In Our View: Republicans Get It Right

In reality, the ideas are pretty simple. That the public should decide the major-party nominees for president. That having more people engaged in the process reflects a strength, not a weakness, of our political system. That we should strive to live the ideals spelled out by Thomas Jefferson when he said, “Government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part.”

We’ll include every woman in that, as well, but that’s a discussion for another time. Anyway, with a desire to engage the public in the system, kudos goes to the Washington Republican Party for the simple act of extending the nominating process to the people; party officials announced this week that, for the first time, the state’s votes at the national convention will mirror the results of a primary election to be held May 24. Such kudos is warranted particularly when the GOP is contrasted with the horse-and-buggy system still embraced by Washington Democrats.

Secretary of State Kim Wyman praised the decision as “a big win for voters” and added, “Our main goal should be giving a voice to the broadest possible swath of the electorate.” Indeed. And yet that idea continues to be rebuffed by Washington Democrats. While state Republicans will follow the will of Republican voters, Democrats will continue to allot delegates based upon the results of caucuses.

Caucuses will bring together Democrats across the state March 26, where they will debate and cajole and vote upon their preferred candidates for their party’s nomination. Earlier this year, Democratic State Chair Jaxon Ravens said: “It encourages more active participation, with Democrats across the state showing up to caucuses and talking with their friends and neighbors about the presidential candidates.” The absurdity of this statement is evident to anybody familiar with the Internet, where friends and neighbors often spend a great deal of time talking about candidates. As Wyman described the caucus process: “You have to sit down with your neighbors and talk politics and religion, which a lot of people don’t want to do.”

The practical result is that the caucus process limits participation. In 2008, for example, Washington Democrats drew about 240,000 supporters to caucuses throughout the state, while 700,000 voters cast ballots for Democratic presidential candidates in that year’s primary — even though the primary did not allot the state’s support at the national convention. As Wyman noted: “The old caucus system run by the parties isn’t as convenient or effective in engaging voters as a statewide election for 4 million registered voters.”

Old habits, however, die hard. Political parties — and their ardent supporters — are allergic to action that might be construed as relinquishing a snippet of power. This creates a desire to limit the nominating process to those engaged enough to attend a caucus. Yes, there is a little bit of logic in trying to focus power among party activists, the kind who have been attending meetings and have been engaged in the politicking part of politics. But what is lost on Democratic leadership in the state is the residual impact of holding a meaningful primary election. Judging by previous results, some 250,000 Democrats will play a role in deciding which candidate the state will support at the national convention, while maybe 700,000 will serve that function for the other party.

As Thomas Jefferson knows, when people feel a part of the process, it strengthens our government.