This week, the Washington State Legislature took up debate on a bill that would use a state primary for the presidential nomination process over a caucus in my childhood home state.
Washington is something of an outlier in that they previously held both a primary and a caucus, with only the caucus being used to award delegates for the presidential nominees. I’m hopeful that the state legislature will act, because the dual caucus/primary system is about the stupidest thing I can imagine, particularly in the current climate.
(Oh wait...Trump. I forgot about him. I rescind that statement — I can actually think of many, many stupider things.)
But if “stupid” seems like a harsh word, consider my deepest criticism of that system — you’re basically holding a primary election in which you invite people to vote with the upfront disclosure that no matter what they think, you’re going to throw their vote away. That’s some seriously hinky disenfranchisement. And for the record, I’d suggest that would apply to either counting a caucus while discounting a primary or counting a primary while discounting a caucus. The entire idea of holding two elections for no reason, and tossing one, seems absurd.
On top of that, the state spent $9 million to hold that primary, which was utterly meaningless...they might as well have been burning cash on a barge out in the Columbia River. (But they wouldn’t do that...we kinda rediscovered environmentalism in the 90’s, and it stuck.)
The state’s dual system did, however, provide a good case study for how important the processes we choose for electing our representatives truly are. About 220,000 Washingtonians participated in the 2016 Dem caucus, and that result shook out 72.7%/27.1% Sanders. A few weeks later, over 800,000 Washingtonians voted in the Dem primary, and that went 52.4%/47.6% Clinton.
The primary result was in line with four major polls that had been conducted in the weeks leading up to both races. What this all suggests is that caucuses are a really, really poor way of polling the electorate. But I think we all knew that.
Had the primary been used, the pledged delegate gap would have grown wider by about 40. In 2008, a similar effect occurred, but by a smaller margin. Obama won the caucus by thirty five points, and he won the primary as well, but only by about five points. This widened his delegate lead by 20-25.
In neither case would I suggest that the eventual delegate awards were improper. In both elections the rules were established well in advance, and the candidates understood them. Still...we see in both elections how a caucus can skew the results, particularly in a time when candidate preference breaks down so strongly by race, and where minorities (and women) are so hesitant to participate in caucuses.
Looking forward, now is probably a reeeeeeeally good time for Washington to switch their system.
Who knows? 2020 might wind up being a blowout like 2004. On the other hand, we could have a ton of viable candidates still on the field by the time Washington votes, and we do not need a scenario where one candidate or another wins or loses depending on if the caucus or primary maths are used.
I’m just imagining what it’d have looked like in 2016 if Sanders won the primary by six points then a party caucus only gave him 27% of the delegates. Fortunately for all of us, the scenario was reversed and all was peaceful, because Sen Sanders’ principles on what is and is not fair are largely informed by whether he benefits or not. (I rate that snark “tough, but fair.”)
Still...it would be really disappointing if one candidate or another lost because the state decided to toss out a huge primary vote in favor of a much smaller caucus.
In regard to the bill under debate, both legislative chambers have decent Dem majorities, and while a large majority of officials from both parties seem on board with this change, Republicans are pulling some stuff that makes me suspect hijinks. (Meaning they’re doing anything at all, which is enough to warrant suspicion.)
A major sticking point with some Republicans is that they don’t want which primary a voter participated in to be made known to the public or the political parties themselves. Hmm. To clarify, what the Republicans are objecting to is not like California’s system, where you may remain a No Party Preference (NPP) voter and still vote in a party’s presidential primary. When that happens, the party knows that the voter in question voted in their primary as a matter of public record. What the Republicans want is a primary where voters get to choose the ballot they want and the parties don’t know who is and is not voting in their primary.
The case being made is that it’s “unfair” to taxpayers to give the parties something as valuable as a mailing list with which to fundraise off of. Uh-huh. Sure. In an age of data analytics where it’s almost easier to figure out who is Dem and who is Republican from other sources (an exaggeration...it’s not quite easier, but it’s also not that hard), I’m buying this reason with about as much enthusiasm as I’d buy a bridge from the Trump kids and the shady Russians they hang with.
To me, the whole “secret ballot” thing sounds like something else is up. My instinct is that Republicans in the state would like to keep strategic voting sabotage options open, but I’m not sure if that’s really the case.
The bill would also move Washington earlier in the process, which I support because it’s a pretty important state to the Dem coalition. I mean, as far as I’m concerned they can replace Iowa...then we could talk about apples for two years instead of effing corn. I mean...seriously...who doesn’t love cobbler more than...hum...whatever people make with corn. (I can’t digest corn, thus the grudge.)
In all seriousness, though, this law would put them in early March, after Super Tuesday. I think they’d be the 15th race. Which could be really important this cycle. We could emerge from Super Tuesday with a couple of front runners, and Washington’s relatively robust delegate haul could make the difference if it’s close. (I think they get about 90 pledged delegates, but I’m not sure if that’s final.)
Overall, I’m encouraged to see the state take up this debate. It’s time for the process to be more democratic, and to give the grassroots a voice. Using the primary will elevate the political power in this choice of minorities, young voters and women...and that’s a good thing.
(And for the record, I’m expecting flak tomorrow when my Washington friends read this diary. They say they love the caucus, because it’s so participatory. I kinda believe them, but at the same time I think they know it affords them a bigger saynin the choice and I think they like that fact, lol.)