Just got back from making my preference heard in the only bizarre way we're allowed to do it in this state -- at a party caucus.
I've been to a few of these things before -- often just out of curiosity, but occasionally because I really wanted to cast that vote-like thing. Usually, you see, I've dissatisfied with the likely Democratic nominee and have gone to the caucus hoping to at least be able to register that dissatisfaction even if its a forlorn hope.
Four years ago, I went to what turned out to be an enjoyable caucus to vote for anybody but Kerry -- even though it was clear by the time of the late Washington caucuses that he was going to get the nomination. I didn't think he'd be a good candidate, so I went planning to vote for Dean even though his campaign had been suspended by then.
Four years ago at that caucus, there were opportunities to discuss the candidates among the couple of dozen neighbors who showed up in my precinct -- 1783 on First Hill.
This year, there were 86 people for the same precinct. There was no conversation. There was no interaction, except for a perfunctory vote by Obama supporters who had to pick six delegates out of about nine who had volunteered to take the role.
Clinton garnered enough votes -- including mine -- in that precinct to get two delegates. Two folks volunteered and the organizers decided that was the end of it.
Finally, when it was clear that there wouldn't be any actual caucusing or discussion in 1783, I told the two self-appointed delegates that I thought it was important for both of them to take a strong stance on marriage equality at the next step. The woman who had elected herself stepped away saying that she won't do that.
The guy who made himself a delegate said that he'd support only the weakest possible provisions in the next step and promised to devote as little effort as possible to the issue. "It's just not something I care about," he said, although he assured me that he would at least vote for whatever watered-down measure is introduced on the issue at District Caucus where he'll be going less. (The woman who wouldn't talk to me seemed unwilling even to do that.)
It's admittedly difficult to deal with overflow crowds at a caucus, but the obnoxiously unrepresentative way that these two "delegates" were chosen in 1783, might be a sign of just how bad things were elsewhere in the process.
Part of the problem is that the official party volunteers in that caucus where all a part of the larger Obama group and became uninterested in the Clinton group once the two delegates had appointed themselves. And, of course, neither those two delegates were interested in any kind of discussion with those they were supposedly "chosen" to represent.
Clearly, part of the problem was mine. I should at least have printed up the material that ERW made available. I could then have (and should have) handed him the ERW marriage equality brochure and asked to at least read through it so he'd understand the issue.
He clearly doesn't. He said at one point, "It's not an important issue. It's just something the Republicans came up with to get out their voters." I attempted to explain that that wasn't the case -- that in fact the issue had been raised by groups like Lambda Legal long before the GOP adopted discrimination-amendments as a wedge issue.
But he obviously didn't care to listen. The woman we "elected" as our delegate was just plain rude. The guy is kind of an obsequious twit who thinks he knows all answers and isn't about to listen to anyone.
Those personality traits -- both of which make for a poor "delegate" -- would have become more obvious if the couple dozen of us who voted for Clinton had been able to caucus and talk to them before their positions became official. But the Obama folks (a few of of whom were downright contemptuous of the Clinton supporters) running the precinct didn't care.
Again, I could have -- and should have -- taken a more active role to insist on some sort of discussion and vote on the delegates even though only two had initially volunteered. What did the dozens of us who voted for Clinton want or expect in the next stage of the process? Our "delegates" didn't care and didn't want to find out.
So, after going to at least five of these silly things, I'm ready to give up on it all.
The caucus system too easily gets manipulated into a highly unrepresentative appointment of political hacks or rude, obnoxious twits.