History, politics, people of Oly WA
Second in an educational series of the gawd awful caucus process.
An awesome map that you can click on where you live (in most places in Puget Sound, including Thurston County) and find a map of where your caucus is.
For people who don’t like maps, but would rather type in their address, the Washington State Democrats have a nice database to find your location.
Part 1: What to expect at your caucus
Part 2: Where the hell is my caucus?
Never been to a precinct caucus? Unsure of what to expect?
While if I described it to you in writing it would seem complicated, in reality, your participation in a precinct caucus is pretty straight forward. This video will tell you more.
To find your precinct in Thurston County, go here.
To find your caucus location, go here.
Part 1: What to expect at your caucus
Part 2: Where the hell is my caucus?
Depending on how the Supreme Court rules in the next few months, we might have a Top Two primary back in Washington. This could take the power away from local parties as to who actually carries their label, who gets considered a Democrat or Republican on the ballot.
Right now, that label is determined by a primary election choosing the parties’ nominees. But, in a system where two Dems could advance to the general, we could see parties using lawsuits and party conventions to enforce their label.
Side note: even if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision throwing out the Top Two, the Grange has said they’d consider a statewide non-partisan election initiative.
Anyway, the recent decisions by the Pierce County Democratic and Republican parties relating to how candidates will appear on the IRV ballot next year could give an indication how the parties could live in a Top Two or non-partisan world. Both parties are allowing more than one candidate to appear on the IRV ballot, the Democrats allowing three, Republicans two.
Letter to the TNT (hat tip to Ranked Choice Voting Washington):
Republicans decided to allow anyone who garners 40 percent-plus of delegate votes at the party’s county convention to run with their brand name. In theory, the party will have a maximum of two candidates for any of the countywide seats. In practice, it will propose one GOP candidate for each race.
The Democratic Party, in contrast, decided to allow an inclusive measure that would allow up to three party candidates per race. In practice, this means that voters will have a chance to decide, based on the merits of each candidate, to actually rank candidates based on their own values and agendas.
IRV is essentially a non-partisan system, as it relates to local parties. Each of them will allow more than one candidate to leave an internal party event (caucuses or a convention) with a nod and a label.
So, who’s to say that the two parties can’t live with Top Two?
Noemie has a very comprehensive post up at Washblog about the upcoming precinct caucuses. She rehashes for a bit the fight last year to try for a primary instead of a caucus, and puts forward some of the arguments for the caucus.
One I find troubling:
Washington State Democratic Party Chair Dwight Pelz has said that the caucus system encourages grassroots democracy and dialogue while the primary favors candidates who spend the most money on TV ads and teaches participants that politics is a solitary process. I agree.
Prior to this, Noemie (full disclosure: I like and admire Noemie) argues that we have to look at the caucuses in the context of our fully screwed up election system. Granted, caucuses are a lot better than much of what goes on.
But, I’d argue that caucuses (while usually a good thing) are being used cynically by the Washington State Democratic Party to:
a) drive down participation, and
b) recruit volunteers for the nine months before the election.
Yes, caucuses are great because they require and encourage active participation. But, the party is using that participation for its own use. And, after the election, the scores of jazzed, encouraged people will be dropped like a wet rag by the party because the job will be done at that point.
If the party was actually all about the participatory democracy, it would hold caucuses for every election. We hold a state primary for every other less sexy election in this state because the party would much rather have the state government pay for its winnowing down election than to have to pay for a caucus no one will show up to.
Here are some old posts from Washblog of mine arguing about caucuses and such:
Republicans were trying to make a point with primary vote
More Caucuses v. Primary
Caucus v. Primary debate keeps attention off the real problem: lack of participation
Here’s my favorite line:
But, the problem with caucuses is that very few people actually do turn out for them. On the other hand, the problem with primaries is that still very few people turn out for them. The Olympian editorial points out that while only two percent turn out for caucuses in a given year (certainly not in 2004), but 42 percent turn out for a primary. Two percent may be extremely small, but 42 percent is all that great either.
Wouldn’t it be great if instead of having to choose between really horrible turn-out and depressing turn-out, we could find a way to get more people participating?
Fred Finn, who is running to replace Bill Eikmeyer in the 35th LD, has an update:
I just wanted to give you a quick update on our campaign.
After beginning my campaign on September 15th, I have received contributions from over 200 different individuals and organizations totaling over $50,000. I plan to actively begin fundraising in February.
Much of my time has been spent in attending a variety of auctions in North Mason and Kitsap Counties and service organization meetings and events including Rotary, Kiwanis and the Chambers.
Some of the events that I have attended include the openings of the Kitsap Community Resources new “green” building and the Harborside Condominiums in Bremerton. I attended the “Wild Salmon Hall of Fame Awards & Dinner” and the Kitsap League of Women Voters luncheon with Bill Gates Sr. as guest speaker. I attended both days of the first Puget Sound Partnership meetings held in Bremerton.
I have spoken at the Mason County Democrats meeting and attended the Kitsap, Thurston, Grays Harbor, and 35th Legislative District Democrats meetings. I spoke at the Kitsap Democrats meeting and the Mason County Women’s Democratic Club meeting.
