A perfect example of the undemocratic and unrepresentative nature of the caucus system

[Tarc]

Washington State


Feb 9th Caucus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Democratic_caucuses%2C_2008#Precinct_caucuses

Candidate Votes Percentage Delegates
Barack Obama - 21,768 - 68% 53
Hillary Clinton - 10,038 - 31% 25
Uncommitted - 364 - 1% 0
Other - 50 - 0% 0
Totals - 32,220 - 100% 78


Feb 19th Non-binding primary - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Democratic_primary%2C_2008

Candidate Votes Percentage Delegates
Barack Obama - 259,323 - 50.40% 0
Hillary Clinton - 243,306 - 47.29% 0
John Edwards - 9,082 - 1.76% 0
Dennis Kucinich - 2,816 - 0.55% 0
Total - 514,527 - 100.00% 0


Sucks that we can't do tables on this forum, but follow the links to see it nice and pretty. A contest with FIFTEEN TIIMES less participants is allowed to award 68% of the state's delegates to Obama, whereas an actual, legitimate vote would have split them right down the middle.

[LostinVA]

1. K&R!!!

[bigtree]

2. wow. that's stunning.

How many more like this?

[Umbram]

3. And a winner take all system

would have awarded them all to B.O...which you would undoubtedly be advocating if your bias was merely flipped.

[calmblueocean]

4. The rules are the same for both candidates. Hil could've won those caucuses.

It's not like there's a slanted playing field. Hillary could just as easily have won the caucuses as Obama. Complaining about the rules after losing the contest seems like sour grapes.

[krkaufman]

31. Yes. I wasn't hearing similar complaints leading up to and after Nevada's caucus.

It's only after Obama's campaign strategy of actually competing in all the states -- small and large, before and AFTER Super Tuesday -- has begun to reap rewards that the caucus complaints have started to flow.

I agree that caucuses are less "democratic," but, I agree, the playing field was certainly fair.

[cali]

5. How are caucus states inherently more unfair to Hillary than to Obama?

They aren't. She ignored them. He didn't. All the whining about how they favored the demograpics of his voters more than hers is just that- whining. She had little or NO ground game in the caucus states. And that's her fault.

[krkaufman]

34. Isn't that largely because her campaign thought they wouldn't matter...

... given her expected wins in larger states, and a Super Tuesday tsunami that would propel her to the nomination? It just seems like the Clinton campaign projections haven't played-out as expected, and so now they're left to diminishing the value of caucuses and primaries that were unfavorable to them, and going after tainted delegates and the *supremely* undemocratic superdelegates. (Kinda ironic that these caucus complaints are coming on behalf of a campaign whose only remaining hope is having the superdelegates overrule those who've voted in the primaries and caucuses.)

[NCarolinawoman]

36. Even with a ground game, caucuses disenfranchise many of the elderly, the disabled,

and the working poor.

Also, in my own state back in 2004, many rural people were required to travel much longer distances than suburbanites; because there are fewer places to go when you have a caucus. The voting areas are clustered together around higher population areas (to save money).

[stahbrett]

6. I don't recall anyone complaining when Hillary was the "inevitable one"

I'm not sticking up for caucuses, but it should not be surprising to anyone, especially anyone with 35 years of experience, that caucuses exist, and have been part of the nomination process for 100+ years. If caucuses are to be eliminated, the time to do that is not during an election cycle.

[scheming daemons]

7. So you admit that your candidate didn't set up the organization...

...necessary to succeed in caucuses?

Were these caucuses SURPRISES?


Caucuses have been part of our nomination process for over a century. Hillary knew that going in. The fact that she, despite $140+ million going in, didn't set up the proper ground organization to succeed in caucuses shows that she is not effective at running a large operation.

...and there is no larger operation than the U.S. Government.

She has proven to be an incapable manager, unable to anticipate trends and prepare for the future.


As President, she would have to play by the rules in place to get things done without crying about how the system is "so unfair".

Obama didn't make the rules. He is just better prepared to win by them. That character trait makes him infinitely more qualified for the job of President than Hillary Clinton.



Stop whining.

[Renew Deal]

8. There's a secret here.

It actually doesn't highlight the caucus system. It spotlights Obama's GOTV. Obama's GOTV is amazing. They track every volunteer and every voter. They do an amazing job.

