After the Flood: Fixing Our Caucus System

Great Ideas (0.00 / 0)

All of these sound like great suggestions to me, particularly the separate delegate sheets. My precinct went fairly smoothly, but I can only imagine the headaches that the larger precincts faced.

One problem I see for dividing the district conventions up by house district would be dramatically increased cost (I would think), if all of those districts were separately hiring concessions and renting chairs and such.

---

by: jonthegeek @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:09:13 PM UTC

All very sound suggestions! (0.00 / 0)

We also had the added hurdle this year of having spring break and Easter hit between the caucus and the convention, making it very difficult to get all committee members together. We also needed to get our precinct people organized and had to wait til the last minute to schedule, to not interfer with our committee chair's schedule, since he had to gather people from throughout the district for a series of meetings.  When you have to deal with a week of spring break, and a weekend blocked by Good Friday and Easter, it's a zoo.  Even an extended time, will still run into spring break, and usually Easter and Passover, but there will be more time to jockey the committee meetings and for the Party offices to get together the materials coming from the caucuses.

Time and space was a major headache.  Your ideas are excellent.

---

by: merci_me @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:14:36 PM UTC

Abolish the Caucus (3.00 / 3)

I think what troubles me the most is the perception by many hardcore activists that voting is a privelege to be earned, and not a right of all citizens. Not everyone is a retiree, student, self-employed, single with no children, political fanatic, or someone else who can carve out the time to be a party builder. At my precinct caucus, what struck me the most were the people who WEREN'T there. Senior citizens weren't there past 8-9pm in large numbers because many of them left to go home. Mothers with small children weren't there or left, frustrated and upset. Of course, people who have to work nights weren't there. Voting is a right of ALL citizens, and should be as convenient as humanly possible to encourage maximum participation. It's time to abolish this insider-slanted system and bid a final farewell to Texas good-ole-boy politics. This way, our conventions can truly be celebrations of Democracy and a time to make friends and build the party, instead of spending 20 hours in a chaotic, contentious mess.

---

by: JohnInDFW @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:23:55 PM UTC

You're right ... (0.00 / 0)

but I don't see the party "activists" wanting to do away with the system that favors them anytime soon.

---

by: matthew_lt @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:42:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Open" primary (3.00 / 1)

Malicious crossover voting in an "Open" primary inspired by the right wing punditocracy makes a caucus/convention a necessity. Plus, there's no way that a primary with early voting can replace the community interaction a caucus/convention provides.  

---

by: Stevious @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:43:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Voting and Caucusing are Complementary (2.50 / 4)

Voting -- called suffrage -- is an "inalienable" right only slightly limited by the Texas Constitution but very throroughly and effectively subverted by the Jim Crow Texas Election code as perpetuated by the Texas Democratic Party and, more recently, turned into an instrument of political oppression based on economic discrimination by the GOP with the collaboration, of course, of Liebercrats at the federal level and Craddick Democrats at the state level.

Convention delegate is an office with particular duties -- not a right at all. Nobody has a right to be a delegate and should not be elected if they are unfit or unable to serve those as elect them.

These are not equivalent or interchangable terms. They are complementary, like a lock and a key.

Of course, that seems strange, because the party convention system has degenerated into a patronage-chain. It is not self-governing or self-sustaining.

And, the DNC/TDP now use the term "delegate selection" to describe how a "titled" party aristocracy excludes critics and includes sycophants so as to perpetuate itself and to ratify decisions, however, incompetent or catastrophic.

---

by: JRBehrman @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:44:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Convention vs Caucus (0.00 / 0)

Now you're mixing words. Convention delegate is an office and as such is not a right given to all.

However, we're talking about the extra vote that occurs on primary night that favors those with the time, money, and freedom to spend 5,6,7 hours caucusing at a convention. The caucus unfairly favors those with that extra time and weights their voice more than someone else's that can afford to come back for the caucus.

At the beginning of the primary season I spoke in favor of the caucus system because that was what was in place and to change the system would be unfair to the candidates and voting public. Now we have time and hindsight to change this insider system.

Granted, some will argue that parties get to determine how their candidate is chosen but we need to make sure that our party is the most fair, the most open, and the most inviting. Not the party known for throwing up roadblocks to prevent peoples voices from being fully and equally heard.

---

by: matthew_lt @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:56:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The convention was also a caucus (0.00 / 0)

We (the county delegates) had to re-caucus at the convention which again favored those who have Saturday (all day and in some cases evening) free. We lost some folks between election night and convention.

I was disappointed to be mashed in with four other precincts at the county chair's choosing. We worked hard to go even steven on election night in my precinct, and found ourselves in a 2-1 disadvantage come convention day. Perhaps my biggest issue is the opportunity to abuse the system, or at least raise suspicions.

---

by: txcoles6 @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:02:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Both are needed, (0.00 / 0)

but I'm not so sure it's a good idea to do both in the same state. JR is right; they're complementary. They both measure things that are important to know going into a general election. A primary measures overall support and a caucus measues the depth and commitment of that support. What's the proper balance? I dunno. But I think we ought to do one or the other, and not continue to try to do this hybrid beast we've got going now.