Governor Gregoire and I met in Mason County at a fundraiser. I ‘ve also attended the “Maggie” Awards, the HDCC fundraiser, the League of Conservation Voters Breakfast as well as fundraisers for Congressman Norm Dicks, Kitsap County Commissioner Josh Brown and Rep. Sam Hunt.
I’ve had an article published in several of our local Democrat newsletters and attended various briefings on the S.E.E.D. Project, Belfair Bypass and various “Eggs & Issues” debates. I have spoken with a number of union and other organization representatives and will report more on this in coming months.
Thank you for your interest. This is fun.
To put his $50,000 into perspective, Tim Sheldon who ran for state senate in the same district, and who had a very competative primary race, raised $200,000 in the last cycle. His opponent raised $92,000.
Herb Baze, the former Mason County commissioner, has only raised $5,000 according to his latest filing.
I’ve been getting emails from the state party off and on for the past year or so asking my preference for President. I can’t recall if I’d ever responded to one of these emails, and I assume most folks who have given their email address to the party gets these.
The email tonight from state chair Dwight Pelz (they had been coming from the executive director) was different. It asked you to express your preference at the state party website and to share the email with your friends.
Problem is that you have to fill out your street address and email address before you can submit your preference. I understand that it would be hard for the party to do anything at all with my preference of candidate or the issues I care about without giving the candidates a way to contact me, but it just seems shady.
Last summer the King County fell down the stairs when they failed to file an opponent to incredibly weak KC councilmember Jane Hague.
Hague of the DUI charge.
Here’s my question, if Hague is found guilty of driving drunk later this month, wouldn’t it be smart for the KC Dems to try to remove her from office?
Recall in the state of Washington is allowed even for simply breaking the law, as it is assumed Hague did when she was sloshed while driving on June 2 on Hwy 520.
From the MRSC:
has been found guilty of two or more of the acts specified in the State Constitution as grounds for recall.[ii] The terms are defined as follows:
- “Misfeasance” or malfeasance” in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;
- Additionally, “misfeasance” in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and
- Additionally, “malfeasance” in office means the commission or an unlawful act
- “Violation of the oath of office” means the willful neglect or failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.
One could assume they could come up easily with one ground of recall (driving drunk), I guess its only a matter of finding another one.
I listened to this by podcast, so I couldn’t see either state party chairs’ faces, but I was hoping that given some dead air, each had a list they’d refer to.
Pelz: “I’m not sure this state wants to elect George W. Bush as governor.”
Esser: “You know, the governor held the door open as 30,000 inmates were released.”
Pelz: “Rossi can’t make up his mind on transportation.”
Esser: “Gregoire has been in government for 30 years.”
Pelz: “You can’t trust Republicans to balance the budget, look what they’re doing in the other Washington.”
I know I wasn’t looking for actual debate, but this was silly.
How do you embed video from TVW? Go here.
From the guys down at DL:
I want to invite you to a very special Drinking Liberally meeting this coming Monday, the 22nd of October at the Tumwater Valley Bar and Grill, starting at 7:00 pm. We are sorry to report that this will be the last meeting held at the TVB&G. As you may know, the establishment is closing it’s doors on October 27th. It will be a sad day for many of us who have spent many an evening there with great friends, great conversation, great service and hosts, and of course-great food and drinks.
So what happens now? Barry and I have been diligently scouting restaurants, bars and taverns throughout Olympia-Tumwater-Lacey that could potentially host us. Several suggestions have been made. One of the most common is to gather at the Fishbowl Pub in Olympia. While we love “the Fish,” all the wonderful energy there results in so much noise, it is impossible to carry on a conversation as a group. At this point, Plenty’s and the Urban Onion seem to be possibilities.
If you have ideas please pass them along. Some criteria include: 1) Informal atmosphere that serves both food and libations at a reasonable cost; 2) Room to host a group between 8 and 20 with no minimum requirements; 3) Use of the facility must be free; and 4) it must be conducive to occasional energetic progressive oriented conversation!
Keep checking the website for future locations. Over the next couple of months, we will most likely be “trying out” a few different locations, and we will make sure that the website is posted with the most current information. The blog address is:
http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/olympia/ So please join Barry and your fellow Drinking Liberally members on Monday in raising your glass, and toasting the Tumwater Valley Bar and Grill for being such great hosts to us over the past two years!
Jim did a really good job live-blogging the town hall in Olympia, and here’s his more personal debrief. He struck a thought in me. Solidarity is over-rated. More on that later.
Randy notes the Olympian’s story. Randy should link to more blogs.
TeacherRefPoet takes a strident point of view on the entire debacle and says “My party has lost the moral upper hand.” Its worth pointing out that TeacherRefPoet and I agree a lot over the past few weeks. Actually, his above post is about the best thing I’ve read on Baird and our reaction to him since beginning of this entire thing in late August.
From his post:
Because I disagree with Baird, I’d look closely at anyone running against him from either party. But I am deeply saddened at how hypocritical my party has become. They want me to love their dogma more than I love evidence, analysis, and legitimate debate. But my dedication to cool, reasoned disagreement and careful consideration of issues has me defending Baird here.
I disagree with Baird. I think he’s wrong. That doesn’t mean its o.k. to heckle him.
And, Arthur Ruger up at Washblog has a roundup of Baird’s visit to Raymond.
© 2025 Olympia Time
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