Saturday, February 9, 2008

A caucus goes for Obama


What IS a Caucus-race?' said Alice; not that she wanted much to know, but the Dodo had paused as if it thought that SOMEBODY ought to speak, and no one else seemed inclined to say anything.

`Why,' said the Dodo, `the best way to explain it is to do it.' (And, as you might like to try the thing yourself, some winter day, I will tell you how the Dodo managed it.)

You folks in other parts may choose your convention delegates by voting in primary elections. In Washington, we (at least we Democrats) do it in caucuses. What is a caucus? The Dodo's advice to Alice was wise -- the best way to explain is to do it. And so I did. Did do it. Today.

A Democratic caucus, in my state, is a meeting of the Democratic voters in a precinct. Each Seattle precinct comprises two or three city blocks of houses. The Democratic residents get together and, mainly, select precinct delegates to the district convention. The district convention elects delegates to the state convention, and the state convention elects delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Each party determines for itself how these delegates are chosen. Our state Democratic party chooses delegates by proportional representation. My precinct was entitled to six delegates to the district convention, and those delegates were to be awarded based on the proportion of votes for each candidate. In otherwords, a vote of 45 for one candidate and 44 for another does not allow the majority to sweep all six delegates. Three delegates probably would be awarded to each candidate.

I showed up at a local elementary school, only to be told that so many voters were anticipated that five precincts caucuses, including mine, had been moved several blocks away to our neighborhood community center. I trudged over to the center, and encountered a complete mob waiting to sign up. By the time I had waited in line and signed up, a line of voters who were simply trying to get into the center stretched outside the building and far into the playground.

From my precinct alone, 144 voters showed up. No one had ever seen anything like it before.

Registrants for my precinct's caucus were sent to the center's teen game room. The room quickly became so crowded that officials had to open a bay door, allowing many of the voters to stand outside and listen through the open door.

God must love Democrats. This was the first day over 50 degrees we'd had for weeks. And it didn't rain!

Usually, caucuses not only elect delegates, but discuss platform recommendations to be sent to the district convention, have officials give talks encouraging contributions to the party, and generally whoop up party voter enthusiasm for the campaign to come. We had no time for such niceties.

The initial count showed 110 votes for Obama, 28 votes for Hillary, and six either uncommited or for Edwards or Kucinich. Everybody who wanted to talk was allowed one minute to try to persuade voters to change their votes, before the final talley was taken. Many had things to say. But everyone agreed that beating McCain was the big objective, not arguing over the relative merits of the two candidates for the nomination. Hillary voters applauded Obama speakers, and Obama voters applauded Hillary speakers. Distinctions between the two candidates related to relative experience, ability to excite Democratic voters, ability to attract new voters, and differences in personality. No one argued about differences in policy, except for one gentleman who pointed out that Obama was the only candidate in either party who had opposed the Iraq fiasco from the git-go. He was roundly applauded.

However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out `The race is over!' and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, `But who has won?'

Second vote: 112 votes for Obama, 30 votes for Clinton, and two still loyal to Edwards. No change in the number of delegates awarded each candidate.

At that point, the Barack Obama voters separated to elect their five delegates, and the Hillary Clinton voters separated to select their one delegate. Did I want to be a delegate? No. Did I trust all the articulate and witty folks to whom I'd been listening to serve properly as delegates? Yes, indeed. I therefore left for home.

Do I approve of the caucus system? I certainly do, with reservations. When only five or six persons from each precinct show up at the caucus, it's all too easy for a well organized faction to seize the party organization. When entire neighborhoods of interested voters show up, however, as they did today, the system represents the best form of party government, and the selection of party candidates by self-identified Democratic Party members.

Finally, the enthusiasm of everyone, Clinton and Obama supporters alike, was overwhelming. The Bush nightmare is coming to an end. The dawn is breaking. The sun will soon be peeking over the hills on the horizon.

Oh, yeah!

----------------------
NOTE (2-10-08): As Maine goes, so goes the nation!*

*Old political saying from days when Maine voted in September, because it was too cold in November. Maine's voters had a remarkable record of predicting the national winner until FDR's landslide victory in 1936. The joke after that election was: "As Maine goes, so goes Vermont."

3 comments:

Unknown said...

You know I disagree with you about Obama. And as time goes by, my dislike for him grows larger rather than smaller. I feel like the democratic electorate is being deceived by a pretty face and a nice outward message, and very few are really looking for substance, which seems rather lacking from Obama.

I also disagree with the caucus system. I guess when a precinct has over 100 voters at the caucus, it's great and it works. But, for example, when my dad went to caucus, there were 3 or 4 precincts at his location, and about 25 democratic voters between them. Precincts should never be decided by 5 or 6 voters. Never.

Rainier96 said...

Zachary,

You may just be venting, not necessarily looking for a response. But don't let the close campaign lead you into exaggerating the differences between Clinton and Obama. They are both highly intelligent and extremely disciplined thinkers and doers. (On Obama's behalf, you don't get into Harvard Law by being a slacker, you don't get picked for Law Review without being an obsessively analytical thinker, and how you get your fellow Law Review egotists to elect you as President of the journal is beyond my imagination.)

The last thing we need as Democrats is to let the campaign for the nomination result in dislike and antagonism between the followers in the two camps.

Read your U.S. history. JFK and Lyndon Johnson had many more differences between themselves than Obama and Hillary do, and their followers differed much more in regional and cultural background. They ended up running together on the same ticket after Kennedy defeated Johnson for the nomination. That may well be the best possible outcome in this race as well.

Defeating McCain is Job No. 1. If the party chooses Hillary, I'll be disappointed, and worried that the candidate with the best chance to defeat McCain has lost out, but I'll have no problem working enthusiastically for her.

Rainier96 said...

An interesting quote by Eleanor Roosevelt from her Autobiography, chapter 42, "The Democratic Convention of 1960." I hope both Clinton and Obama remember that what they say about each other today will be used against whomever is the candidate in the fall.

Another outmoded piece of machinery in the selection of the President is the presidential primary as it now functions. The chief trouble here is that the candidates spend their time running down their rivals in the same party. The net result is to furnish a large amount of ammunition to the opposition party in the campaign. An example is the Republican use, in 1960 campaign propaganda, of everything Senator Johnson had said about Senator Kennedy in the preconvention days.