[Occam Bandage]

9. Except, er, in the non-binding primary, there was no reason for Obama's supporters

to go out and vote. Nor Hillary's. But that's beside the point, which is: if Hillary isn't competent enough to figure out the caucus system, how can we expect her to figure out the Presidency?

[scheming daemons]

10. ...and Obama won anyway...

...

[Tarc]

14. It would have been a "win" in the same way New Mexico or Missouri were "wins"

in that they would have split the delegates even or very near even. The caucus system attracts only the most diehard of fanatics who are able spend hours and hours on end harassing and haranguing others to switch sides and all that nonsense.

It is the polar opposite of a legitimate, and fair, go-into-a-booth-and-vote system. thirty-two thousand is not reflective at all of the will of the people when you can look to the other results here and see that fife hundred thousand participated.

[NJSecularist]

16. No, you are wrong.

The caucus only attract people who have a great organization in that state. Obama did. Hillary didn't.

[Tarc]

18. No, I a quite right actually

Real working people are far less likely to be able to devote the time and energy necessary to participate in this anachronism of a voting system.

This is also borne out by the miniscule amount of people who patricipated at all. Can you really sit there with a straight face and say 30,000 people is more representative of the will of the Washington Democratic Party than 500,000 is?

[NJSecularist]

20. No, but I can tell you that Hillary knew the ground rules before hand

And if she had won the Washington caucus, none of you would be saying anything about this.

[krkaufman]

39. You would first need to admit that a non-binding primary does not reflect ...

... the intent of the Washington Democratic Party members.

Further, the non-binding primary results are even less reflective, given that WA appears to have modified voter eligibility, where Independents are allowed to vote in a party's caucus. How many Independents would bother to vote in an unbinding Democratic primary vote?

[no name no slogan]

33. Never been to a caucus, I see

I've been to more than I can count, and I can assure you I did NOT spend "hours and hours haranguing" anybody.

I did, however, spend an hour or so meeting with my neighbors, electing party officials, passing resolutions, and selecting delegates to the county convention.

[lapfog_1]

59. How can you possibly compare

a "non binding" primary result to anything that is, err, BINDING.

You know, a vote that counts.

The Washington primary means absolutely zilch, because nothing was at stake.

I have no idea why people bothered to vote, unless there were other things on the ballot that mattered. But you can't seriously draw conclusions about how well either candidate would have done in Washington if the primary was the only method to select delegates to the convention.

Some media pundits were speculating that Hillary might win the Washington "beauty" contest, and put a "stop" to Obama's victory streak. But they were only joking about it.

[Emit]

11. I'm not sure you can compare these numbers the way you are trying to do

we'd have to know the numbers of voters who cast their preference in the caucus to do the math, wouldn't we? Or maybe I'm just not following the point you're trying to make -- kinda in a rush.

[ficus1]

13. At this late stage in the nominating process

I'm still surprised that people don't understand that delegate counts in caucuses are not the number of people that actually voted. Each state allocates delegates a bit differently, but the number of people who actually caucused is usually 5-10x higher than the number of delegates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Most informed estimates are that around 200,000 people participated in the WA Democratic caucus n/t

[Emit]

22. And that's exactly what I was getting at

is that what the OP is trying to compare?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. We could vote in both.

Since the caucuses counted....caucus it was.

[stahbrett]

15. The primary in Washington State was not for delegates

We can look at Wisconsin to see how he's recently done in a primary that counts for something.

[LostinVA]

17. Open primary

[stahbrett]

19. So what?

Did the Obama campaign get Wisconsin to implement open primaries for their benefit?

Plus, in the exit polls on CNN.com, Obama won Democrats by 8%, which is a huge win all by itself, even though Obama did not campaign in a way to only target Democrats (in other words, since Wisconsin IS an open primary, it makes complete sense to try to attract as many voters as possible. In a closed primary, his strategy would be different.)

[K Gardner]

23. Your sour grapes desperation is showing.. badly.

[rug]

24. How is the OP wrong?

[Emit]

25. I'm still not sure, but I think he is comparing two different types of sets of numbers

In a caucus, the number one sees in the results chart is not the total number who cast their vote, so you can't really compare that total to a primary total, which will show the total number of votes cast in an election. There's a post above, can't recall the poster or #, that explains it better.

[Debi]

38. Because he's using two different sets of numbers

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2008/02/12/democratic_party_announced_record_breaki

delegates elected to attend county conventions vs. ballots turned in.