---

by: davew @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:23:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what should also strike you... (3.00 / 1)

are the numbers and kinds of people not EVEN voting. the caucus is a subset of a subset, certainly, but my 74 year old parents did it and i phonebanked dozens of 20somethings who couldnt go because of work and schools. IOW, blanket statements and stereotypes might not actually be true or accurate.

on a different note, to this i totally agree:
"It's time to abolish this insider-slanted system and bid a final farewell to Texas good-ole-boy politics."

well i have to say i cannot imagine a more diverse and non-insider crowd than what we had at the caucuses and conventions. to call the between 650,000 and 1,000,000 people at caucuses 'insiders' is, well, silly. you cant have half a million or a million insiders. organizing these folks can take the TDP anyway we want it.

what do you think?

-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.

---

by: mariochampion @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 18:11:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With 10 days of early-voting and the primary voting day... (0.00 / 0)

There is no reason you can't get people to VOTE for a candidate.  I had this talk at 6am Monday morning at the Collin County convention with the last 20 people who were there.

#1 - Only the primary votes should count toward delegate counts.

#2 - We need to teach people to vote, not caucus.  Because they need to vote for EVERY office, not just the President.  We are severly suffering because of local, state, and federal politicians.

#3 - Still have the caucus to figure out who is going to be a delegate, but the numbers are already known based on the primary vote.

#4 - The at large delegates should have been those of us who stayed all night - weren't we the most dedicated Democrats of all?  ;-)  Anyway, the at large delegate demographics percentage is very vague in the rules.  This needs to be clear/concise, and followed.  There should be a shorter time span than the last census, if that is what was used.  Possibly in voter registration, that information could be captured.  That way, it is already computerized.

#5 - Computerized.  We capture thumbprints when getting driver's license.  This could be the verification.

#6 - Resolutions made way ahead of time so they can be presented at the primary and everyone vote on them then.

I am trying to remember what else was presented on Sunday.  I'll respond if I remember more.

Mark my words.  No one will vote again if it doesn't get fixed.  That was the Democratic version of TORTURE!

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:44:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, I forgot! (0.00 / 0)

The entire convention we kept hearing:

Please donate!  It cost over $25,000.00 to fund this convention.  We do not receive money from the government.  We have to fund this through you.

After that TORTURE, there is no way I am going to give a dime.  I can think of a thousand things we could have spent that money on...

BUT FOREMOST, TEACH PEOPLE WHY AND HOW TO VOTE AT ELECTIONS!!!

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:02:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wouldn't it have been great for all that money to have gone to candidates? (0.00 / 0)

It would be interesting to find out how much money the SD/County conventions took in to help fund the events of the day.

I bet that money could have fully funded a House race and we'd be one step closer to flipping the House.  

---

by: muse @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:16:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree... (0.00 / 0)

Anything would have been better!  I certainly would rather educate and get people to vote to get the majority in Congress where you can make more of a difference.

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 13:47:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Caucuses are necessary until . . . (3.00 / 1)

Until Texas gets rid it's ridiculous system of registering voters without requiring them to register with a party affiliation or else to declare themselves an independent, the caucus system will be necessary in order to counteract the voters from opposition parties who decide to vote on their opposition's primary ballot with the purpose of trying to elect the candidate least likely to win against their party's candidate in the national election.  

In states where voters are only allowed to vote on their chosen party's ballot this problem of sabotaging the vote is eliminated.  Take for instance, California.  Voters must register before 30 days prior to an election.  If they wish to change party affiliation they must do that before 30 days prior to an election.  If they wish to vote on another party's primary ballot they must first change their party affiliation.  So, if someone (lets say a Republican) wanted to vote on the opposition ballot (lets say it's the Democratic ballot) in order to choose the candidate they feel is least likely to win against their candidate they would have to a) plan in advance, and b) register as a Democrat. And what self respecting hard core Republican would go that far!?  If, however, they wanted to vote on the Democratic ballot because they genuinely esteemed one of the Democratic candidates and felt strongly that they want to see that candidate in office , they would still need to change their affiliation - an act that might cause them some discomfort, but they would probably get over it.

Now, it just so happens that in 2008 many Republicans feel certain that John McCain will win the Republican nomination and, therefore, are not afraid to "waste" their vote by crossing over in order to sabotage the Democratic vote.  But lest anyone think this is just a "Republican" phenomenon, let us all remember that there have been years where an incumbent Democrat in the White House was planning to run for a second term and many Democrats pulled the same stunt on the Republican party. And no matter which party is behaving as "spoilers" it is always at least boorish behavior, and in my opinion, highly unethical behavior.

And before you cry "unfair - I should get to vote for whomever I want to," let us not forget that every voter has the right and freedom to vote for any candidate they choose to in the National Elections.

So as many people continue to argue over the reasons why one candidate "won" the Texas State Primary and the other candidate clearly won the Texas State Caucuses, it seems perfectly clear that the people least likely to attend the Democratic Party Caucuses were the Republicans who had tried to sabotage the Democratic Primary.  After all, it's one thing to go into early voting and give a quick pull of the lever, it's a whole other matter to wait in long lines and crowds during the incredibly well attended caucuses.  Yet, even so, there were some hard-core spoilers who did attend the caucuses in order to "vote twice" for their least favorite candidate, and in fact, one went so far as to get himself nominated as a precinct delegate, only to get his credentials stripped in a challenge when it was learned that he was in fact an elected official (Precinct Chairperson) for the Republican Party, rendering him ineligible to be a delegate at the Democratic Convention.

