There's lots of (at-times-heated) discussion today in the Virginia blogosphere over the relative merits of open primaries vs. caucuses or so-called "firehouse primaries." I've got to say, I'm a primary man myself, just like Greg Bouchillon. In my views, primaries are the most democratic (small "d") way of selecting a nominee. Although they cost money and CAN be divisive, they also help get the candidate's and party's message out to voters, help to hone the candidate's campaign "chops," and generally act as a helpful "shakedown cruise" for the rough general election contest to follow. Just imagine if there had been a caucus as opposed to a primary in the Webb-Miller contest, would we now have Senator Webb and a Democratically-controlled US Senate? I seriously wonder...
[UPDATE: Apparently, Ingrid Morroy and I agree yet AGAIN! My gosh, this is getting scary. LOL. :>]
Caucuses are not democratic and the Democratic party footsoldiers on the internet will not stand for them.
By the way, on an obnoxious/pedantic note, it's "hear hear," not "here here." Now, don't you feel better that you know that? :)
The Assembled Caucus is highly structured. There is a definite starting time. Everyone meets in the same room at the same time. Doors are locked and no one is admitted after the caucus begins. Those who leave during the caucus may not be allowed to return. Persons standing in line at the time the caucus is to begin are usually allowed to participate.
Since my county committee never has firehouse primaries, I'll make a short case for not having assembled caucuses. Although this committee complies with the "call to caucus" newspaper notification requirement, there is no other announcement that a caucus is to occur. The caucus is held on a week night at 6 pm when most folks are still at work or stuck in I-95 south traffic. Further, the committee requires participants to prefile qualifying documents about a week before the actual caucus date in order to participate. (The last committee reorganization was held under these circumstances (an assembled caucus) but even the committee members were not told of the reorganization or its date until just 12 days before the caucus …in an e-mail…...hmmmmmmmm). Yeah, I guess I am cyncical.
Can you see how assembled caucuses could be used to manipulate the selection of political candidates … in the wrong hands? I'm politically naïve but I figured that one out. Let the voice of the people be heard.
And now to the TV to hear Bush tell us yet more lies.....
Primary:
Primaries are covered by the Code of Virginia (Chapter 5, Article 4 of the 2001 edition of Virginia Election Law) as well as by the Party Plan (Article 13). The State Board of Elections sets the date for primaries and conducts them. The chair must notify both the State Board and the State Party that a primary has been selected (i.e., as the method of nomination for a candidate).Caucus:
The conduct of caucuses is entirely governed by the Party Plan. The only requirements imposed by the Commonwealth of Virginia on this process are on the forms to be filed and the period during which the caucus may take place (if for a candidate nomination.
So it would be my humble opinion that if there is concern that caucuses are restrictive, undemocratic, and suppress the potential voter from participating, then I say that maybe the Party Plan might need to be looked and revised or clarified on this matter.
We are a party of the people, all the people, and smoke-filled backroom tactics of the past don't have any place in the local committee's nominating process. I'm out here fighting like heck to reform my committee to make it small d democratic. Anyone care to join me?
Nobody is advocating a closed or assembled caucus. There are some who support an open or unassembled caucus also known as a "firehouse primary". In an open caucus, which is the type of caucus under discussion, ALL REGISTERED VOTERS can participate. It is NOT a closed door, smoke filled room situation. People who are trying to portray it as such are either misinformed or intentionally fanning the flames.
And Nate, threats are not necessary. Quoting YOU - "May this be a warning to all committee members and candidates that request a caucus. Caucuses are not democratic and the Democratic party footsoldiers on the internet will not stand for them." Is this how you plan to deal with any difference of opinion? Talk about a threat to democracy! You sound like Dick Cheney or Karl Rove to me.
Your contributions have done nothing but divide and anger. What makes you think that you invented or define progressive?
Let's just keep doing this and divide the Democratic party all over again. Let the Reps take control back.
