As I periodically do, I was looking back through my comments to see if anyone has replied to anything I've said in the last day or two. In one thread, I was (sadly, again) arguing that popular vote is a flawed metric because it under represents caucus states, like my homestate, Washington. I received this reply:
not many people participated in WA because of the stupid system they employed. I don't see why its unfair to count the people who participated by whatever system was used.
I'd normally just respond, but this is several hours old, and nobody would likely see my response, so I'm putting it here. I feel the response is an important enough issue for a diary. My response after the jump...
Don't you dare call my system stupid. My system is a hell of a lot better than your democracy-by-bubble-sheet bullshit. Democracy is supposed to be about more than phoning it in. More than just pulling a lever every four years. It's supposed to be about people taking their ideas to the public, so that the public can properly assess those ideas, and decide whether or not to act on them. It's about the public interchange of ideas so that we can all benefit from the knowledge contained in the people around us. That's what makes democracy the best form of government.
It's like the difference between yahoo news, and blogging.
If you've got a question about an AP news article that yahoo puts up, tough shit. Your feedback is rating the story on a scale of one to five stars - which I'm sure the yahoo and AP people closely monitor to give raises, reprimands, and firings... yeah... right... What's even worse is that when you dumb down the democratic process to a punch card, people are doing so little that they don't even care when they're disregarded. In Florida 2000, the worst reason that the election shouldn't have been certified was that thousands of people accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan due to not understanding the ballot. The state of Flordia told those people to sit down and shut up. And ultimately, they did. Or Ohio 2004. In the black areas, the people were basically told, "Sure, we'll let you pull the lever, but you'll have to wait in the cold November rain for 6 hours. Come on, it's just pulling a lever, go ahead and run along home now..." And many did.
Blogging on the other hand, allows for real comments, and lets the conversation continue far beyond the initial story, so that the people can try to work out their differences on the topic. There's a real interchange of ideas in blogging, just like there's a real interchange of ideas in caucusing. This doesn't happen in a primary. Also, when caucusing, people have a much bigger role than punching a card, and this causes them to be a lot more emotionally invested in the outcome. This emotion is needed when the government tries to take away their right to be heard.
Anyway, yes, I know that it's harder for the elderly, disabled, single parents, some professions, etc to spend the time at a caucus. Still, there are ways to address these problems that leave the grassroots alive. In my caucus we discussed more locations, particularly locations based at or near the retirement areas. We also discussed ways to stagger caucuses so that people would have a longer timeframe that they could come. I've long been a fan of national holidays for national elections, and state holidays for state elections. My points are that there are ways to address the downside of caucuses without destroying the very big upside, and that the negatives are being addressed in the caucuses themselves.
So, back to the popular vote. Due to the nature of caucuses, less people turn out. Right now, that's just the way it is. The Democratic Party understands this, and weights caucus goers more heavily, but in a way that represents the number of people that are likely to vote in November. It's a fair compromise. The superdelegates understand this, even if the average Hillary supporter does not.
One final, more personal, note on caucuses. I don't remember the initial vote count of my pricinct, but we were awarded six delegates. According to the initial ballot, they would be split 4-2 for Obama. This is in downtown Seattle - the heart of Obama's support in the state. After the caucusing and second ballot, Obama carried the pricinct 5-1. To all of you Clinton supporters out there, Clinton voters are not under represented in caucuses. That's not why you are losing them. Clinton is losing caucuses because her ideas are failing in the marketplace of ideas. After a discussion, people see the very real advantages of Obama, and choose him. In trying to put more weight in primaries, you are trying to stiffle the open and honest discussion that is the fundamental underlying principle of democracy. Freedom of speech is granted to us by the first ammendment to our constitution. The founders intended for us to use it.