Comment: With crowded field, caucus best for state Democrats

Unless ranked-choice voting is used, the presidential primary could disenfranchise many voters.

By Colin Cole

For The Herald

I agree with many of the proponents for the presidential primary that the traditional caucus system can be disenfranchising by artificially creating barriers to participation (“Washington pushing presidential primary from March to May,” The Herald, March 5). I believe it is important to use systems of elections that do not discourage voter participation or discount voters.

However, Washington state allocates delegates proportionately. This is objectively a good thing; the party recognizes that a winner-take-all system does not reflect the values of our communities or our voters. Sixty percent of the vote should mean 60 percent of the delegates, not 100 percent. Similarly, 25 percent of the vote should mean 25 percent of the delegates, not none.

There is a wrinkle here, however; the Democratic National Committee nomination contest mandates a 15 percent “viability threshold” for candidates. This threshold means that any candidate receiving less than 15 percnet of the vote has votes for them tossed out. This is not inherently a problem on its own, but it can easily become one under the right circumstances.

In a crowded contest, a primary system where voters are only allowed to make one choice threatens to disenfranchise wide swaths of the electorate and de-legitimize the outcome of the election. With 12 candidates declared, two more with official exploratory committees, and another 10 considering a run, it doesn’t take a math degree to realize that many candidates could receive anywhere from 1 to 14.9 percent of the vote. If only a few candidates receive 15 percent or more, 100 percent of the state’s delegates could be allocated to candidates that collectively received only a fraction of the vote, an undemocratic and ironically non-proportional outcome directly contrary to the intention of the delegate apportionment process.

Caucuses addresses this problem by giving voters the opportunity to switch their support to a second candidate if their first choice does not reach a threshold and is thus deemed “non-viable.” With a 15 percent viability threshold, the ability to express second preferences is critical. If the Washington State Democrats can conduct a primary that allows voters to indicate second and third preferences, using ranked-choice voting, that would be a best-of-both-worlds scenario that wouldn’t threaten to disenfranchise any voter. I would whole-heartedly and vehemently support such a proposal.

A primary conducted under the current proposed rules, however, could be inherently disenfranchising in ways that far outweigh the pitfalls of an improved caucus process.

If a primary cannot be conducted with ranked-choice voting, then state Democrats would be better off sticking with the caucuses, which allows voters to support a second choice if their first choice can’t win any delegates, and should instead make every effort to address all of the problems that make caucuses inherently disenfranchising: allow any and all Washington voters the ability to participate with no-excuse absentee ballots, disseminate these widely and make them available online, and pay if postage is required for any to participate.

The state’s caucus system is a flawed, imperfect system, but conducting a 2020 primary without ranked-choice voting could end up far more disastrous.

Colin Cole lives in Edmonds.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, Jan. 21

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

The U.S. Capitol building is prepared for the inauguration ceremonies for President-elect Joe Biden as the "Field of Flags" are placed on the ground on the National Mall on Monday, Jan. 18, 2021. in Washington, DC. Approximately 191,500 flags will cover part of the National Mall and will represent the American people who are unable to travel to Washington, for the inauguration. (Joe Raedle/Pool vias AP)
Editorial: The oath we must take after every election

We can’t address solutions to our challenges until we accept the election of those who represent us.

FILE - In this Feb. 26, 2009 file photo, a pressman pulls a copy of one of the final editions of the Rocky Mountain News off the press in the Washington Street Printing Plant of the Denver Newspaper Agency in Denver. A survey by Gallup and the Knight Foundation released on Sunday, Nov. 17, 2019, finds Democrats much more willing than Republicans to see government funding help local news sources. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)
Editorial: Restating our commitment to discourse and debate

To move beyond the last four years’ divisiveness, we need more discussion from varied viewpoints.

MLK
Comment: Why Martin Luther King Jr. embraced his enemies

MLK Jr. knew that to build our communities we have to help people be better than their worst selves.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, Jan. 19

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: Don’t use vaccine proof as get-out-of-covid-jail card

Cards are issued as reminders for a second dose; they shouldn’t be used for immunity segregation.

Comment: How to make Google and Facebook care about privacy

No, not fines. Go after what they really care about: the algorithms they built with your data.

Democrats and liberal media are cause of divisiveness

It is time the Democrats and the liberal media take their share… Continue reading

Trump supporters, he’s just not that into you

When will Trump supporters realize that he has no interest in them… Continue reading

Most Read