veiled4allah: caucuses are the strangest darn things

The Washington state Democratic caucuses are tomorrow. The format is pretty much like Iowa. Each voter signs in with the presidential candidate that they support, or they can sign in as uncommitted. The precinct chair counts up the number of supporters for each candidate and for "uncommitted". Each precinct has been assigned a certain number of delegates and the precinct chair determines how many supporters a candidate needs to get at least one delegate.

This is kind of a confusing process. The delegates are assigned proportionally. So if there are two delegates, then a candidate (this also includes the uncommitted group) needs to get at least 50% of the vote to claim one of the delegates. If there are three delegates, then a candidate needs to get at least 33% of the vote to claim one of the delegates. And so on. But candidates who get less than 15% of the vote don't get any delegates. Thus, if there are ten delegates, even though it would only take 10% of the vote to claim one delegate, the candidates with 10-14% of the vote are declared not viable and don't get any of the delegates.

This doesn't mean that the supporters of the less popular candidates are excluded. Instead, after the first round of voting, everybody gets a chance to change their vote in order to form groups that are all viable. Obviously, the focus is on the supporters of non-viable candidates making a new choice, but supporters of the other candidates can also change their vote.

This part is all about strategy. If there is only one candidate who is not viable, the best course for supporters of that candidate is probably to join one of the other groups unless the group needs only one or two more voters to become viable and they are able to convince members of other groups to join them (these people might be willing if their departure doesn't harm the viability of their first-choice candidate or change the number of delegates).

If there are multiple non-viable groups, they may be able to combine into a single group that is viable. The most likely new vote for this group is "uncommitted".

Kucinich has a surprisingly strong base of support in Washington state. The chair of the state Democratic party (who is a Dean supporter) has been saying for months that he thinks Kucinich will be viable in parts of the state. However, I fear that my precinct may not be one of those parts. I've had a lot of difficulty in raising awareness about Kucinich here. Nearly all of the precinct is apartment complexes and its pretty much impossible to get into these buildings unless you're a resident and have a key (good for security, bad for canvassing). I've tried putting up signs and stickers on public property only to see them torn down or otherwise removed within a day or so.

It's true that I also haven't seen any signs or stickers for any of the other Democratic candidates, so it's most likely that the Kucinich signs are being vandalized by Republicans and that most people around here are either apathetic or not eligible to vote (there are lots of recent immigrants who are not citizens).

So I really have no idea what my caucus site will be like tomorrow morning. There might be a lot of people, or there might not be very many. If there are five or fewer people, I would form a viable Kucinich group by myself (one person of five is 20%).

Campaiging is allowed at the caucus site before the voting starts, so I'm going to go early, inshallah, and bring along some materials on Kucinich's platform for people to look at. Maybe they will be interested in voting for him, inshallah.

If it turns out that the Kucinich group isn't viable, then I'll try to become part of a viable "uncommitted" group if possible. If neither Kucinich nor "uncommitted" is viable, then I'll join a group for one of the viable candidates (walking out without voting is not an acceptable option for me).

I've already decided that I will only vote for Kerry if he's the only option available to me. If there are viable groups for Dean or Clark (or possibly Edwards, though he has no presence in the state) then I would join one of those in preference to the Kerry group. I don't think Kerry is the right choice for the Democrats against Bush and am willing to vote strategically to slow his momentum.

If there are viable groups for more than one of the non-Kerry candidates, then my general order of preference is Edwards, Clark, Dean, but my choice may also depend on the sizes of these groups because I feel an interest in helping the weakest candidate (in terms of delegate count) do better. This calculation would tend to favor Edwards and Clark, and probably means Clark unless Edwards actually has a presence in this state because of media coverage of the race elsewhere.

Basically, if I come back and say I voted for Kerry, it was because he was the only choice available and if I come back and say I voted for Dean, it was because he was the only viable alternative to Kerry. I would not be surprised if either of these two outcomes occurred. Hopefully, I'll be able to come back and say I voted for Kucinich, inshallah.