[CTLawGuy]

26. since the primary didn't award any delegates

and didn't matter, how can you compare the two?

also, the numbers in the caucus column are STATE DELGATES, not votes. It doesn't reflect how many voters showed up to the caucus. So you can't say there were 15 times more participants.

[Tarc]

29. Yes it does reflect the number of people

Either you're lying or stupid.

[krkaufman]

32. Wow, maybe you'll want to submit your name to the Hillary Admin ...

... for consideration regarding any ambassadorial or other diplomatic openings they might have, come January.

[hfojvt]

40. you might wanna check your math

since Debi has a link showing 250,000 caucus participants. They elect delegates in numbers proportional to the way the mass of voters voted.

The caucus also represents more active people, those willing to help perhaps in party-building and get out the vote efforts later on. You get to meet and talk with some of your fellow Democrats in a way that does not happen in a primary.

[CTLawGuy]

66. it clearly doesn't

you get around 4-6 delegates per caucus, and each caucus is often attended by up to 200 people.

If you don't get 15% you have to go to a more viable candidate and try again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. I've been thinking about the role played by caucuses in this election a lot.

First off let me state that they are official, they are in the rules, all the Democratic candidates knew the rules in advance and played on the same playing field - so obviously the results "count", just as much as primary results count. I just don't think they are as democratic as primaries and that bothers me.

Here are links to two of my DU Journal entries dealing with the nature and weight of Caucuses relative to primaries in picking Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul '08: A Primary vs Caucus Results Case Study
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4512057

Over 1/2 Million MORE Democrats Voted in Florida Than Took Part in all the Dem Caucuses Combined
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4636542

[LadyVT]

28. Yep; most voters aren't activists driving 100s of miles to another state...

to "fire up" the caucuses.

[krkaufman]

30. The fact that the Dem primary in Washington was non-binding makes the comparison void.

Realistically, a "binding" primary would have resulted in much greater turnout, and it is difficult (to impossible) to say what the distribution of votes might have been on the 19th had the voting "mattered."

However, I agree that the caucuses are less representative of the "public" or "Dem voter" mindset; instead, they tend to represent the mindset of party activists. The results are less democratic from a "will of the voter" standpoint, but the Dem Party apparently has the right to select their nominee however they like and the rules have been in place for ages.

If we're looking to make the process more democratic, then other changes are also in order...

- eliminate superdelegates
- Instant Runoff Voting
- Lower or eliminate the 15% delegate allocation threshold
- Modify the delegate allocation system to more accurately reflect the vote distribution (by increasing the number of delegates -- or eliminate "delegates" altogether -- so that the allocation mechanism allows greater granularity in matching votes to tangible, "pledged" support


One thing to be wary of, though, is that shifting to a more democratic process then leaves it open to manipulation by crossover voters. Also, caucuses can apparently be conducted separate from the mechanics of state government, but primaries seem to be dependent on state support, so primaries are then subject to the whims of Republican legislators and governors.

edit: p.s. I've managed to convince myself, with the issues in the last qualifying paragraph, that there *may be* a place for superdelegates and/or caucuses in the system, to prevent corruption of the process by outsiders. Bottom line is, it's a political party's nominee that is being chosen, so whatever rules that party has chosen apply. If voters don't like those rules, then they need to get active to have them changed or join or form another party whose rules more closely match their values.

[suston96]

35. Good job. The numbers show how undemocratic the caucus systems are.....

The problem is, like everything else, if my candidate wins, screw how undemocratic the process is. Until next time. Then, if my candidate loses, I'll get back to fighting caucuses.

[Debi]

37. 250,000 people participated in the Washington Democratic caucuses

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2008/02/12/democratic_party_announced_record_breaki

The number you are using is delegates to the county conventions.

[mohc]

41. The real test will be Texas

The WA primary had more voters than the caucus, but not by the margins listed here. The WA Democratic caucus was estimated to have over 200k voters, the numbers here are state convention delegate counts. But as others have said, the primary being a non-binding contest makes the results suspect at best. Obama still won the primary, and who knows how many supporters stayed home because they knew the vote would not count.

Next month in Texas however, we will see a state with a caucus and primary which both count. If Obama loses the primary and wins the caucus, or even if we just see drastically different margins for the winner it will be the best evidence of the difference in support.

