Government is the Problem is a Popular Myth
“Government is the problem,” is a popular myth. Government is inevitably part of the solution. More evidence comes from Washington and Iowa private political parties as they serve their valid causes for the public good. Political partiers have a good time, but there is a morning after.
Federal judges have ruled Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and other political parties are private clubs. They’re free to develop their own activities with minimal federal interference. One activity to choose candidates and debate issues is a caucus. Caucuses recruit delegates to county, district and statewide caucuses. On C-Span I watched one seemingly surprised Iowan under thirty become a delegate for Ron Paul because nobody else volunteered. Where will that lead him?
Another political party role is committee precinct officer (CPO) at the local level. They run caucuses. Like caucuses, CPOs serve the public good with voter registration drives. They recruit candidates. They escort candidates. They inform others about elections. They raise money by providing cookies and information at highway rest stops.
Libertarian ideology says if these private party actions don’t harm anyone else and serve the public good, why should government interfere? Yes, but…
First, the caucus system does disadvantage others. In Washington’s 2008 primary election, 1.4 million people voted in the primary and 100,000 attended caucuses. Iowans brag their caucus system is crucial because no candidate has won the presidency without finishing at least third in Iowa. However, Iowa’s meager caucus turnout enabled Ron Paul to finish third by winning less than one percent of Iowa’s registered voters. Voters in those two states speak loud and clear: “We’d rather vote with ballots in our homes than go to caucuses.”
Iowa’s infinitesimal caucus turnout gives immense leverage for wealthy special interests to sway national elections. With half of caucus goers undecided the week before they met, negative media blitzes drove Gingrich’s forecasted victory into fourth place oblivion. Super-PACs, financed by donors most of whom were withholding their names, spent two-thirds of the $12.5 million advertising in Iowa to influence caucus-goers. And complicated party rules almost guarantee the percentage of delegates sent to the national convention will not match the caucus percentage they earned. In an Urbandale precinct, Romney won a third of the votes and half the county delegates.
The special advantages of early primaries have spawned a seemingly endless national campaign. New Hampshire state law requires its primary to be the first in the nation. Iowans hold caucuses ahead of New Hampshire’s primary election because caucuses are not a presidential primary. Washington could hold its caucuses before Christmas. Meanwhile needed legislation languishes. I recommend a national law limiting presidential primaries until Congress gets its work done.
Electing CPOs in private political parties has created a second problem in Washington. Recruiting CPOs is difficult so parties convinced the legislature in 1907 to place CPO elections on public ballots. Currently Washington spends extra money for different ballots listing CPO races in each precinct. A federal judge ruled publicly funded CPO elections are unconstitutional because our top two-party primary system allows non-party members to contaminate the vote. Two Democrats could be nominated for a Douglas County Republican CPO position, if there were two Democrats in the precinct. Washington’s Secretary of State plans to eliminate public PCO elections. It’s a good governmental solution, saving taxpayer money.
Not so fast. Democrats, Republicans and believe it or not, Libertarians, filed suit to continue the extra cost for the public good. They’re also lobbying legislators to pass election rules that would meet constitutional requirements. The parties clearly believe in good government, or at least when it subsidizes them.
The point of these stories of well-intentioned private political party machinations is that government inevitably petitioned to become part of the solution. We’d like to believe we can live in liberty without affecting others, but dynamic special interests almost always cause wider impacts. Good government is at best a clunky solution continuously cobbled together by concerned citizens. Nevertheless, government must be part of the solution.
Categories: Politics for People
Tags: iowa caucuses washington caucuses washinton primary election washington PCO election process unconstitutional Douglas County Republican super-PACs
Regarding the current dispute over PCO elections, your observation that PCO's are not "public officials" is a good one and may be a compelling reason to change the current situation in some fashion. Arguably, PCO's can resemble political party officials more than typical public officials, despite serving several public purposes and functions in their local neighborhoods.
However, that "policy question" is beside the point in the current debate over whether PCO's should be publicly elected at public expense. For now, state policy on the matter is well-established in state law, first adopted in the early-1900's. PCO's are clearly established under Washington law, as is their publicly funded and conducted election.
The federal judge did not hold that law or those provisions unconstitutional. Rather, it was the current method by which PCO's are elected that was held to be unconstitutional - primarily because of the "top-two" effect and the ability of non-democrats to vote for democratic PCO candidates (and vice-versa with Republican PCO candidates). The distinction between what the judge held unconstitutional (authorizing statute vs. the current election process) is critical in this dispute. It is the election method which must be fixed based on the court's decision, not the law. Unless and until the underlying law is either changed or abolished, it still provides for publicly conducted and funded PCO elections as the public policy and statutory requirement in Washington.