As far as I can see, the only blogger that contributes in a positive way to the progressive message and Democratic party is Lowell. Thank you for staying above the mud.
But I disagree because, while an assembled caucus is the most restrictive option, this does not mean that an unassembled caucus is equal to a primary. We should support the most open process when there are two or more serious contenders for the nomination. It's a pretty clear and clean rule that is true to our principles as Democrats. I would hope we would all be upset if the state imposed a time limit of just a few hours to vote and eliminated 2/3 of the voting locations for a general election, similarly we should not tolerate it for our own party's nominating process.
The problem that I was trying to shine light on was how the caucus road can lead to exclusion (but I am only referring to my committee who's leaders use assembled caucuses, which I believe excludes voters). Not your committee, but in mine it literally is back room operations by a small cabal for everything. Hey until this year, there were no bylaws!
Again, my comments weren't meant for you.
I realize you might be upset under all the pressure and my thoughts are with you.
I don't know Nate (pitin) but he, like others of us, I believe, just want this party to become more democratic for those who've been left out and are on the wrong side of the gavel.
Good luck in the 39th.
But Sharon, one of the greatest things about the blogosphere is that it allows people to voice their opinion and have a discussion. More participation is not a bad thing. However, the level of discourse can be extremely low, which is why I immediately identified myself as "the minority in the meeting" and have signed all my comments. And let me reitirate myself. I do not agree with Ben's view that the committee acted in a racist manner. And the "Byrd machine" statements were very much out of line.
That being said, I didn't threaten anyone, was just making an observation, many bloggers specifically wrote that they would not support any candidate nominated through a caucus.
There is nothing progressive about threatening those who may not believe as he does. Who bought this kid a new pair of jackboots, anyway? Who declared Nate/pitin king of the progressives?
Nate/pitin says he doesn't agree with Ben Tribbett's view that the Springfield committee acted in a racist manner, but Nate/pitin was the only one who raised the race card at the Springfield meeting! No one else mentioned race or ethnicity there.
Nate/pitin may be an innocent, but if so is he was played like a fiddle by Ben Tribbett and became part of Ben and Greg Galligan's smear campaign against George Barker. He added fuel to the fire in a blog that equated Barker to George Allen! What a lie and what an outrageous claim!
Why were Nate/pitin and Ben Tribbett at the Springfield meeting when neither of them even reside in that district? It is odd that these two characters showed up at the same meeting as Galligan. What a coincidence!
Why have neither Nate/pitin or Ben admitted that Galligan supported a caucus and that Galligan previously relayed that position to George Barker and others?
Why won't they admit that Galligan switched his position from caucus to primary in order to bushwhack Barker, who had accepted Galligan at his word?
Nate/pitin's previous threats and chest-thumping are on various blogs for all to see. He can't now profess his neutrality toward the candidates.
Whether Nate/pitin did it wittingly or unwittingly, he helped Ben dump unfairly on a good Democrat to help Ben's promote Galligan. He helped to create an unnecessary divide within the Democratic party that didn't exist until you crated s stir. He and Ben also probably hurt Galligan more than they helped him with their outrageous claims and rhetoric.
Besides, how does Nate/pitin know where George Barker stands on the issue of open caucus versus primary? I doubt he has talked to him and if I were Barker, I would not waste my time talking to such a provacateur.
This whole exercise was nothing more than an under-handed move to discredit Barker and promote Galligan. I hope RK readers see through this charade.
By the way, I have met both Barker and Galligan. They both seem like fine chaps. My only problem with Galligan is that he allowed Ben and Nate/pitin to savage Barker and he never came out on this blog or others and said why he switched his position (some call that a flip-flop) on the caucus/primary issue. Such an act does not reflect well on his character and raises fears that he intends to wage a nasty primary campaign.
(No criticism of Lowell here. Lowell told it straight and merely cited his preference for a primary, which is an admirable goal.)
Dianne - I am not upset with you or your post at all. Thank you for your thoughtfully worded response.