---

by: KatiMomKat @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 22:24:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I totally agree... (0.00 / 0)

We should register for a party - I forgot to include that in my list.  30 days is plenty of time to change parties if wanted.

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:05:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

People DID vote (0.00 / 0)

#2 - We need to teach people to vote, not caucus.  Because they need to vote for EVERY office, not just the President.  We are severly suffering because of local, state, and federal politicians.

People DID vote - they were not allowed to caucus unless they had already voted in the primary!

---

by: KatiMomKat @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 22:27:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes... (0.00 / 0)

they might have voted.  But caucusing or whether they voted wasn't verified.  Our spot checks showed at least 10% were not eligible to caucus.

The sad thing was the challenges that were brought up during the county convention started a mini-riot.  The challengers backed down and withdrew the challenges so they wouldn't heckled.  After the first two, everyone withdrew their challenges so their names wouldn't be announced.

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:11:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fixing the Caucus System (3.50 / 4)

"System" is an engineering term, and we are not going to fix the caucus system or any system unless and until we can think like engineers, not like whining, complaining, and paying clients; like hectoring and arguing lawyers; like intimidating judges; like passive petty jurors; or like negotiating, settling, and skimming ... bridge-players or black-jack dealers.

There is nothing wrong with all that in courtrooms, hallways, and chambers or casinos.

But, you really do not want plumbing or civil engineering generally done by lawyers or card-sharks, unless you really like backed-up toilets and floods. Even floating casinos have to have hull-integrity and bollards for a tug.

All of the problems noted in the post above are real and material, but most are symptomatic rather than causes of failure or, more likely, constraints on political success, such as in sweeping national, statewide, and coutywide elections or sustaining a self-governing party that can actually function as either an opposition or governing party, not just a clownish foil or coalition partner for the GOP.

Actually fixing the primary-caucus system takes, at least, some serious attention to the following underlying problems:

First, our toxic mix of gerrymandered single-member and at-large primary elections needs to be narrowed in scope and designed to increase accountability not "cheap" or "safe" seats that are fundamental to bi-partisan concession-tending or to legislative "ethics truce" and "campaign finance", as mostly uncontested incumbency is euphemized.

The political "map" is actually a problem in geometry, not political augury.

In fact, a seemingly simple "Presidential primary" is not the antithesis of our "caucus" system. They are actually a "kludge" today, but they could be complementary aspects of a republican and democratic party. Incidentally, the GOP is not a republican or democratic party today, so we have a wonderful chance to sieze both historic franchises today. That is what I hope Barack OBAMA's "post-partisan" rhetoric will amount to, if realized in practical terms within the Democratic Party of Texas.

Second, the Democratic Party of Texas needs to be clear that it wants to have and to support a lot of members, not just a few mostly self-proclaimed "advocates" and possibly mythical but numerous and profitable "clients". That is how class-action, contingent-fee, plaintiff lawyers work, but it is not a viable paradigm for politics generally. It is a Grisham novel, set in Mississippi, The Appeal.

Our infrastructure for party membership today is the Jim Crow election law which effectively minimizes political participation by design. It term-limits party membership and, by custom and usage, supports voting in both parties.

So, the very concept of "delegate" is flawed from the git-go when there is no underlying concept, much less a durable or reliable means of credentialing members of a party.

States outside of the Confederacy often have registration by party. We do not, and given how the new "statewide voter roll" is now a key component of the emerging police-state, a republican and democratic party should revert to a fraternal concept of membership -- "liberty, equality, fraternity" -- rather than anything derived from or realized exclusively through our property-qualified franchise.

Third, the caucus system requires a minimal, nonetheless uniform, standard of parliamentary procedure, not our ridiculous mix of legalism and cheer-leading. Conventions, indeed, politics is not the courtroom or schoolroom writ large. It is, minimally, war without violence or, at best, what Wm. James called the "moral equivalent" of war.

Republican Democracy was not handed down by Life Peers on the Supreme Court or Heriditary Peers in the House of Lords. It came from a whole series of international wars from 1775 to 1814 and a series of civil wars from 1835 to 1865, both concluded in Texas. If we cannot learn a few simple lessons from that, we are doomed to both fight and lose more wars.

That was clear enough to Brigadier General Henry Martyn Robert, District Engineer in Galveston, Texas, and the original author of what is now Robert's Rules Newly Revised, Tenth Edition. I would observe that, if you did six weeks in basic military training you would already have the basics of parliamentary law down pat. If you have never been anything but a "lawyer, preacher, or doctor", indeed, a very proficient one or just a know-it-all, you may never grasp the essence of parliamentary law:

It is not clerical, liturgical, or clinical.

   

---

by: JRBehrman @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:32:52 PM UTC

Hold conventions by Congressional District, not Senate District (0.00 / 0)

Now that Texas has 32 Congressional Districts, a CD is smaller than a State Senate district.  (There are 31 State Senate districts.)

