Our American political system is strange. Exacerbated by the fact that each state calls its own shots in the "how" of political electing, things can get a little odd when a person moves from state to state. And with the 2008 Presidential preliminary elections looming on the horizon in Washington state, I thought it a fine time to fill in the details of perhaps this strangest of preliminary voting states.

The way the preliminary election works in most states is with a primary. In a primary, you walk into a building, show some identification, get a Democrat or Republican ballot based on your sworn allegiance or free choice if you’re an independent, and are pointed toward a voting machine or a private area to fill it out. That’s the experience I’ve had in Massachusetts and New Jersey when I have voted or seen my parents vote in the past. Washington, of course, is a bit different. They employ a primary session and a preceding caucus, this year held tens days before the primary.

Caucuses are a strange phenomenon that I think most have heard about but few really know how they work. Marching around Seattle and asking everyone I can find about them no one seems to know and even fewer have participated in one. So what the hell is this outdated, rah-rah fest undue influence event all about?

To the best of my knowledge, the caucus is an event where you go to a voting place on a specified date at one specified time, gather in groups according to the candidate you support, and then a few undecided voters sort of wander into the group offering the best cookies or prettiest girls or whatever. Everyone sits around while the fan boys and fan girls hustle for their candidate and the undecided voters either play along or surely get sand bagged by the cheerleaders. Like pro-life picketers standing outside an abortion clinic, this caucus business reeks of shifty grandstanding and unnecessary, one-sided influence. It’s one thing to hold an event where undecided voters get to listen to and participate in a debate about numerous candidates, another thing to place them in a political insider arena like Christians fed to the lions. Or something like that.

While places such as Iowa, the most famous of the caucus states, somehow come up with votes based on the caucuses, Washington uses votes cast at the caucus and then additionally uses results from the general primary held in the state ten days later. What!? Those voter names are then sent to the respective parties so they can do with them as they wish. Bullshit.

What happened to the whole privacy in voting bit I was taught about in elementary school? As a child we were always encouraged to talk about the issues, the candidates, and the parties themselves, with the key notion being that we were always free to support whoever we desired no matter party affiliation, the opinion of our peers, or what the media, the straw polls, or anyone or anything else thought we should. Most importantly, we were taught that our vote and the voting process in general were sacred in that intimidation would not be tolerated, outside influences would not be involved, and the whole kit and kaboodle held in a private, secure manner. And that, more than anything, was what I believed democracy was all about. I still do today.

Imagine my surprise these days when I discover Michigan’s primary voters will not count toward electing a Democratic nominee because the party doesn’t like that the state moved their primary’s date forward. Here is a very populous state essentially having no say in which candidate one of the big two political parties will nominate as their candidate. Wow, talk about a kick in the groin. When this sort of switcheroo funny business gets less attention than Hillary Clinton crying on national television than it becomes quite obvious a lot more is screwed up with our political system than at first meets the eye.

Why not have all primaries and caucuses on the same day like they do the general election? Why cater to the media with drips and drabs of voting instead of putting all voters on the spot on the same day to equally decide who receives the nomination? It is straight up bizarre that a few early states can more or less "decide" a champion when they account for so few of the actual delegates. But I suppose when shifty business goes on behind the scenes this is exactly what we should expect.

Whatever the case with caucuses and primaries, I will most likely be out of the preliminary voting sessions this year. The reason: I don’t feel comfortable signing a required one party sworn oath and voting in public, even if its implication is only for one voting session. I am not a democrat or a republican, and I hope to never be either. The fact that making political decisions in this country is no longer about privacy, the restriction of outside influence, and the security that I may cast my vote without swearing allegiance to an organization makes me very, very sad. I am an American and will happily stand before the flag as a show of respect to the land I call home. I will not, however, put my name down as a supporter of any organization I do not believe in and be foreced to cheer lead a candidate, and the fact that voting in Washington state for a preliminary candidate forces that position on me is very disappointing.

I say, “Poo on you, Washington, no wonder your voting numbers are low.”

BOTTOM LINE: I feel sorry for the somewhat undecided who WANTS to support a candidate, WANTS to participate in the political process, but DOESN’T WANT to swear allegiance to a party or have her privacy invaded in order to cast her ballot. If that is wrong then I don't want to be right.