[rox63]

42. How come caucuses were just hunky-dory until this year?

Did Bill Clinton and his supporters rail on about how unfair the caucus system was? I know he didn't.

[Independent-Voter]

43. You're whining to the wrong people. You need to contact the DNC. Thanks

[ElsewheresDaughter]

44. that's why we have "superdelegates".....and thank god it is their job to remedy this unjust way.

[anigbrowl]

45. Who told you that?

It's superdelegates' job to remedy the caucus system?

Look, it was the same for all candidates going in, and has been that way for years. Folks say Obama won because of 'activists', wll how come he had more activists than Hillary?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

49. in answer to your second question.....

sorry but you made it too easy and I couldn't stop myself ;)

[milkyway]

46. So you're saying the DNC created superdelegates so they could remedy the unjust rules of the DNC?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

47. so they could remedy the Republican 1 time crossover votes that muddy the Demcratic Primary waters

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/14/obama-nevada-flyer-you-can-be-a-democrat-for-one-day

[scheming daemons]

51. Obama has won 5 closed primaries, Clinton 4......

....so you lose that talking point also.


Keep digging.... you'll find one...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

52. numbers of the voters who participated in those "closed" primary states tell the story .NOT caucuses

[FlyingSquirrel]

48. I totally called this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4676639&mesg_id=4676887

Let me just say one thing: The fact that there were 15 times fewer participants was not because they were locked out. To the contrary, the caucus was held on a weekend and it was perfectly acceptable to check in, give your choice and leave (similar to the amount of time it would have taken to vote). The reason so many people chose not to do so? Because Washington voters are very independent-minded and many simply REFUSE to be pigeonholed as "Democratic" or "Republican".

So now you have a situation where a much larger segment of the population voted, but many of them voted absentee and didn't mark their choice (Dem or Repub) on the ballot so THOSE ballots were also discarded.

There's no perfect system, obviously. But I'd be curious to see how much whining there would be about how "undemocratic" the caucus system is if HRC were ahead because of it. Probably it would be the Obama side complaining. That makes the entire argument invalid. The caucus system is a perfectly good way for parties to choose their candidates, and if you've ever taken part in one you'd realize how much more democratic it feels than simply choosing in the isolation of the voting booth after hearing the onslaught of commercials paid for in no small part by corporate interests' donations.

-------

"Nearly all of the counties in the Washington switched to vote-by-mail systems in the past two years, allowing voters to cast ballots early.

Half of the ballots received to date in Snohomish County were cast before the Feb. 9 caucuses.

Snohomish County received more than 123,000 ballots and counted about 81,000. The figures are tens of thousands of ballots short of the predicted turnout of 45 percent to 47 percent.

Thousands of ballots might still come in the mail and election staff plan to continue to count through the week, county elections manager Garth Fell said.

About 20,000 ballots cast in Snohomish County won't be opened or processed because voters did not check the party affiliation oath box on the outside of the envelope, Fell said. Those ballots came from areas where only the presidential primary was at stake."

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080220/NEWS01/149282310&news01ad=1#McCain.Obama.lead.state

-----

How democratic is that?

[cottonseed]

50. I agree to some degree. I can see your argument.

However, there will always be parts of this system which seem inherently unfair, especially if they're negatively impacting a candidate you're making the argument for. Hillary should be happy that there isn't some anti-oligarchical measures in preventing presidential campaigns for spouses of ex-presidents.

[eridani]

53. Caucuses are far less influenced by big money and name recognition

--and therefore more democratic. They favor people who care about the Democratic party over those who pay no attention to politics, and that's fine by me.

Maine has a caucus system in which any Democrat can caucus absentee for any reason whatsoever, and I am working for WA to move to the same system.

[dsc]

54. tell that to Biden and Dodd, not to mention Kucinich

[eridani]

67. In 2004, caucus states gave Dean 63% of his delegates--

--and Kucinich 84% of his delegates. In 2004, Kucinich had no serious competition for his House seat, and this year one of his opponents has really big corporate bucks.

Ending the caucus system means no more insurgent candidacies, ever.

[dsc]

70. Dean had money and name recognition

by the time of the caucuses. As for Dennis, he got very few delegates so 84% of very few is still very few.

[eridani]

71. Dean wound up with 103 delegates and Kucinich with 64

Without caucus states, that would have been 40 and 10 respectively.

