Ok, after Hillary last week declared she'd lose Washington because it was a caucus and not a primary, we started doing some research.
First off, caucuses seem incredibly stupid. As bad as the whole electoral college as far as rigged, fraudulent and not representative of the population. I've decided this evening that I support the popular vote, even if it means that Al Gore would have been president. (On the other hand, Cheney wouldn't be. Down with Cheney!)
Apparently in Washington, Democrats rely solely on the caucus. To vote for a Democratic candidate in the Washington primary is simply helping to create a "trend indicator" - a wasted vote that has no impact on who Washington puts its support behind. On the Republican side, it's a half vote, since the votes are split between the primary and the caucuses.
So, diving deeper into Hillary's quote, it strikes me as quite humorous. If people just go to the polls and vote, they would vote for her. If they gather together in small groups and make impassioned speeches, they vote for Obama. That seems to suggest that caucuses are made up of more informed people who are actually more interested in politics (maybe a flaw in my support of popular vote) and that when people are more informed (not voting for someone based on their husband's reputation), they make a better choice.
I was going to vote for Obama in the primary until I realized (a) it means nothing in the Washington primary and (b) the state shares my name and address with the democratic party. So now, I'm left with a dilemma... vote for John McCain or myself as a write-in... either way the republican party gets my name and address or abstain entirely as this is a useless waste of time.
I hate politics. And lately people have been discussing them in morning devotions at work. I don't know if that's worse than the sports discussions that keep erupting at the morning devotions, but it's enough to make me want to just regularly skip them.
Still voting yes on the school levy and the ability to elect our own mayor.