Olympia Time

History, politics, people of Oly WA

Category: Washington Politics (Page 16 of 27)

Day of caucus notes

February 9, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Stopped by county headquarters to pick up some filled out proxy forms for my site, and a fellow came in to ask some questions about caucuses. Mostly had to do with how long it would take (you can sign in and leave, takes about 20 minutes at least) and how late he can show up (don’t show up later than 1:30 or you’re toast).

This is all information that was available online in a dozen or so locations, but he decided to stop by the county party headquarters to find out. Just reminds me that people like to get information in a myriad of ways.

I’ve been home for two hours sweeping and mopping, and I’ve gotten two robo calls. This is added to the three I got earlier this week.

I was talking to one of my work mates all week about the caucus. We talked about where he should go, what he should expect and how to get the most out of the process. Late yesterday as I was leaving he tells me that it turns out he can’t go, his roof is leaking and he needs to take care of it.

Leaks happen. Democrats should realize that.

Fuse points the light on our bad attitude about caucuses

February 8, 2008 / / 0 Comments

One of the arguments for the caucuses back less than a year ago when we were debating which process to use was that people should get out of their houses and caucus. It wasn’t an argument about whether people would, but that it was morally better to engage in person than through a slip of paper.

Sure, I’ll agree with that. Showing up is way better in all regards of democracy. But, most folks (90 percent of voters lets say) still won’t be bothered.

But, of course everyone that voted to have the caucuses will show up, so we tend to have a holier than though attitude about this kind of stuff.

Fuse Washington shows exactly how holier than though. They put together a list of all the reasons someone can’t attend a caucus. Of course they forget about “I have to work,” but they bother to put in my wife’s reason for not going:

I don’t have childcare

Bring the kids with you! Anyone can attend the caucus (although you have to be 18 years old by election day to particpate). Then you can make them write a paper on the democratic process.

My son will be napping throughout the caucus process, so we’re under no circumstances bringing him to a crowded room full of excited Democrats. And, if we did have childcare, who do you think is providing that childcare?

Someone shut out of the caucus.

And I thought our caucuses were bad (closed caucuses in Montana)

February 5, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Our caucuses that will get a ten percent voter turnout are bad, but not this bad (via Left in the West):

Only party leaders will vote in today’s Republican presidential caucuses in Montana, but many in the rank-and-file apparently didn’t get the word.

“The public thinks there’s a Republican election tomorrow,” Deb Mart, elections supervisor for Cascade County, said Monday. “There’s not.”

Northcentral Montana clerk and recorders were besieged by calls from residents about where and when to cast ballots in today’s Republican caucuses, which are advertised as part of Super Tuesday.

At least we invite the public, yikes.

By the way, I got the total turnout number by assuming about 200,000 turnout to both the Dem and Republican caucuses together and dividing it by the number of registered voters in 2007. Montana Republicans may suck more, but we still suck.

Crist v. Baird, will she get Move On help?

February 1, 2008 / / 0 Comments

One interesting note from the Thurston Democrats meeting on Monday that I forgot to pass on:

Cheryl Crist, who ran against Brian Baird in 2006 2004, is going at it again. The difference this time is that Baird made waves in Southwest Washington (and the country for that matter) by supporting the Iraq surge.

Before finally announcing her run on Monday, she’s been getting some vocal support:

Linda spoke about the need to get the attention of those who represent us in Washington, DC. The people are angry that their voices are not being heard. “I am pleased to tell you that Cheryl Crist is seriously considering running against Brian Baird in the Democratic primary,” she told the audience. Cheryl rose to a standing ovation. It was another gift this holiday season for those who have begun to lose faith in the political system.

She was also listed at a potential “Peace Candidate” here.

Though not the most liberal of congressmen, Baird certainly didn’t face much discontent among Dems in 2006, especially given the blue wave that year. No one was going to waste time challenging a sitting Dem when we had so many Republicans to beat.

But, this time around, it might be different for Crist. People have been downright disappointed with Baird. So, if Moveon is still as serious as they were last September when they were considering putting money behind D challengers, Crist might have a better (or at least better funded) chance this year.

From the Hill:

“There are a few key things to keep in mind,” the e-mail said. “We would only get involved in a primary race if MoveOn members in the district or state wanted to — and a majority supported that primary challenger. And we’d focus on races where a progressive had a good chance of beating the sitting Democrat and also winning the general election.”

Last month, the group began airing ads in Rep. Brian Baird’s (D-Wash.) district. Following a trip to Iraq, Baird had announced that he would withdraw his support for a withdrawal deadline and wanted to give the troop surge more time, saying that it is showing positive results.

We may not have to pay for postage on mail-in ballots

February 1, 2008 / / 0 Comments

But, even more drop off boxes might be even more ideal. Maybe we can call it a “drop off” election.

Small brew-haha in Thurston County last fall when an old fellow decided not to put postage on his ballot. The ballot was delivered anyway, and the county started sending him stamps, avoiding pissing the guy off, but raising the question of why ballots don’t come with pre-paid postage in the first place.

Previous entries on the topic:
Thurston County can afford to pay for our ballots to be mailed
Why do we need to pay for stamps to vote anyway?

Well, if a bill passes this legislative session, the state will require counties to pay postage on ballots. SB 6199 (HB 1483 in the House) will have a public hearing in the Government Operations & Elections committee on Monday morning.

The house version was heard last year. Here’s the audio file.

Sam Reed, former Thurston County auditor and now secretary of state, pointed out that Thurston did at one point pay for ballot postage during special elections in the late 80s. He said that paying for postage didn’t boost participation, and that the county would pay for postage anyway if someone didn’t affix a stamp.

I think that Reed’s experiment was too inconsistent to get a real sense of whether it would increase participation.