[GarbagemanLB]

55. How did Obama do in that Wisconsin Primary?

[govegan]

56. Total nonsense and a meaningless comparison

I don't know one good Dem. that voted in that meaningless POS primary which was a total waste of taxpayer monies (although I am sure that some did). Sam Reed, the WA SOS, is a fool and one of the backers of that ridiculous exercise. Just like he advocated paperless touchscreen voting in WA, he always advocates systems that favor the neo-fascist elite that controls the Rep. party.

You could perhaps make an argument of sorts for advocating a primary system over a caucus system. You can't do that with meaningless statistics, or meaningless exercises such as you have chosen to highlight in your post.

Caucus systems are far superior to primaries for deciding party candidates. A caucus system encourages participatory democracy, while a primary system is more of the typical push-button, feel-good, pseudo-democracy most common in the US of A. Votes are more easily bought and sold like so many pigs feet, cow hides or oil futures in a primary system. Look at the occupants of the White House and the Congress and the party leadership the last few decades, if you don't understand what I am talking about.

True democracy requires an informed and active electorate. The caucus system provides a much better vehicle for that to occur. Any eligible voter can participate in the caucus system without being in attendance on caucus day. The Democratic party has provided for that in WA. The media and the SOS did not provide good information to the electorate about that. In addition, the presidential campaigns were geared to the caucus reality in WA, and why shouldn't they be?

The Dem. caucuses were funded by the Dem. party, the Legislative District, County and State party organizations. Attendees also contributed to the caucus funds on the caucus day, strictly on a voluntary basis.

Caucuses provide for direct interaction with neighbors on political issues of local, state and national importance. They give the LD organizations an opportunity to encourage more local participation and activism. I have been a poll worker in general and local elections. I have also been a precinct committee person and caucus organizer. There is no comparison as to which more embodies the spirit and principles of participatory and representative democracy. Surely there is a place for general elections and ballot taking, as must be done in any representative democracy. If American democracy is to survive, the electorate has to become more active, better informed and more invested in the process. A caucus system is one vehicle that can be used to make that happen.

I would encourage any interested parties to investigate some of the more modern and progressive constitutions in the world today, and in particular the Venezuelan constitution and some of the new political processes introduced there would be a good place to start.

Try to imagine what Frances Moore Lappe likes to call "Living Democracy--democracy as a way of life, no longer something done to us or for us but what we ourselves create."

[ElsewheresDaughter]

57. where is the Justice in that....mind boggling isn't it!

[MadHound]

58. Waaaaaaah! All the candidates knew the rules going in, they all had the same playing field

Hillary tried a frontal assault strategy, and failed badly. This isn't the fault of Obama, this isn't the fault of caucus states or primary states, this is Hillary's fault because she ran a piss poor, overconfident campaign. If you don't like the outcome, blame the playa, not the game.

[kdpeters]

60. You are flat wrong. Turnout was 250,000. You're counting state delegates, not caucus goers.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004191356_elexprimary20m.html

Obama trounced Clinton in Washington's Democratic precinct caucuses, which drew a record 250,000 participants.

So, turnout for the primary was roughly double caucus turnout. Not anywhere close to 15-fold and a really paltry turnout compared to the huge numbers of Democratic votes in swing states and blue states. Washington's primary numbers are completely inconsistent with what we've seen in the rest of the country this season. It's safe to assume the extremely low Democratic turnout in Washington is because people knew their vote was symbolic only and wouldn't count. There is no way you can extrapolate from these numbers the results of a certified primary election where the results actually count.

It is a perfectly legitimate and democratic method of selecting delegates.

[x-g.o.p.er]

61. Without campaigning leading up to it,

I think those vote totals could be a lot different. Obama does very well in states where he actively campaigns and organizes people to get to the polls.

The fact that he won without advertising or campaigning in a state where Hillary would seem, at face value, to have the stronger voter demographic, says something all by itself.

[OzarkDem]

62. Very interesting

This has been a key part of Obama's strategy since Iowa.

[Emit]

63. Understanding delegate math

This November, it'll be pretty easy to figure out who won. The electoral votes in each state are apportioned by population, and the winner of the popular vote in each state wins all of those votes. (Except in Nebraska and Maine, and with the Bush/Gore 2000 caveat.)