We should hold our conventions by Congressional districts like all the other states.

(I'll have a lot more to say as this proceeds.  I've been a part of Senate District Conventions in Texas since 1974, during some years when young people were sometimes treated very badly in this party.)

---

by: Tom Blackwell @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:33:14 PM UTC

The size of the CDs (3.00 / 1)

gerrymandered by Craddick and Delay makes this a very high barrier to participation.

And given that the CDs are unlikely to get all that small geographically, the disadvantage to rural Dems would be permanent.

Legislative Districts makes more sense to me as a starting point.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 16:38:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have Sign In Card (3.00 / 1)

It takes more than an hour to sign in 100 people if each has to wait for the person before tham to fill out their information.

Instead of a page where people have to stand in line, pass out sign-in cards as people enter the hall.

Have everyone elected to the next level fill out a sign-in sheet before they leave. It would be nice if the information could be entered on a spreadsheet so the names could be sorted and printed on a form the delegate could sign upon arriving at the next level.

---

by: Ken22640 @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:42:08 PM UTC

Training would be nice (0.00 / 0)

The only reason I had half a clue is because I went to a precinct captain training, and a county convention training--neither offered by our locals, but rather by my candidate.

A little bit of knowledge goes a long way. We tried to nab our folks on the way in and do a rapid fire training in the hallway, but it was too little, too late.

I think informed attendees make things run more smoothly and it takes a lot of the angst and suspicion out of the mix.

Our county convention was barely able to get through business in six hours--and we were DINKY. I cannot imagine the arena sized conventions. I will also echo the disappointment of being mashed in with other precincts (I had four in my caucus) because although geographically they were close, the way we had voted prior was not.

We also didn't receive our delegate information until two days prior, and then it was without phone numbers that we had to hand cull from phone books and data bases. But for some reason the national campaigns had this information--because I got ro-bo called several times. How frustrating that someone in another state from the other campaign knows I'm a delegate and knows my phone number--and I can't even get that own information from my local party!

---

by: txcoles6 @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:56:45 PM UTC

What do you want to bet ... (0.00 / 0)

that this issue is swept under the rug until it's forgotten. The primacaucus has been around for several presidential cycles and no one has said anything about it before why change now. Unless Texas changes their primary date to earlier in the calendar (I hope not) then our primary won't play a pivotal role for another 20 or 30 years and then  we'll have the discussion again and sweep it under the rug again.

---

by: matthew_lt @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:00:05 PM UTC

You are so right... (0.00 / 0)

It was 40 years ago that the last caucus amounted to anything.  All of the fair-weather voters will stay home, the republicans win.  And worst of all, few voters for congressional seats that have more impact to each of us commoners.

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:16:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One problem I have perceived (3.00 / 1)

througout this primary/caucus/convention process is that there are relatively few people with current, accurate information. Yea, I read the rules. Yea, I read the schedule. But, when I got to the convention, there was no one around to answer questions. Almost no one to provide updates. etc. No one knew, for instance, which resolutions were going to be voted on.

Why not publish them in advance? SD-26 folks even published them in the BOR. That was very helpful and elimineates the need for reading all the resolutions aloud at the convention. It also allows people to campaign for or against the resolutions, rather than springing them on the convention at the last minute.

A little information sharing can go a long way.

Make sure wireless systems are set up for convention goers. And have an online website or blog constantly updated with official, and helpful, information. Sure, not everyone will have a computer. But if even 10% of the convention delegates DID, that would be a whopping number of people to spread accurate information.

More time for convention preparation is a no-brainer. Like maybe AFTER the runoffs?

Sign in, and resolve challenges IN ADVANCE. Inform people who are being challenged of the fact, and WHY they are being challenged. Enough of this last minute shit for 3,000 challenges. Bad, bad karma.

Signing in on the day of the convention is just insane! If you have to, break the convention into a two day event. Sign ins and challenges, then the politics. The one advantage of the SD/County convention format is that everyone lives relatively close to the convention site (except maybe if you live in Brewster County) and getting there on two different days for SHORTER meetings is actually feasible. Trying to do everything in one day, and not relying on electronic sign ins is just not-workable.

---

by: DyspepTex @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:01:49 PM UTC

My issue wasn't as complicated (0.00 / 0)

I ran a precinct caucus that was in a shared space. I think that the ID'ing is the longest pole. Why not, during voting, give the OPTION of having the bar code read on the back of your license. Then when you show up for caucus, have it scanned again for validation. This would have cut 90% of my effort out.

---

by: mightcan @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:08:52 PM UTC

Give delegates something in writing-- (0.00 / 0)

Our credentials committee members tried to explain their findings orally and they could not be heard over the noise of 4000 or so noisy partisans.  It was just a screaming match to see which faction could yell their ayes louder as two minority reports (one pro-Obama, one pro-Clinton) were read aloud.  Finally they managed to get everyone calmed down and got approval to read out the entire report and have a vote on the whole thing.   If the time between the caucus and conventions were extended perhaps this would give the committee time to write up their findings & distribute them to the delegates before the convention (or at least hand copies out at the convention or put up a powerpoint or something).  Resolutions should have been published ahead of time also.  People should not be asked to vote on something that hasn't been adequately disclosed with at least a little time to read and consider it.  

Also, I understand that the caucus/convention system is intended to build involvement in the party and has value from that perspective, but as a system of voting it pretty much sucks because it excludes so many people from participating.  In elections, we have absentee ballots and early voting to increase voter participation, knowing that not everyone can get to the polls on election day for myriad reasons (work, school, travel, family responsibilities, etc.)  The caucus/convention system seems designed to make participation very difficult.  

---

by: tejassaluki @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:14:51 PM UTC

True (0.00 / 0)

But also, remember -- only something like 30% of the non-Superdelegate vote from TX is the caucus system. 126 delegates are still allocated by the regular primary.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:19:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's one pool of voters ... (0.00 / 0)

The caucus and primary pull from the same pool of voters. Therefore anyone who can afford to vote in both the primary and the caucus has a louder voice than someone that only votes in the primary.  

---

by: matthew_lt @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:24:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

I agree. I was just pointing out that the primary is still there.

The caucus was designed to make sure grassroots volunteers could have a say in the vote. The idea was that, since there's no party registration, the Democrats being nominated/chosen out of TX would be too moderate, so to ensure the more liberal wing wasn't drowned out by moderate/independent/Republican voters in the primary, the caucus system was developed.

Not saying that makes it right or wrong, just explaining its origins.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:33:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, I get ya, and we agree. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: matthew_lt @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 17:33:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

design (0.00 / 0)

I don't know if it is correct to say that the caucus system was originally designed to keep the liberal wing from being drowned out. My understanding is that the caucus system, or some form of it, predates the primary system. But someone should go to the library and do some research on the history and effects of a primary and a caucus, so that we have a firm grasp on the historical facts and social science consequences of one system or the other.

My impression is that primaries were used very little prior to the 1960s. Then, probably as a result of the civil rights movement and other progressive movements of that era, the idea of everyone actually being equal and entitled to participate in the democratic process on an equal basis, then primaries began to be used more.

If we go way back to the 19th and early 20th century, I think we would find that the idea of "the people" actually voting on a party's nominees in a primary was probably something that very few people contemplated. Back then the party bosses probably determined the nominees themselves in what was essentially a very small caucus, and later they slowly involved regular party members outside of the big shot bosses into the caucus system.

Finally, in the 1960s "the people" were given a broader role in determining the nominees through the growing use of primaries.

Like I said, I would have to go look through newspaper archives to be sure what system was used in Texas at various times, but I seem to recall that in 1984 all the delegates were allocated in Texas based on participation in the caucuses. In 1984, I remember (vaguely, this was after all 24 years ago), that there was a presidential primary, but it was not used to allocate any of the delegates, it was only some sort of glorified straw poll.

Anyhow, someone should do some academic research on the primary/caucus system both nationally and in Texas and have the information ready before the state convention, so we can make an informed decision on how to move forward.

---

by: Scott Cobb @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 22:05:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Major Change in 1988 (0.00 / 0)

Primary moved from 1st Saturday in May to "Super Tuesday" in March. In 1988 Senator Bentsen ran for VP and re-election for US Senator in General Election. I would start my research in this time period.

This was a major change in the playing field to benefit Sen. Bentsen and give politicans running for re-election a big advantage in the primary elections by shortening the campaign season.

---

by: ssuits @ Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:12:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

SD-14, too (0.00 / 0)

I was on the Credentials Committee in SD-14 and we're asking many of the same questions.  We may come up with different answers, but it is definitely a conversation worth having.  

One way of looking at it is to say, can we fix the multiple glitches in the "primacaucus" system?  If not, should we scrap it?  

Another approach: Is the "primacaucus" system a good one, serving the needs of the Democratic Party in Texas?  If it is, can we improve its execution?    

DeeceX: making Texas safe for democracy

---

by: DeeceX @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:19:40 PM UTC

Great Suggestions (0.00 / 0)

Good ideas.  Dropping the delegate box from the sign-in sheet is a must.  Moving the precinct conventions to Saturday is a great idea giving the counties more time their conventions is a good idea (though I know this would require legislative action).

I'm not sure about downsizing from Senate Districts to House Districts.  In Travis County, we had enough duplication of efforts with two Senate Districts.  I'd hate to have seen it for four House Districts.  Congressional Districts might be better since they're smaller than Senate Districts and larger than House Districts (of course it would be better if the Congressional Districts had more rational boundaries, but that's another story).

---

by: Jeb @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:25:00 PM UTC

i think leave the Delegate/Alternate box as an expression of desire, not status (3.00 / 1)

so, let people sign in and leave, indicate if they will serve with that column, and if they get selected/elected their name goes into a completely separate "Delegates Elected/ Alternates Elected Report". the county parties simply stop entering data from 'sign-in' sheets as proof of Del or Alt status.

here is why: i served on sd25 credentials committee and as everyone now knows, many many people took that box to 'self-nominate' since many were signing in and leaving, as per the common instruction. so let's make it a column "Will you serve as a Del or Alt?"

there were many precincts where after sign-in, there werent enough folks to fill out a delegation, and even tho you dont need to be present to be a delegate, some slates went unfilled, or, as was custom in the past, folks took home the sheets to try to fill them in later with folks they called up, and these slates were challenged.

some grabbed names from the roll, exactly as intended by the 'self-nominator' and lo and behold the new folks' common sense actually made sense, if you arent used to doing it another way... and 90% werent.


