Help me understand the proposal for Secretary of State Kim Wyman's plan to revamp the

[rhett o rick]

choosing candidates for president.

Wyman's plan, attached to pending bills in the state House and Senate, would move the state's default primary date from late May to March 8, a week after the Super Tuesday primaries. It could move even earlier, Wyman said, depending on discussions with governors of a half-dozen other Western states to coordinate a primary date for maximum influence.

The Republican and Democratic parties would each be asked to commit to allocating at least some delegates to the winner of its primary election. Even though Washington does not require voters to register with a party preference, voters would have to make a public declaration of party choice to vote in a party's presidential primary. If either party declines, all of the candidates would go onto one ballot with nonbinding results, and no public party declaration would be required to vote.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/02/washington_weighs_revamp_of_20.html

Please someone explain what this means.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Early stars are courted by candidates, and cndidates more money in those

States


California's primary is on June 13. The candidate will already have been chosen. Candidates come here to raise money. We have no influence on who gets the nomination.

[rhett o rick]

3. Thanks, I fully understand the part about moving the primary up,

what I don't understand is this:

The Republican and Democratic parties would each be asked to commit to allocating at least some delegates to the winner of its primary election. Even though Washington does not require voters to register with a party preference, voters would have to make a public declaration of party choice to vote in a party's presidential primary. If either party declines, all of the candidates would go onto one ballot with nonbinding results, and no public party declaration would be required to vote.

It's gibberish to me.

[pscot]

2. So if the

parties don't agree it's just a state sponsored straw poll? What am I missing here?

[rhett o rick]

4. Currently our "Primary" is just a expensive poll. Neither Party is required

to pay any attention to it when they choose candidates via the caucus system.

[eridani]

5. Exactly. The Republicans have already said they are using the primary to choose delegates

Democrats have never gone along with this, and will not now. The reason is that there are always people who come to the caucuses who decide to stay and remain active with the party.

[rhett o rick]

7. So does that mean this law is a waste of time? Or is it just to move the Primary up to March? nm

[eridani]

8. For us it is. For WA State taxpayers it is. But not for Republicans n/t

[rhett o rick]

9. Thank you and a special thank you for all your hard work here and I bet elsewhere.

I am a CPO and hope to be a delegate.

[eridani]

10. I'm living on borrrowed time with shitty genes

I do tend to get in a bit over my head sometimes until I get the usual lecture from my husband, whose punch line is "Dead people can't fight for social change."

If I have an extended absence from this forum, assume the worst--and all pitch in to let others in WA ;now about the many options for involvement.

[rhett o rick]

12. Thanks for sharing your life with us and thank your husband also. We value your input but

please share yourself with him. I see hope for the young people that are not spoiled like I and the other baby boomers were. The young people are struggling and that will make them tough. I have hope.

[rhett o rick]

6. I am going to try to reword it to see if I can make sense out of it.

The Republican and Democratic parties would each be asked to commit to allocating at least some delegates to the winner of its primary election. Even though Washington does not require voters to register with a party preference, voters would have to make a public declaration of party choice to vote in a party's presidential primary. If either party declines, all of the candidates would go onto one ballot with nonbinding results, and no public party declaration would be required to vote.

My interpretation:

"The Republican and Democratic parties would each be asked to commit to allocating at least some delegates to the winner of its primary election." If both Party don't agree to allocating at least some (??) delegates to the primary winner then "all of the candidates would go onto one ballot with nonbinding results(??), and no public party declaration would be required to vote."
If both Parties agree, then "voters would have to make a public declaration of party choice to vote in a party's presidential primary."

I don't understand the "some delegates" statement. Does that means it would be up the the Party as to how many "some" is.
I also don't understand what "nonbinding results" means in this case. On edit: Non-binding must mean the Parties don't have to use the results of the Primary.

[eridani]

11. You are right about non-binding in your last paragraph

Democrats will certainly not agree to select any delegates with a primary--caucuses have been too good for party building over too many years. Therefore, everyone would get the same ballot. I'm betting that at least a few alienated Republicans would vote for Sanders in that case. And probably some older Repub women who don't like glass ceilings would vote for Clinton.