Kim Wyman said something interesting that by expanding permanent drop off boxes open during the election cycles, they were able to somewhat solve the postage as poll tax complaint. Twenty-five percent of voters in Thurston County used a drop box during the last election, she said. Here are the drop off box locations in Thurston County.

Here is the bill analysis (pdf file).

The fiscal note (pdf file) on the bill pegged the cost at $2.5 million every two years for the state (as they would reimburse the county for the cost). The cost per ballot could go about the going rate for mail because of the size of some ballots in some counties.

Dog as Partner episode makes me think of Ahern as something else that is a-h related

January 30, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Rep. Ahern of the far east of the state does his best to make a state house hearing into an uncomfortable Thanksgiving meal. Rich Roesler at the Eye on Olympia blog does a good job summing it up:

Among the critics: Rep. John Ahern, R-Spokane, who drew audible gasps from some in the crowd Tuesday when he asked if the state’s checking up to make sure people aren’t registering their pets as partners. (Couples must file notarized state forms.)

I’m just kind of worried about whether or not there could be some individuals out there scamming the system and that they’re actually claiming a dog as a domestic partner or just a, you know, a figment of their imagination, just whatever,” Ahern told Pedersen. “So do we have a Gestapo situation…”

Here’s the audio of the exchange (Thanks TVW!), if you want to feel the full squirming of the moment yesterday.

There is a break between the first and second portion of the file, where someone else asked a question before Ahern came back with another squirm inducing question about Rep. Pederson’s kid’s last name.

Hey kids (17 year olds), don’t forget to caucus in Washington State on February 9

January 30, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Just a reminder to all the folks out there googling for the caucuses in Washington State on February 9th, if you are 17 years old now but will be 18 by November 4, you can participate in the Democratic precinct caucuses:

Who can participate in their caucus? All registered voters and those who will be 18 at the time of the presidential election can vote at their caucus. You can register to vote at the caucus location and vote in the caucus. Others who are not registered can participate but can not vote.

Speaking of 17 year olds and the democratic process, there is an interesting bill in the legislature that will allow anyone to vote in a primary election if they’re going to be 18 by the time they next general rolls around.

Making to sooo easy to find your caucus on February 9 in Washington State

January 18, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Democrats do worse than Republicans in caucus site location in Washington State, so says this guy:

OK! We’re in business. And here tis: 46-2228 meets at Wilson Pacific School. That only took three websites and a boatload of errors to pull off.

Nice going on being “user-friendly,” Dems. It’s not like 80% OF THIS TOWN isn’t going to be USING THE WEB to try to find a DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS. I mean, what TRUE BLEEDIN’ HEART LIBERAL would EVER USE THE WEB? I mean, it’s not like they ever blog or use it to do grassroots organization. Heck, the special interest groups that are associated with the party, like pro-choice orgs and environmental groups, THEY DON’T EVEN HAVE WEBSITES!

Obama, Mary, and Joseph and all the angels and saints! It’s TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT ALREADY. DO YOU EVEN THINK TO DO A LICK OF ERROR CHECKING? HELL, THE STUPID FORM PAGE ISN’T EVEN ACCESSIBLE OR STANDARDS COMPLIANT AND IT’S THROWING A JAVASCRIPT ERROR.

Hmm. Inaccessible, not standards compliant, and throwing a JavaScript error. Now there’s an attack ad waiting to happen. But let’s see if the GOP can do any better with their search first.

I didn’t have the same problems this guy did, but that said, he’s also more intelligent than most folks that are going to be looking for their caucuses because a) he knew his precinct number and b) he knew what he was looking at and for when he scoured the party websites. That he’s bummed about of web caucus efforts means a lot.

Tim Eyman cherry-picking IRV?

January 16, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Instant Runoff Voting is on a roll in Washington. Approved by voters in Pierce County two elections ago, it was defending from watering-down last November. Depending on how things go with the Supreme Court and with Pierce County’s maiden IRV voyage next fall, IRV could be seen as a nice compromise between a closed primary and a non-partisan primary.

Which makes sense that an initiative was filed to enact an IRV system statewide. It probably won’t get on the ballot, but at least one active initiative huckster has taken notice. From email:

I have sponsored an initiative for implementing Instant Runoff Voting. It is in its first form at the moment, at the code reviewer’s office. The present incarnation of the text is posted below. I’ve already been approached by Eyman’s henchmen, but I want to keep this as grass-roots as possible.

Probably the worst thing that could happen to an IRV initiative would be a connection with Tim Eyman. I could see a scenerio in which the initiative would still pass, but attaching Eyman’s name to the campaign would mean that at least one party in the state would fight it tooth and nail.

On the other hand, sans Eyman, I’m pretty sure that party activists that have already shown a liking to IRV could lead the way and build trust. I know of at least two local party platforms that include IRV (Whatcom and Thurston).

In case you’re wondering, here is the description of the initiative:

Concerning an update to the ballot in the electoral process by which state and national representatives are decided. Implementation of instant runoff voting.

In the case of candidacy elections, where and when more than two candidates are running, the electorate shall be provided a ranked ballot. Next to each candidate’s name, there shall be an option of consecutive numerical ranks equal to the number of candidates running, up to and including four positions. The voter may chose to vote for one candidate by selecting only one spot on the ballot concurrent with said candidate’s name. Or, the voter may rank up to four candidates in order of preference. If, as in the current system, one candidate wins a majority of the first-preference votes cast, that candidate is victorious. If there is no candidate with a majority (over 50%) of first-preference votes, an instant runoff will occur. The candidate with the least first-preference votes (or a number of least viable candidates determined by the legislature) will be eliminated, with his/her ballots redistributed to whom they indicate is their second preference candidate. This process will be repeated as necessary until one candidate receives a majority vote.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Olympia Time

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