This week it seems to be sinking in with Washingtonians that -gasp- our primary doesn't count!
I know many are questioning the use of the caucus system lately, not only people here in Washington State, but certain candidates as well.
And while I take serious issue with my little, tiny state being called "unimportant" by Mark Penn, I can see why people would take issue with the caucus system.
I'm not trying to debate the value of primaries vs. caucuses, but I would like to know - Why have both?
Well, it depends on who you ask apparently.
( I must admit all this "caucuses are unrepresentative" rhetoric I'm hearing makes me kinda nervous. I'm hoping it's not some brand of campaign foreshadowing that's leading up to a massive debacle.)
Some defend the caucus to death, while others can't stop complaining about the fact that our primary is meaningless.
Stephanie Horn at Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed's Office begs to differ, and said today that in a tight presidential race, like the one we're in now, the primary can definitely have an impact on the candidates campaigns, if only in the form of valuable public opinion
"It's just like in Florida," she said, "Hillary Clinton can say that she won Florida even though she didn't get any delegates. It's good for the candidates to be able to say they can win a state."
Aside from the obvious problems with comparing the Washington and Florida elections, hasn't Obama already earned bragging rights to this state after hisdecisive wins here last weekend?
According to Horn, the primary is a good way for the candidates to build momentum for their campaigns.
The price-tag for that momentum? $10 million taxpayer dollars.
Michael King of the Washington State Democrats isn't buying any of it, and called the primary a total waste of taxpayer money. King said that if voters are confused and angry they can blame Secretary of State Sam Reed for setting up the primary, even though he knew the Democrats would not be allocating any delegates from it.
King said he thought some of the confusion was an attempt to deceive the voters into believing that the primary was the main vehicle for voting when it was really the caucus. "The presidential candidates both came out before the caucuses here, expending their time and resources so they obviously saw the caucus as the prime contest in Washington," said King.
King also said that it was no mistake that the vote-by-mail primary ballots were scheduled to arrive in mailboxes just days before the WA State caucuses. I sensed just a tad bit of anger overflowing today between the Sec. of States Office and the Democrats. I think they have started to get flooded with phone calls.
Just by going to the Sec. of State's website, primary FAQ, and looking at my primary ballot, I must admit it is confusing. There really is no mention of the fact that the primary vote does not count. In fact, quite the contrary, it says all over my ballot that for my vote to "count" I must do X, Y, Z.
The King County Elections Office was scrambling today to field calls from angry voters about what the primary is costing the W.A. taxpayers. Patricia Ware of King County Elections told me the primary price-tag just for King County (Seattle and suburbs) is going to be about $4.5 million dollars. She wasn't sure if that cost was all inclusive.
Ware said they had an unusually high volume of phone calls about the primary today. "This election in general is stirring passion in the voters, and it's the last business day before the primary, so we were busy." The first man I talked to there said people were calling in all day, mad as hell.
The state is planning to reimburse the county for the cost, but it's still taxpayer money no matter which way you slice it, and people are mad.
One upshot is that there are other ballot measures on many of the W.A. primary ballots, so it's not all for nothing, just mostly.