanks!)

  • B Perri
    Feb 9, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Pamela,

    Do your research before you believe media hype. Obama was never a PRACTICNG Muslim. When he was young his family moved around a lot. When he was living in Inodnesia, his mother, from Kansas, wanted him to have the best education possible and the local school was an Islamic school. From the ages of 6-10 Obama went to MANY different including Christian schools.

    For the last twenty or so years he has been a member of the Christian Church.

    Not that ANY of that matters anyway.

  • Julia
    Feb 9, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    This was my first caucus ever since I have moved here from NY which doesn’t have that system, and it was extremely interesting, but….i simply wonder about those papers that have handwritten voices, delegates, etc…they are just soooo easy to lets say “correct”….

  • Kieran Murphy
    Feb 9, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    This is stupid if you ask me, why do we have a caucus that decides when we have a primary voting system, should we let our president be decided on a handful of people who decided to raise their hand?

    I won’t vote this year as my vote will be taken away by you people who go to the caucus.

    Tell me, what happens if the democrat primary shows more votes toward the democrat the caucus goers did not want?

    What happens when there is a blow out in the republican, well to late you gave away half of the delegates in the caucus.

    The caucus nullifies the primaries and takes away the vote, this is turning in a club.

  • David
    Feb 9, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    Joe @ 1056: Your participation (or not) in the caucus has absolutely no effect on how you are “allowed” to vote in the general election.

    However, if you participated today in the Democratic caucus, you are expected to not vote in the Republican *primary* in 10 days… and vice versa, if you participated in the Republican caucus.

    Your November vote is completely up to you, and you can even cross parties– there’s nothing that says you can’t vote in the *general* election for a Democrat in one race and a Republican in another.

    The *primary* process (including the caucus and the primary election) requires you to stay within a single party, and potentially one could be prosecuted for crossing sides– or at least ridiculed in the news media.

  • Paula
    Feb 10, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Not being from WA originally, I do not understand what the purpose of my democratic vote in the primary matters. Being disabled and unable to attend a caucus, it seems that my vote doesn’t count for crap. I have never heard of such a thing. This is the first time I have been fired up enough to vote in years, yet now I feel, what was the purpose of mailing in my vote but the waste of a stamp? I had already sent in my vote before reading the crazy nonsense.

  • S Burroughs
    Feb 10, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    re: Lisa W - thank you for your note, it’s nice to read something positive online.

    And for the others who make ill-intended false claims about Obama and are afraid of Muslims: Are you afraid of Muslims? Or are you really afraid of Muslim extremists or fundamentalists? If Barack Obama was or is a practicing Muslim, would you trust him less bases solely on that? Open your minds to cultural differences in our country. Prejudice is still a dirty word in many circles, and thank God for that.

  • Teresa
    Feb 10, 2008 at 10:45 pm

    Pamela and others concerned about the Muslin
    religion, which is way blown up.

    Here is a pdf file on Obama’s faith
    http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_is_a_committed_christian.php

    Here is a pdf file on his patriotism

    http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_is_a_patriot.php

  • NMCB
    Feb 12, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    Thanks for this discussion. Have to say that it was pretty upsetting to figure out primaries vs caucus in WA State. My wife is on active duty in the military and is a WA resident but is not currently there. So the caucus system basically excludes her, and by the Dems choosing not to use the results of the primary makes her voting useless. We’re all for public debate and informed selection of candidates, but this is simply lame in our case.

  • David
    Feb 13, 2008 at 9:14 am

    Hi NMCB–

    I’m sorry to hear that you have been frustrated. For the Democratic caucuses, there was a Surrogate Affidavit Form that your wife could have filled out and turned in ahead of time so that her presidential preference would have counted at the caucus. Military duty is one of the three categories (the others being disability and religious observance) that qualified for the surrogate form.

    I agree that there were many ways the whole process could have been better publicized and explained. I hope your wife will still vote in the primary– it won’t award Democratic delegates, but it will express the will of the people of the state, which could be taken into account by the decisionmakers if we get to convention without a clear winner.

  • Washington State has a Presidential Primary, Too
    Feb 15, 2008 at 10:31 am

    […] that’s right.  Even though you learned all about our long-standing caucus system, found out where your caucus was, and made it there to caucus and vote, there’s still another […]

  • Washington State has a Presidential Primary, Too
    Feb 15, 2008 at 10:31 am

    […] that’s right.  Even though you learned all about our long-standing caucus system, found out where your caucus was, and made it there to caucus and vote, there’s still another […]

  • Mary Angela
    Feb 26, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    Someone’s made a flowchart of the state caucus system (at least for the East side).

    http://fwosty.com/blog/?p=55

  • The Seattle Traveler Top Posts for February 2008
    Mar 4, 2008 at 3:58 am

    […] Washington State Caucus Primer.  With all the election talk going on, this came as no real surprise.  What did come as a surprise, though, is how quickly a post that I wrote as a very simple outline of the process turned into a bit of a fracas about the validity of the caucus system. […]

  • Paulette
    May 29, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    I feel that the Caucuse system does not work to the best of all voters. If the total count of actual attendee were known, vs the number of registered voters who were “able” to attend, this is a very small number. I feel that we should join the majority of states and each vote counts, not just those who are able to attend in person.

Have an opinion? Leave a comment: