![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is pretty bogus but an anon keeps wanting to put that all in. The criticisms are the same for all caucus states, not Washington, and I think is giving it undue weight. I've already reverted twice similar content and do not wish to [violate WP:3RR, anyone want to take a crack at removing this or at least cutting away the extraneous parts? Calwatch ( talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The Washington Democratic caucuses were open to voters who could: afford to spend hours openly debating politics, publicly state their political views, be willing to listen to others expound on their own personal political views, locate the actual caucus site at a specific time, and who would be 18 years old by November 4, 2008, regardless of party affiliation, as Washington has no party registration. All voters had to sign an oath stating that they are Democratic and will not participate in another party's voting process: "I declare that I consider myself to be a DEMOCRAT and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2008 Presidential election." However, claims are not verified and there is no penalty if caught breaking one's oath. A primary election, which the citizens of Washington lobbied for and asked the state legislature to fund, will be held February 19; however, the Democratic Party has said it will ignore the results of the primary and instead award all delegates via the caucus results. [3] The democratic "election" will cost about $10 million. It is widely held that the unique situation of holding a primary election whose results are ignored is the result of an ongoing battle of wills between the state's Democratic Party and the (Republican) Secretary of State. [4]
The Washington caucus has unique rules that differ from other Democratic caucuses. The first round of voting is tabulated when voters sign in and indicate, next to their name, date of birth and other demographic information, their candidate preference. Per state law, absentee votes are permitted for active military service members, the medically disabled and for religious observance reasons, provided such ballots were mailed no later than February 1, 2008.[5] In some caucus groups, members split into smaller groups according to whichever candidate they support. In other caucus groups, that does not happen. Voters supporting non-viable candidates have an option of moving into viable groups, and voters in viable groups can change their preference.[6] However, there is no 15% threshold rule for allocation of delegates to the legislative district caucus, unlike other Democratic caucuses. Rules state that any fractional delegates remaining are awarded to the candidate with the most votes that do not have delegates.[7] In actuality, groups decide for themselves how to handle split votes, such as through majority vote to determine which candidate gets all the delegates.
Many Washington state voters object to this process: it systematically excludes minority votes from the tabulation, resulting in voters feeling disenfranchised by a system that not only favors the privileged (and those who are free to spend hours at the event) but also disregards the wishes of the minority voters. [8] Some citizens, by law, are prevented from participating in caucuses at all (for example, some judges), and therefore completely disenfranchised from even casting a ballot. Others are concerned about the lack of privacy in the process, for instance reporters or police officers, who for professional reasons are not in a position to reveal their private policitcal choices. There is no option for casting a secret ballot in this process. [9] Voters may choose to draft a resolution to change the election process, although the state's Democratic Party has said it will ignore any resolutions that call for changing the current system. [10]
Should something be added that all the candidates appeared in the voter pamplet and that might explain why so many votes went to men no longer in the race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.151.60 ( talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
All delegate allocations are determined by the Precinct, LD and CD Caucuses, with the remainder chosen at the State Convention. No delegates are chosen at the County Conventions. Although some LD Caucuses are held in conjunction with the County Conventions, they are separate events. So the delegate breakdown "from the county conventions" is misleading.
Should we just delete that section and explain above? Chadlupkes ( talk) 04:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a problem switching the count on this page to 53/25 Obama/Clinton? I realize that almost all the mainstream media sources have it at 52/26. Only CNN has it right. But I live in Washington state, and we've been collecting results from the Legislative district cauccuses--we have about 75% of the results from LD caucuses compiled so far, and Obama is basically picking up all the Edwards and Kucinich people, and the break is about 70%/30% so far, and so it looks like *minimum* he'll get 53 at state, probably actually it will be 54/24. The Washington State Democratic party is *super* disorganized, in some ways, so they're not getting results up, but you can track a lot of them via blogs and so forth, from the LD caucuses which took place mostly on April 5th and 12th and 19th (with just a couple stragglers still upcoming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminady ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |publisher= |date= |url= |format= |accessdate= }}</ref>
(undent) I've moved the rest of the sources into inline citations, but some still need to be completely filled out. There are still 8 rows of data missing sources and some of the sources are pretty sketchy, particularly the ones for LD18, which are blog entries. Also, there are still many rows with no data at all. I've been giving this revised table some leeway to see if it turns into something useful, but to be frank, I'm starting to wonder if this article might be better off without it. It just might not be possible to find reliable sources for a results table with this much detail. We may be better off reverting to the original high-level results table and simply waiting for the Washington State Dems (or some other reliable source) to release the final results. -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 06:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Bryan--you are amazing. thank you for all the help and work. I just wanted to point out that the reason that the delegate count was wrong for LD47 was a simple math error (27+11=38, not 48) =). It's kind of funny in one sense that certain sources are considered ... "unreliable", when wikipedia itself is still (and in my opinion this is actually pretty stupid) banned from being used as a reference in most academic papers--at least at UW, which is one of the top research universities in the country. I suspect that both of these things will gradually change. Blogs will be accepted as more reliable, as will wikipedia. But I could be wrong =). Benjaminady ( talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be okay with everybody for me to expand the LD Caucus table, adding 18 more columns showing the Obama and Clinton delegates from each LD caucus which were elected to each of the 9 Congressional District Caucuses (to be held May 17th)? That would let us get a feel for how many delegates are going to show up at each of the 9 CD caucuses, and many (even most) of the sources we are using have it broken down by CD already.
