Olympia Time

History, politics, people of Oly WA

Category: Washington Politics (Page 17 of 27)

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.

RSS feeds for bill information

January 15, 2008 / / 1 Comment

Cool note on the bottom of a press release from my rep Brendan Williams:

The Legislature now features RSS feeds for all bills. Using RSS, people will be able subscribe to bills and track changes using their RSS software readers. As bills move through the Legislature,interested RSS users can get almost instant updates on the status of bills. The feeds can be reached via the bill summary page for any bill, through the Bill Information section of the public website (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/).

Since this is the last thing they mentioned in the release, after mentions of two mobile sites and after the House Dems new blog, you would assume it was the least important. But, I’d say its the most.

RSS feeds on bills allows anyone to track whats going on in the legislature without them having to turn over their email to the state. Makes bill tracking much easier. Not that I’ve tried it yet, but I’ll sign up for a few and see how it goes.

Will the February 9 caucuses not mattering screw Gregoire?

January 14, 2008 / / 0 Comments

The Kistap Sun wonders about if things are settled out by February 9, whether there will be any attraction to taking two hours out of your Saturday to express your views on a done deal.

But, with the expected high turn out an essential element of a plan by the state party to recruit a bunch of new volunteer foot soldiers, will bad turn-out to the caucuses hurt the governor’s re-election campaign?

DWE spells it out pretty clearly:

February 5th is the day of a slew of state primaries…what Dwight Pelz calls Stupid Tuesday. On Tuesday February 5th, the field will be substantially narrowed. It may even be that one candidate gets enough votes to effectively end the nominating process.

A done-deal nomination would be bad for party activists because it would let the air out of the excitement around the caucuses. All of us will by then have put in hours of planning and spent lots of money preparing for the caucuses. If we get low turnout, we will miss the chance to recruit new folks into the party. We will miss the chance to meet the “Challenge from the Chair” of getting an increase in voter turnout. I also shudder to think of the money we might lose.

Last year, state chair Pelz was puttering around the state, promoting his Challenge from the Chair, a plan to recruit folks out of the caucuses, engage them in the party and in the governor’s campaign and get so many new Gregoire voters in each county.

No matter what sort of name calling Pelz uses on the February 5 contests, if one campaigns wins out on the 5th and no one shows up here on the 9th, his plan to recruit a bunch of new folks look pretty bad. Or, if it goes, three ways, he looks like a genius. Either way, its a bit scary for me.

Where in the hell is my caucus going to be in Washington State on February 9?

January 11, 2008 / / 0 Comments

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?

So, who’s to say that the parties can’t live with Top Two?

January 5, 2008 / / 0 Comments

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?

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Olympia Time

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