King County Democrats Respond to Caucus Location Mix-ups
As I noted below [m-b], two separate Democratic organizations provided me with the wrong (though consistent) caucus location. Luckily, I arrived early enough that I was able to make it to the correct location in time. Other reports suggest I wasn’t the only one who encountered this problem [m-b]. One of the organizations I relied on for this information was the King County Democrats [#]. This afternoon I sent Suzie Sheary, Chair of the King County Democrats, an email asking simply: What went wrong?
This was her response (emphasis mine):
We had a server crash last Saturday night which had to be completely rebuilt and we did not come back online until Thursday morning, in the wee hours of the day. We were down for 3 days.
Here at KCDCC, I was using the lists then as provided by the District Chairs. Four of the districts made changes as late as 2/1/2008 and our hotlines had been running since early January. We had the most current data available, but when locations are changing after the deadlines, it is very hard to keep up with it.
I averaged 150 calls per day, not counting faxes and emails and didn’t cover all the bases at all, working 14-16 hour days.
I cannot speak for anyone else at the KCDCC but I am now a proponent of the Primary system — Elections [ed note: Washington State Elections] is equipped with all the resources to run elections and we are not.
If you thought it was chaotic at the caucuses today, imagine the past month at the King County Democrats. It sounds like the Legislative Districts, who are responsible for assigning precincts to caucus locations, made changes after the deadline and/or didn’t get the data to the other Democratic organizations in time. I have a message out to the 43rd District chair for comment.
Suzie’s last sentence makes me think this could have been the last presidential caucus for the state of Washington. As confusing (and frustrating) as my experience was today, I’m glad I participated. The Stranger’s Eli Sanders said it best in his excellent post on SLOG [#]:
It’s easy to become pessimistic about American democracy, and I think it may become even easier to be pessimistic when the only engagement one has with the political process is in reading about it online or in print, and then putting a ballot in the mail every once in a while.By contrast, the messy give and take of the caucus process–or at least the messy give and take of my caucus meeting today–makes people feel like they are intimately connected. To their neighbors. To the slow grind of democratic change. To the direction of the country.
In the 46th LD, which is much of North Seattle, we had 16,246 people came to meet their neighbors and support their candidate.
16,246 is a huge number. To put it in perspective, consider this:
61,828 people voted in the 2004 election for State Rep in District 46 for position #1. 56,000 people voted for position #2 in 2004. That’s not just Democrats, that the total number of votes.
In 2006, Senator Ken Jacobsen got 41,948 votes in the 46th, out of a total of 49,787.
This morning, 32.63% of the total number of people who VOTED in the 2006 election came out to cast their vote in our caucuses for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the other candidates in the race. According to the Secretary of State’s website, the 2006 midterm election had a statewide turnout of 43.71%. According to King County Elections, 47.46% of voters in Seattle cast a ballot in the 2007 County and City races. 32.63% may be lower than these numbers, but considering that most people in Seattle use an Absentee Ballot that they can fill out at home, having that large a number show up at a caucus, get through the hassle of signing in, and spend an hour and a half or more talking about national and global politics with their neighbors, and stay long enough to fill the 1,211 delegates slots that we have here in the 46th, we did pretty darn good!
I’m posting more information right now on the 46th District website: http://46dems.com
I’m not sure if I follow Chad’s math. 16,246 is in fact a large number. To me, it looks like about 15% of eligible voters participating.
Using 2006 to estimate the number of eligible voters:
49787 votes cast / 0.4371 participation rate = 113,902 eligible
In 2008 caucus counts:
16,246 caucusers / 113,902 eligible = 0.1426 participation rate
Caucuses are a great way to talk to your neighbors about politics. Even with historic participation levels like yesterday, they still aren’t a good way to have widespread voter turnout.
It’s an interesting discussion, Josh. There are obviously a lot of people upset by the caucus format. They feel like it’s exclusive, inconvenient, and unfair. I’ve heard it explained that since this is a party-affiliated function that the strategies/philosophies that you would normally place value on for an election are thrown out the window.
I’m not sure where I stand on it. The Republicans count both (weighted 49% for the caucuses and 51% for the primary, I think). Of course, if you participate in only one of those then your vote is worth half of those who participate in both. And let’s be honest, if you caucus how likely is it that you won’t mail in the primary ballot? So, really, it’s still an unfair system (although only half as unfair).
I’d sure hate to see the caucuses go away, though. It’s such a unique experience, especially in this day of increasing isolationism.
By design, the caucuses are exclusive, inconvenient, and unfair (if your definition of fair is something like "one person one vote"). They are great for meeting your neighbors and building up the local party. The great enthusiasm that broke attendance records no doubt also helped to bring new people and new donations into every legislative district’s organization.
Yes, the parties can and will do whatever they want. But even as we’re patting ourselves on the back for such dramatic turnout and basking in the afterglow of spending a few hours in public talking about politics, it’s important to realize that less than fifteen or twenty percent of the electorate is deciding the party’s nominee. Maybe they reflect the general population, maybe not.