I’m sure a lot of you (especially those who think they’re the worst thing in the world) are tired about reading reports from the Washington Democratic caucuses. But maybe you’ll find a diary written by someone who ran an entire caucus site, as well as his own precinct caucus, at least slightly interesting. If so, read on…
I was one of the two ACCs (Area Caucus Coordinators) at a caucus site in the 43rd Legislative District. We are the bluest LD in the state, often casting about 90% of our votes for the Democratic candidates for president, senator, governor, etc. My site consisted of 15 precincts in the Fremont and Wallingford neighborhood of Seattle, meeting in an elementary school.
This school has frequently hosted caucuses. We had 12 precincts in 2004, when I wasn’t yet a PCO (Precinct Committee Officer). That year, I was the site’s organizer for the Dean campaign. The attendance in my precinct, which has around 500 registered voters, was in the vicinity of 60, which everyone considered quite impressive.
There were only 9 precincts there in 2008, because we knew there would be huge crowds while Obama and Clinton were duking it out (was Kucinich still running too?). The 2008 caucuses didn’t disappoint — the attendance from my precinct was 166, fully a third of the voters in the precinct. I was one of the ACCs that year too.
We didn’t use that site in 2012, when caucus attendance was minuscule. Pathetic, actually — in my precinct, where we merited 10 delegates to the next (Legislative District) level, the attendance was … wait for it … two. And the other guy didn’t want to be a delegate.
As the 2016 caucuses were being planned, likely attendance was a big unknown. We caucused much later in the rotation than we had in ‘04 or ‘08, and the general impression is that the identity of the eventual nominee of the party is pretty well established. After the last couple of states, however, the competitive juices flowed anew, so a big crowd was expected.
And was seen. Not 2008, but still it was enough to test our organizational capacity. Lessons had been learned, however — we had plenty of sign-in forms on hand, and there was an online opportunity to fill out the form in advance. Hearing that there were around 630 pre-registered attendees for the site, and assuming that relatively few people had been paying attention to the website where the form resided, we prepared for the worst best. I was surprised that so many attendees had pre-registered, which made our work as leaders easier.
We stationed greeters at the school entrance, to hand out sign-in forms to those who needed them, to help attendees pinpoint their precinct of residence on a map, to inform the pre-registered that they could go right to their precinct meeting spot, and to tell them which section of the building (gym, lunchroom, or second floor hallway) that spot could be found. I don’t know how efficient those procedures were, as I was rushing around designating the precinct spots, making sure each precinct’s materials were complete and placed in the proper hands (PCO or a caucus leader chosen by the attendees). I also set up my laptop and a printer, in case we needed to print additional sign-in forms (we didn’t), but also to set up a spreadsheet where delegate allocation could be calculated by simply entering the number of delegates for the precinct and the candidate counts. That spreadsheet proved useful, and of course I could print off a copy so that there would be documentation for another precinct chair to take back to their spot.
In the end, my 7-delegate precinct drew 116 attendees. After the first count, the tally was Sanders 86, Clinton 26, and Uncommitted 4. I should point out that Uncommitted is an official designation; if enough attendees sign in as Uncommitted, that might earn a delegate. I should also point out that I was one of that foursome; I went to the caucus sporting campaign buttons for the only presidential candidates I really loved — Howard Dean (2004) and Mo Udall (1976).
Our delegate distribution at that point was 5-2 for Bernie. But minds (especially those of the delegateless Uncommitteds) could still be changed. A thoughtful discussion ensued, running for perhaps half an hour. There was no shouting, much listening. Basically, Seattle Democrats generally prefer Bernie’s positions on domestic issues (there are perfectly good reasons for his nuanced Vermont-specific position on guns), appreciate Hillary’s experience in matters both international and domestic, and decry her tendency toward corporatism and bellicosity. Even Hillary supporters are uncomfortable with her Wall Street coziness and her saber-rattling; even Bernie supporters are uncertain whether his unusual attributes (Democratic Socialism and Judaism) will stick in so many (unenlightened) craws that he might not be electable. The gradualism v. staking progressive goals conundrum presents unknowable possibilities.
After that discussion, 3 of the 4 Uncommitteds (myself among them) switched to Sanders, the other chose Clinton. Perhaps surprisingly, one woman switched from Clinton to Sanders. Our final count was 90-26 in attendees, which translates to the same 5-2 delegate allocation. That sort of margin was seen in just about every one of our 15 precincts. In the caucus site as a whole, there were 84 slots for delegates to the LD caucus available. Of those, 64 were won by Bernie Sanders, 20 by Hillary Clinton.
A few final notes:
1) I detected a bit of (I’ll call it) paranoia among some of the Sanders proponents. Basically, the dialogue went like this:
Bernie backer: I’m not going to change my choice, so I want to write Bernie’s name in the second-count box.
PCO (me): When we do the second count, a blank second box means that the first box is used.
BB: How do I know that something else won’t be written there later?
PCO: This isn’t Chicago! Everything is being done right here in front of you, and the counters (one from each campaign) double-check each other’s numbers.
BB: Still, how do I know that something else won’t be written there later?
PCO: We are doing the counting and the delegate allocation right here. Even if someone tried to tamper with the forms later on (and no one will — this is Washington, and we’re all Democrats), the allocation announced here is what stands.
BB: Even so, I want my sign-in sheet back so that I can write in Bernie's name in the second box.
PCO (sighing): OK, suit yourself.
2) To those who get all bent out of shape because somebody else knows which candidate you support, and might learn your name too, what are you so afraid of? Aren’t you proud of your choice of candidates? Don’t you want your neighbors (my precinct is basically a 2 blocks by 3 blocks rectangle) to also back the candidate you do? And if you’re so afraid of us knowing who you support, why are you wearing that campaign button on your campaign shirt?
3) Throughout much of US history, candidates were chosen by caucuses, not primaries. Not only that … the secret ballot is a relatively recent feature of American voting.
Thanks for reading … if you actually do.
