The fervor of the pending Presidential election has reached Washington State. Yesterday, three major candidates (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain) were in Seattle to court voters. At least one medblogger in the Pacific Northwest was able to get away to see a candidate. (And it clearly wasn’t me.) Today, the precinct caucuses convened. In Washington, the primary election apparently does not apportion delegates to candidates. Delegates are assigned to candidates from the results of the caucuses.

Thus, I attended a caucus today. I’ve never done this before.

Background information: Seattle is a liberal city. I live in one of the most liberal neighborhoods in the city (this area has been labelled “the gay mecca of the Pacific Northwest”; there are several communist bookstores; people just don’t look “conservative” here: lots of tattoos, piercings, hair dye, men in skirts, etc.).

A friend and I—we live one block away from each other and are thus in the same precinct—walked to the local (Democrat) caucus site. Outside were several tables, some plastered with Obama signs, some adorned with Clinton signs. A man was selling tee-shirts that read “Obama is black and I am proud” while he chanted pro-Obama phrases into a megaphone.

Inside the (large) caucus site were hundreds of people filing along the hallways, standing in lines, and crammed into rooms. There were probably a few thousand people there. Most of them were younger (twenties and thirties) and with the requisite ornate tattoos, wildly colored hair, multiple ear and face piercings, hipster messenger bags, boldly patterned scarves and hats, long sideburns, dangly earrings, baggy jeans, artsy buttons on their coats and bags, skinny pants, studded belts, and cups of coffee.

After signing in at the appropriate precinct and writing in the desired candidate, we were directed to a specific room for the purpose of discussion. I apparently also live in one of the biggest precincts… though it is clearly not the most youthful or punky.

The caucus was eventually called to order and the precinct caucus chief (a handsome young man with a dry sense of humor) solicited other people to become the precinct caucus chief (as this fellow apparently did not feel strongly about his job). After the candidates for the chief position identified themselves, the crowd (which probably numbered around 150 or so) voted for a chief… and the vote was indeterminate. In lieu of democracy, there was a coin toss (after a suggestion of “rock paper scissors” was shot down) and the original chief was named as the chief.

Bureaucracy.

The chief then read instructions to orient us to the purpose and mechanics of the caucus. Shortly thereafter, the floor was opened for discussion. The basic rule is that everyone in the room is allowed to speak once for, at most, 60 seconds. (”But you don’t have to,” the chief commented. “There are a lot of people here—you do the math.”)

Banter between Obama and Clinton supporters thus began. (There were no third-party offerings.)

It was cool. Most of the individuals who spoke offered thoughtful opinions about their candidate of choice. The general arguments that came up repeatedly:

People generally like both Obama and Clinton. Their policies do not differ significantly and people are hopeful that, should one become President, the direction of the country will change and circumstances (the war, the economy, etc.) will improve.

Should Clinton become the nominee, Republicans will unify and potentially win the Presidential office. One of the speakers stated that he worked as an intern in the Senate (for a Republican—”you can only work for a Republican Senator when you’re from Alaska”) and commented that the hatred that Senate Republicans have for Clinton is impressive. The conclusion from this argument is that voting for Obama will facilitate a Democratic win.

While I understand this argument, I don’t particularly like it. This is like believing in God simply to avoid the consequence of going to hell, not because of faith. Ideally, people should vote for who they want to be President.

Clinton has experience. The corollary is that Obama does not.

Obama generates enthusiasm and can mobilize people to facilitate change. The corollary is that Clinton, even if she has experience and fantastic policy ideas, lacks the capacity to unite people (”except for Republicans”). Without support, she cannot effect change.

The Obama supporters were clearly more vocal and energetic than the Clinton supporters. The Clinton supporters generally only spoke up to offer a counterpoint to a pro-Obama argument (i.e. more reactive than proactive in their statements). The Obama supporters were also, as a group, younger than the Clinton supporters.

The chief then stopped the discussion and provided opportunities for those undecided individuals to identify themselves. This then made them targets so that pro-Obama and pro-Clinton people could speak to them to influence (persuade, badger, coerce, buy off) their vote to help shift the balance of delegates.

At this point, my friend and I left as (1) no one identified themselves as undecided, (2) we had already submitted our votes when we signed in, and (3) we had already been there for nearly two hours.

So we kinda shirked the democratic process.

I’m glad I went—I enjoyed seeing and hearing people advocate for their candidate of choice, express their hopes and goals for the future, and respectfully demonstrate passion for their beliefs. Democracy on this level looks different (and more genuine) than the democracy that we read on the front pages of newspapers or hear on the radio (remember, I don’t own a television—and not because I’m a hippy socialist who believes entertainment should come only from reading pre-owned books, hugging trees, and eating organic, 100% pesticide free, soy products packaged in 100% recycled plastic… I just don’t own one).

This is an exciting and important Presidential election. Please exercise your civic duty and vote.