-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.

---

by: mariochampion @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 18:28:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like that self nominating column idea (0.00 / 0)

But it needs to be explained, and people at the sign-in tables have to be trained to know that. We passed around notepads for people to start writing down information at our PCT in case people weren't going to stay past sign-in.  If it wasn't for that, I'm not sure we could have gotten names for 69 delegates we won, plus a whole lot of alternates. And we didn't end up getting a whole list of 69 alternates either. A self-nomination column would have helped.

I especially like the idea of a separate reporting sheet to report the actual elected delegates/alternates.  It was a giant pain in the ass trying to find over 150 people on 65 sign-in sheets we had in our PCT.

We finally just put our data into a spreadsheet so we could alphabetize the data and then look for the names that way.

We have to make this part easier for the future.

Good suggestion Mario!

---

by: sonia @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 00:46:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Couple things (0.00 / 0)

First, we only should have a primary for determining delegates.  The caucus system is discriminatory towards certain groups of people and unnecessarily complicated.

But if we do keep it, we should at least do the following:
- Electronic signing in to precinct conventions, if you have the electronics to make it work.  It would make paperwork, verifying voters, and calculating delegates much easier.  As people are signed in sheets are printed out with information about who signed in (a paper trail.)
- Remove the requirement that you can't sign in until voting is done, but require that signing in can't end until 30 minutes after everyone has voted.  That way you avoid the unnecessary step of everyone waiting for polling to end.  Have separate rooms for polling and caucusing (but in the same building).
- Resolutions committee meets before convention and posts resolutions to be considered before the convention.
- At county convention, allow precincts to caucus once all that precincts delegates are in order and any issues dealt with.  To control this, only give out the packet for caucus to the precinct chair once they can caucus.  This might cause some extra confusion but if done right, could drastically reduce the waits in many precincts.
- Credentials committee meets to deal with eligibility of questionable delegates before convention.
- At SD14, the procedure for signing in was not well organized.  For each set of precinct sign in spots, tables should have been set out in the field so people could get in neat lines for their particular sign in spot.  The set up of only having a small and constricted spot for people to try to push their way towards their window was a big mess.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:52:38 PM UTC

SD7 went completely electronic...still took hours! (0.00 / 0)

I dont' know the whole total but I can tell you that we started at 8:00 am and didn't finish credentialing until about 3 pm.  Too many pcts hadn't turned in their info, Delegates and Alternates were left off or spelled wrong and when the name couldn't be found probably had not been counted.  All of these problems and then some, had to be heard and dealt with before we could get the final count.  I can tell you though that we had some absolutely super people that held their ground and did everything to make sure things went according to the law so that everyone was counted and no stones unturned to make sure they were delegates or alternates.

I know people were tired of waiting and getting restless but I found with my small group that if I went out every so often and explained to them the procedures that were going on and how much longer things would take throughout the day the more they appreciated all that we were doing inside to complete the goals of the credentials committee.  

I think going completely computerized using a data base helped in one sense but I don't think we had a good enough system to keep us all running.  I or one of the other computers were consistently going in and out of the system where it would take us a minute to 10 minutes to get back in while people waited.   (20 computers hooked into a 24 port switch)  

So there are things I think that we can all learn from each other and it may well be that this is something that should be discussed at the State Convention with all the SD's together in one room with each of their Credential Committees.  

---

by: krwheaton @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 17:37:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do it at the precinct level (0.00 / 0)

If delegates at the precinct conventions on election night have signed in electronically matching their names to the rolls, that would have solved most of the problems created by bad data entry, not having enough information and the like that you describe.  If the whole process was computerized, it would be a lot easier.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 19:35:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Evolve for at least one more go 'round (5.00 / 2)

I must say elizabeth and garry and a 100 others deserve a week in cancun for their efforts. ya know, the travis county convention will be bigger (about 9000-11000 folks) than the state convention (about 6000-8000) and was organized in 3 weeks, including data-entering from 1000s of pieces of paper. whew!

i am torn about the caucuses. without doubt, a tremendous amount of evolution would be healthy, much of it around quite simple tasks like better forms, better instructions, better and required training. i would like to see at least one more go-round with meaningful changes before deciding it has not enough value to be continued. (from a technology point of view there are easily a 1/2 dozen cheap and effective ways to improve the process.)

i am favor of at least one more go, because caucuses do have value in building neighborhoods, building the party, and finding a way for most people to introduce politics into their community culture. now certainly, some see that introduction as unwelcome or tainted with perceptions of abuse or unpleasantness, but from my sd25 credentials committee experience, i dont think we uncovered one case i would call intentional abuse as an attempt to sway an election, but maybe i missed that one. they were mostly misunderstandings and clerical snafus.

altho there were plenty of insinuations and suspicions and wholesale lack of trust -- none of which are good for communities -- but, there are FAR MORE identified and activated people now involved than we could ever generate with local primary energy. and they far outnumber those who feel they must drop from the process because of trust and abuse perceptions, and even they can probably be brought back if there are resources to address their concerns.

