in a perfect world of yancies: What's a Meaningless Primary Look Like?

21 February 2008

What's a Meaningless Primary Look Like?

Well the results are in, sort of, and Obama seems to have narrowly won in the meaningless Washington Democratic Party primary. Voter turnout was pretty high (they're not sure, but predictions vary from 30 to 47%), but you wouldn't have known that at our polling place:

There I am, depositing my ballot (#68 in our district--and keep in mind that those hundreds of people in the caucus photos were just in our precint; most of the rest of our district caucused elsewhere).
(Picture courtesy of Emily's new phone.)

Now, two things:
1) Most people here vote by mail, so the fact that I was only #68 doesn't probably say much at all about voting in our district. (But still--number sixty-eight?!)

2) Why bother to vote in a meaningless primary? Mostly because I really hope that the WA Democratic Party will notice how easy it is for people to participate. More than twice as many people voted in the primary as caucused. Twice as many! Maybe they should think about ONLY HAVING A PRIMARY NEXT TIME, so more people can cast votes that count?

Also, we were afraid that if Clinton won she'd act like it meant something (cf. Florida), so we wanted to do our part to make sure that that didn't happen.

Besides, voting is fun (compare: caucusing).


  1. I hope you (anyone?) enjoy the Now Playing track, from Emily's new favorite band (or so she said Tuesday night). . . .

    Oh, and I'm glad to hear that you did ristretto the right way, Marisa. If only I'd known then, I would've asked you to pull one for me . . .

  2. pssssstttt...I don't hear a song playing


  3. OK; I've done the upgrade & fiddled with the music code--hope it's there now!