Of course in a mere 3 days we'll have results from the CD caucuses, in terms of how many national delegates they elect. It would be more for ... keeping track of the history, as it were. Benjaminady ( talk) 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Washington Democratic caucuses, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Washington Democratic caucuses, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2008 Democrats Abroad primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is pretty bogus but an anon keeps wanting to put that all in. The criticisms are the same for all caucus states, not Washington, and I think is giving it undue weight. I've already reverted twice similar content and do not wish to [violate WP:3RR, anyone want to take a crack at removing this or at least cutting away the extraneous parts? Calwatch ( talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The Washington Democratic caucuses were open to voters who could: afford to spend hours openly debating politics, publicly state their political views, be willing to listen to others expound on their own personal political views, locate the actual caucus site at a specific time, and who would be 18 years old by November 4, 2008, regardless of party affiliation, as Washington has no party registration. All voters had to sign an oath stating that they are Democratic and will not participate in another party's voting process: "I declare that I consider myself to be a DEMOCRAT and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2008 Presidential election." However, claims are not verified and there is no penalty if caught breaking one's oath. A primary election, which the citizens of Washington lobbied for and asked the state legislature to fund, will be held February 19; however, the Democratic Party has said it will ignore the results of the primary and instead award all delegates via the caucus results. [3] The democratic "election" will cost about $10 million. It is widely held that the unique situation of holding a primary election whose results are ignored is the result of an ongoing battle of wills between the state's Democratic Party and the (Republican) Secretary of State. [4]
The Washington caucus has unique rules that differ from other Democratic caucuses. The first round of voting is tabulated when voters sign in and indicate, next to their name, date of birth and other demographic information, their candidate preference. Per state law, absentee votes are permitted for active military service members, the medically disabled and for religious observance reasons, provided such ballots were mailed no later than February 1, 2008.[5] In some caucus groups, members split into smaller groups according to whichever candidate they support. In other caucus groups, that does not happen. Voters supporting non-viable candidates have an option of moving into viable groups, and voters in viable groups can change their preference.[6] However, there is no 15% threshold rule for allocation of delegates to the legislative district caucus, unlike other Democratic caucuses. Rules state that any fractional delegates remaining are awarded to the candidate with the most votes that do not have delegates.[7] In actuality, groups decide for themselves how to handle split votes, such as through majority vote to determine which candidate gets all the delegates.
Many Washington state voters object to this process: it systematically excludes minority votes from the tabulation, resulting in voters feeling disenfranchised by a system that not only favors the privileged (and those who are free to spend hours at the event) but also disregards the wishes of the minority voters. [8] Some citizens, by law, are prevented from participating in caucuses at all (for example, some judges), and therefore completely disenfranchised from even casting a ballot. Others are concerned about the lack of privacy in the process, for instance reporters or police officers, who for professional reasons are not in a position to reveal their private policitcal choices. There is no option for casting a secret ballot in this process. [9] Voters may choose to draft a resolution to change the election process, although the state's Democratic Party has said it will ignore any resolutions that call for changing the current system. [10]
Should something be added that all the candidates appeared in the voter pamplet and that might explain why so many votes went to men no longer in the race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.151.60 ( talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
All delegate allocations are determined by the Precinct, LD and CD Caucuses, with the remainder chosen at the State Convention. No delegates are chosen at the County Conventions. Although some LD Caucuses are held in conjunction with the County Conventions, they are separate events. So the delegate breakdown "from the county conventions" is misleading.
Should we just delete that section and explain above? Chadlupkes ( talk) 04:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a problem switching the count on this page to 53/25 Obama/Clinton? I realize that almost all the mainstream media sources have it at 52/26. Only CNN has it right. But I live in Washington state, and we've been collecting results from the Legislative district cauccuses--we have about 75% of the results from LD caucuses compiled so far, and Obama is basically picking up all the Edwards and Kucinich people, and the break is about 70%/30% so far, and so it looks like *minimum* he'll get 53 at state, probably actually it will be 54/24. The Washington State Democratic party is *super* disorganized, in some ways, so they're not getting results up, but you can track a lot of them via blogs and so forth, from the LD caucuses which took place mostly on April 5th and 12th and 19th (with just a couple stragglers still upcoming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminady ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |publisher= |date= |url= |format= |accessdate= }}</ref>
(undent) I've moved the rest of the sources into inline citations, but some still need to be completely filled out. There are still 8 rows of data missing sources and some of the sources are pretty sketchy, particularly the ones for LD18, which are blog entries. Also, there are still many rows with no data at all. I've been giving this revised table some leeway to see if it turns into something useful, but to be frank, I'm starting to wonder if this article might be better off without it. It just might not be possible to find reliable sources for a results table with this much detail. We may be better off reverting to the original high-level results table and simply waiting for the Washington State Dems (or some other reliable source) to release the final results. -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 06:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Bryan--you are amazing. thank you for all the help and work. I just wanted to point out that the reason that the delegate count was wrong for LD47 was a simple math error (27+11=38, not 48) =). It's kind of funny in one sense that certain sources are considered ... "unreliable", when wikipedia itself is still (and in my opinion this is actually pretty stupid) banned from being used as a reference in most academic papers--at least at UW, which is one of the top research universities in the country. I suspect that both of these things will gradually change. Blogs will be accepted as more reliable, as will wikipedia. But I could be wrong =). Benjaminady ( talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be okay with everybody for me to expand the LD Caucus table, adding 18 more columns showing the Obama and Clinton delegates from each LD caucus which were elected to each of the 9 Congressional District Caucuses (to be held May 17th)? That would let us get a feel for how many delegates are going to show up at each of the 9 CD caucuses, and many (even most) of the sources we are using have it broken down by CD already.
Of course in a mere 3 days we'll have results from the CD caucuses, in terms of how many national delegates they elect. It would be more for ... keeping track of the history, as it were. Benjaminady ( talk) 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Washington Democratic caucuses, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Washington Democratic caucuses, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2008 Democrats Abroad primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)