But in the Democratic primary race, the math is much more complex. But as confusing as it might be, it serves to extend the campaign (which is good for our party) and it protects the party by ensuring that the most delegates are assigned where the most Democrats live and vote.

Here's how it works, in most states anyway.

For starters, the total number of pledged delegates in each state is based on two factors - the number of Electoral College votes and the Democratic vote for president in the last three presidential elections (1996, 2000, 2004.)

So, a strong Democratic state like New Jersey will get more pledged delegates - in proportion to population - than a weak Democratic state like Georgia. Those two states each have 15 electoral votes - but New Jersey gets 107 delegates while Georgia only gets 87.

Once the votes are cast today, the "delegate math" kicks in.

In most states, roughly 35% of the delegates will be allocated based on the proportional vote each candidate gets in the statewide balloting. And roughly 65% of the delegates will be awarded based on the proportional vote each candidate gets in each congressional district.

But not all congressional districts get the same number of delegates. They've all got the same number of people - but not the same number of Democrats. ... ~snip~

But all in all, unlike the Republican Party, with its largely winner-take-all system, the Democrats' process seems more democratic --by ensuring that the most votes go to where the most Democrats are, it ensures that the overall outcome will largely reflect the will of Democratic voters... Even if it will take longer and involve some wacky math.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/understanding-d.html

[Emit]

64. Texas's Unique Primaucus --the math favors Hillary Clinton.

Texas's Unique Primaucus
11 Feb 2008 09:50 am

Texas is the most un-primary of primaries there is.

For one thing, there aren't any delegates awarded to the winner of the state -- no statewide bonus delegates, nothing. For another, a third of the delegates will be chosen through a complicated caucus system.

And instead of proportional allocation by congressional district, the rest of the delegates will be proportionally allocated by state senate districts. George W. Bush's '04 performance really changes the math. That's because the number of delegates allocated in those districts are based on how well (or poorly) John Kerry did, as well as the performance of the last Democratic gubernatorial candidate (who himself had votes taken away by a liberal third party challenger.)

The delegate-rich districts are the most heavily liberal state senate districts. According to this calculation, they're in Austin and in two of the most concentrated African American parts of the state. Advantage: Obama.

~snip~

Suffice it to say: whatever you call Texas's system -- a hybrid, a primacaucus, whatever -- do not assume that, because it's a big state and the media calls it a primary, the math favors Hillary Clinton.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/texass_unique_primaucus.php

[FlyingSquirrel]

65. This Washington Voter likes the Caucus system just fine, thank you

You don't like it, not my problem. Do it your own way in your own state.

More on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4679733&mesg_id=4684902

Essentially we're having a huge battle in our state and have been for many years now. We're used to open primaries here and HATE having to commit to one party or the other (especially with an oath). We're fiercely independent (a large number of us). This battle will continue. But for now, I don't mind the caucuses. They have a much more democratic feel about them, especially when tens of thousands of mail-in ballots (our state has largely gone to them, just like Oregon) get thrown out because someone refused (or forgot) to check the box for Democrat or Republican - and there's an oath on the stinking thing too.

[chascarrillo]

68. You are severely misinformed on many counts

1) You might want to make a correction. 200,000-250,000 people participated in the WA Democratic caucuses. Not 32,220. The latter is the number of legislative district/county delegates. So, about twice as many people voted in the primary as participated in the caucus.

2) You can;t compare the results of a primary that voters knew wouldn't count to a caucus that voters knew would count. Although there was some confusion when ballots started arriving in the mail, it was plastered all over the media immediately and continuously after that the Democratic primary did not count. The only people that participate were those who made an effort to vote. Now, all the counties have moved to voting by mail, except for...

3) King County still runs its elections with actual physical election polls. King County is by far the most populous county in Washington (home of Seattle and all us latte liberals, dontcha know). King also went over 70% for Obama. The turnout for counties with all-mail voting is much greater than those that retain voting booths. You're losing a hell of a lot of Obama-trending votes in King, where voters decided not to show up for an election that they knew didn't count.

4) Other items on the ballot were local by nature - e.g., school levies. That tends to encourage greater participation in localities with these issues on the ballot greater than those that don't, so you can't readily compare that to a statewide caucus.

Again, I can't stress this enough. You cannot compare the results of a caucus that people knew counted to a primary that people knew didn't.

[donheld]

69. Let's have a primary instead

Then even more people will vote against Hillary.