<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Tuesday, March 19, 2024
March 19, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Jayne: Parties cling to antiquated way of choosing candidates

By , Columbian Opinion Page Editor
Published:

Washingtonians have Pat Robertson to thank for our state’s presidential primary. Seriously.

In 1988, the televangelist, who is charitably described as a conservative firebrand and less charitably as a small-minded lunatic, found plenty of support in Washington’s Republican Party caucuses. Because he won the caucus, the state sent delegates to the Republican National Convention to support Pat Robertson. And because this likely did not reflect the attitudes of a vast majority of Washington Republicans, the state soon adopted a primary election for its presidential nominating process.

Not that any of that has simplified the process or made Washington a player on the national stage or ended debate over how the state’s political parties select delegates. No, the process remains contentious as Republicans and Democrats alike cling to the antiquated version of supporting candidates.

Caucuses, you see, are the horse-and-buggy method by which citizens express their preferences for the presidential nominees. Party acolytes gather to share their opinions and convince their neighbors of the same. Or, as Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman explained, “You have to sit down with your neighbors and talk politics and religion, which a lot of people don’t want to do.” Yes, if it came down to a choice between attending a caucus or sitting at home and gouging your eye with a pencil, that would be a difficult decision for a lot of people.

In 2008, for example, Washington Democrats drew about 240,000 supporters to caucuses throughout the state, while nearly 700,000 voters cast ballots for Democratic candidates in that year’s primary.

That seems to present a clear-cut argument that primaries are a more evolved form of democracy, but it didn’t prevent Democratic State Chair Jaxon Ravens from defending the caucus system last year: “It encourages more active participation, with Democrats across the state showing up to caucuses and talking with their friends and neighbors about their presidential candidates.” The succinct retort would be “Balderdash!”, but instead we’ll quote former Washington Secretary of State Ralph Munro: “I’ve said it before … more people go to the boat show than to caucus meetings.”

Power of primary

All of which is part of the reason Wyman supports Washington’s primary election. She urged this year’s Legislature to approve $11.5 million in funding for next year’s primary, which it did, and she is seeking ways to make that primary more meaningful. Among the options would be moving up the date.

Washington’s primary takes place in May, which is late in the process and often renders the state irrelevant. By statute, Wyman is part of a bipartisan committee that has the power to change the date, and the target is mid-March. That would put Washington on the radar of candidates before the nomination is sewed up.

“I would like to see presidential candidates come to Washington and talk about the issues here,” Wyman said. “When you look at those visits, things come up that they didn’t know about. President Obama, when he was a candidate, he was in Oregon and somebody asked him about Hanford. He didn’t know about Hanford, didn’t know the significance of it, but his answer was, ‘I’ll know by 8 o’clock tonight.’ So that’s really the power of having a presidential primary.”

Not that the parties are buying it. They retain the power to choose delegates in their own fashion, regardless of the outcome of the primary, and both are expected to continue selecting most of those delegates through caucuses. In the process, they are embracing the smoked-filled Grange Hall politics of yesteryear, catering to party activists at the expense of the electorate.

That is a good way to alienate the moderate voters who will be needed in the general election. It’s a good way to diminish the will of the majority. And it’s a good way to give voice to your party’s lunatic fringe.

Loading...