-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.

---

by: mariochampion @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:59:44 PM UTC

I'll defend the principle of conventions (4.00 / 4)

but I would also advocate several organizational changes.

We should all keep in mind that this is a party nomination process, not a general election, and the two have never had the dynamic, so I don't see why they should now.
We're not electing anyone; we're choosing candidates to carry our banner in a general election. And I believe that choosing our candidates should involve other factors besides just how many folks can show up for a few minutes and mark a ballot.

The idea that the convention system 'discriminates' against certain voters may have some validity (although I think it was largely refuted by what's happened this year), but to a certain extent it's largely irrelevant, and seems like a case of missing the forest for the trees. The notion that the level of organization, commitment, and extra effort a candidate brings to the table is somehow unimportant, is ridiculous. In a nomination process, those factors SHOULD carry some added weight.

Why? Because those people who showed up to caucus and are willing to go that extra mile as delegates, organizers, and  activists are the same people who will be working the phones, walking blocks, handing out literature, and meeting with their neighbors to get out the vote for our candidates in the general election. Yes, some folks aren't able to participate in the conventions for one reason or another (mostly becasue they don't want to, but that's another discussion), but then again, those folks won't be a whole lot of help to our efforts in September and October either.

The connections that delegates and other participants have made during this process are invaluable. These are the building blocks of a grassroots political presence that the TDP has lacked for over a dozen years. The conventions and meetings and communications leading up to them are vital to creating a network of active and involved Democrats in our neighborhoods all across the state. You cannot be the 'party of the people' without people. And the conventions bring those people out because there is something tangible at stake in them. Not just who's gonna be our presidential nominee, but the direction our party and our government is headed.

Nearly all of the delegates from my precinct had children, jobs and other responsibilities. They found a way to be there Saturday, and on the night of March 4. NONE of them were what anyone would call 'activists' or 'insiders' by any definition before this primary season. But nearly all of them gained a sense of empowerment and felt that they were participating in something important, and left with an understanding that they could affect the direction of the Democratic Party and have a real voice in the governing of our country, our state, and our communities.

I know this may not have been the case at every convention; of course there is much work to be done in the way of leadership and organization at the local level. But all the new energy this season has captured should not be tossed into a bonfire because of the difficulties that were encountered. Organizational and leadership issues can be addressed, and should be addressed with the new ideas and activism that have surfaced from all this glorious mess.

I chaired precinct convention on March 4 and our caucus Saturday. I declined to be nominated for state delegate in spite of many in my precinct voicing their support to me. I told them - this party has my input and my energy and my perspective. I'm a precinct chair now and I have an active role to fill. What the Texas Democratic Party NEEDS to see in June is the rest of us - the first time voters, new participants, the formerly disengaged, disenchanted, disgusted, disenfranchised - they need to see and hear from the new blood and those new people need to take active roles in our party processes. Many of the delegates selected at our convention fall into those categories, and down the road they're going to be the ones that make this party a force to be reckoned with. By making their voices heard THROUGH THIS PROCESS, we increase active involvement in not just our electoral process but in our governing process as well, and that's how we'll achieve responsive and effective government - which is, I assume, our ultimate goal.

Next post i'll discuss changes to the system.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 16:44:02 PM UTC

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

I absolutely agree. I like that we aren't a pure caucus state, but I definitely see value in deciding part of our delegation based on caucusing. We need to know that our candidate has an active support team in the state.

---

by: jonthegeek @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 18:41:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good suggestions (0.00 / 0)

many of them should be forwarded to the state rules committee chair, Rose Salas, SDEC for SD 6.  
We used to have the SD/County conventions 2 weeks after the primary, I remember explaining that we needed to allow another weekend to catch up with laundry when we changed the rule in 1980.

If we abolish precinct conventions, then how would non-party officials get to introduce resolutions?  If we abolish the caucus system, it is less likely for a non-activist to get to be a delegate to state than in the present system.

A friend of mine went to his first SD convention as a Republican.  He is an alternate to the Republican state convention, because the delegates to state were selected before the convention.  I really don't want that.

Moving the precinct conventions to Saturday would allow time to produce a precinct level voters roll that showed everyone eligible to attend the precinct convention -- convention attendees could be signed in on that roll and clear up much of  the problems.

---

by: JudyKayCraft @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 17:00:59 PM UTC

Changes (3.00 / 1)

I would concur with some of the changes advocated in the original post.

Yes, size matters.  Our convention was very well run and clipped along pretty nicely, all things considered - but we certainly benefited from having to deal with only 400 as opposed to 4,000. I like the idea of state house district conventions in the urban/suburban counties, while leaving the rest of the counties as they are. That could also shrink travel time and difficulties for many participants.

I'd add, however, that leadership matters just as much if not more. A competent chair with good organizational moxie can foresee and head off potential problems, and recruit the right people for each job and committee, etc. Delegating authority to competent people, and a good communication network, are indispensable components of the job of county/SD chair.