Secretary of State Sam Reed and county auditors around the state may wish to eliminate publicly conducted and/or funded elections of PCO's and there may be some compelling reason(s) to do so. But unilateral action on their part is not an option in this matter. Current state law must be changed in order to accomplish their purpose. And, that is the job of the state Legislature - not public officials like the Secretary of State or county auditors.
The state's two major political parties have jointly and voluntarily offered up several ways to reduce the cost of publicly electing PCO's. These include putting only contested races on the ballot and eliminating write-ins. But eliminating such elections altogether without the law first being changed is, in my view, an arrogant and inappropriate way to address this important and long-established feature of our political process.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Jim Hunter
Douglas County Republican Chairman
East Wenatchee
Reply to this
Jim, thanks for the clarifying email.
Your points that state policy is established that PCOs be publicly elected at public expense is excellent, as is your point that the federal judge did not hold the state law unconstitutional, but rather the method using Washington's top-two primary party system. Consequently you object, and three political parties object, that the Secretary of State's unilateral action is a policy issue of the legislature and not the Secretary of State.
However, the secretary of state does have to comply with the federal ruling, and as I understand, both he and the attorney general have not found a method by which they could be in compliance based on sessions with political party representatives and auditors. On that basis I believe he is taking the right action to cancel plans for PCO primary elections and save the state some money.
Jim Russell
Reply to this
Actually, there are methods by which the state could comply. It's simply that the S of S does not like or agree with any of the suggested methods and is refusing to do anything other than his unilateral action. He can't be taking the "right action" by cancelling the PCO primary because by doing so he is not only ignoring, but violating long-standing and existing state law.
However, there is another meeting scheduled for this Monday in Olympia at which one hopes that some rational solution will be found. Even if that is to change existing law to revise publicly conducted and/or funded PCO elections, it will be better than the existing situation in which both state law and a federal court decision are being ignored.
Jim Hunter
Reply to this
Jim, the correct term is "Precinct Committee Officer" or PCOs for short. Essentially, the are the grassroots of the party machine, not only leading precinct caucuses, but also responsible for knowing and working with the members of their party in their precinct, assisting with campaigns and fund raising (and most counties do a great deal more than rest stop coffees & cookies, btw), and representing their party in their precinct.
Why should they be publicly elected? They shouldn't, unless the parties are willing to allow other party officials to be elected as well. THAT'S not going to happen, I can assure you. The election of PCOs costs taxpayers money, and the money is wasted, imho. If PCOs are important to the party structure, it should be the party's responsibility to recruit, train, and deploy them. The general public need not be involved; nor do they need to be paying for a process that is exclusively party related and has nothing to do with official duties which benefit the general taxpaying community. Parties are clubs, their organizational selections should be internal, not public.
You are spot on about primaries. The caucuses are political charades at their worst. They exclude extremely important sectors of our community, the bedridden, homebound, military troops, people who have to work, people who have children, and 10% of the total electorate is generally all they reach. There is nothing democratic about them, there is no oversight to prevent insider party chicanery and downright cheating, and the votes that are placed at the caucus level can be changed at a whim, and have been so changed, as the caucus proceeds through the LD Caucuses and the State Convention Caucuses and Nomination process.
This is an dated, undemocratic, unfair, discriminatory way to select a presidential candidate that only serves to further isolate and divide the party spectrum, leaving a huge number of people in the middle who would prefer a ballot procedure, which is safer, more honest, and well protected from party insider games and party cheating, generally speaking.
Reply to this
Thanks for correcting my term on PCOs. Jim Hunter ribbed me for confusing PCOs with 3-CPO from Star Wars, which he thought was a fitting description of our national politics right now.
I also understand the PCOs can be appointed to fill vacancies for elected posts, which makes their election process even more troubling. Jim Russell
Reply to this
Yes, Jim, but Government is not the solution to all of our problems. History proves that. Gary
Reply to this
"Government" as represented by elected officials will remain the problem until voters come to realize that it is all about tenure in office. As soon as we have term limits, limited spending for elections….and I love your idea of no primaries until the work is done… "government" will remain the problem.
Reply to this
"Government" as represented by elected officials will remain the problem until voters come to realize that it is all about tenure in office. As soon as we have term limits, limited spending for elections….and I love your idea of no primaries until the work is done… "government" will remain the problem.
Reply to this
My article should have started with the words, "Good Government is inevitably part of the solution." I haven't figured out a way to enforce the law of no primaries until their work is done. Maybe we should legalize they must finish their top promise they make before the start of the current session of Congress before primaries can begin.
Reply to this