Same goes for precinct chairs on primary night. The state party has already mandated that the jobs of precinct chair and election judge be separated, and wisely so. This turnover and installation of new chairs is taking place across the state right now but the transition will take some time.  This is a bigger problem in the rural areas, where many longtime 'precinct chairs' have done little but serve as election judges for most of their tenure. The chair should be a much more active role - organizing and getting out the vote, connecting with voters and maintaining voter rolls and networking in their communities to find and motivate others to help do the work of building the party base. The task of running a precinct convention should be a natural extension of this work, not an added headache.

Forms, forms, forms, forms..... dear lord, yes - this is a problem that requires complete overhaul. I'd venture that at least 50% of the confusion surrounding the convention process can be directly tied to the mess of sign-ins, minutes, challenges, rules sheets, etc - the whole thing needs to be re-done from scratch to eliminate duplication of efforts, untrained use of material that will be used as legal records, and outdated, unnecessary bureaucratic goofiness that only annoys people and doesn't lend credibility or efficiency to the process. "Yes, fill this out, but don't worry about this part", "where do we record this?", "why do you need to know that?", "why are we signing in again?", "I had no idea what I needed to bring for this", etc etc.....the rules can most certainly be stripped down and simplified and the reporting process needs to be shortened and clearly laid out step-by-step- idiot-proofing, if you will. This could REALLY streamline things.

Moving the precinct meetings to a later date? That one has some merit. So does the idea of moving the whole primary to a Saturday. Weekday elections suck for a host of reasons. On the other hand, the interest generated by a primary day itself may contribute a great deal to the convention turnout. But this one is worth further study.

Yes, please, move the county/district conventions further from the precinct date. An extra week or two would help A LOT, especially with....

Getting credentials out of the way BEFORE the convention. By most accounts, this is the process that takes the longest. Sign-in lists should be made available to the campaigns for checking within a few days of the precinct conventions, and all challenges should be lodged and ruled on several days before the convention. If we have contacts for the delegates, we can notify them of challenges and these can be taken care of. The committee report and any minority reports can then be made available online or posted publicly for perusal before the floor vote on adoption. Reading the whole thing from the podium is ridiculous.  

How about pre-applying for at-large slots as well? on-line submission where possible, while still making apps available on convention day. Most of the sorting can then be done electronically beforehand, and the nominations committee's work is significantly shortened on convention day. This is mostly a large district problem, but could be helpful for many smaller counties as well when over a hundred apps are submitted the day-of.

Disseminating concise and accurate info/rules to voters and delegates/alternates. Much of this can and should fall to precinct/delegation chairs. Again we're back to communication and leadership here. I'd venture to guess this will improve dramatically next time, but a good notification system should be a priority.

I would think many of these changes can be instituted at the party level, no? Resolutions at State or SDEC meetings?  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 17:45:02 PM UTC

Voting day a state holiday rather than on a Saturday. (0.00 / 0)

People might have other things going on on a Saturday instead of precinct-conventions.  If you made election day in the middle of a week as a state-holiday, requiring business to close, people wouldn't have much else to do except vote.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 19:40:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I support a voting holiday (0.00 / 0)

I would love to see that.  You would think we could get that mandated nationally.  The largest democracy in the world is so willing to spread democracy to the rest of the world. Yet we don't value it enough to make sure people vote in this country.

Texas ranks 49th in the registration rates for women and 50th in participation by women voting.  That is pretty pathetic.

---

by: sonia @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 00:50:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no way all business can close... (0.00 / 0)

Service workers, telephone, fire, police, hospitals, restaurant, etc. etc. etc.

Not to mention people who can't afford a babysitter.

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:06:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I call that the French solution (0.00 / 0)

lessee, state holidays for state/county primary day, state/county runoff day, county convention day, state convention day, municipal election day, municipal run-off day, general election day and general election runoff day.  That'd automatically give every citizen 8 extra holidays over the year.  O Seigneur Dieu!

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:35:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

8 Extra Holidays! (0.00 / 0)

You make that sound like a bad idea. :)

---

by: matthew_lt @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:38:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Delegate/alternate status on sign in sheets (0.00 / 0)

I had more than one sign in sheet with a "D" on every line.  I suppose they were registering a desire to be a delegate or something.  Anyway, I went to great pains to print a separate sheet with the actual elected delegates and alternates on it and attached it to the sign in sheets.  Apparently it helped as I wasn't challenged for having 25+ delegates (14 allotted) indicated on the signins.  

A separate delegate sheet is absolutely the way to go.  

Same goes for precinct conventions at a later date and increasing the time frame.

I don't see the Congressional districts costing much more than the Senate districts.  You can rent a lot of gymnasiums for what the Will Rogers Coliseum costs.  

---

by: AndyS11 @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 17:55:44 PM UTC

Six proposed reforms (3.00 / 1)

1) Make the SD conventions a lot smaller.  Instead of having one county delegate for every 15 votes for governor, make it 50. In most years, that would still leave more county/SD convention seats than people who want to go, and in years like 2008 it would mean a third as many people sitting for hours to weigh in for their presidential choice.  Some rural counties may want to keep the ratio at 1:15, or maybe 1:25, and that's OK -- there's no reason why every county has to use the same ratio. (However, the distribution of delegates to state, currently one for every 180 votes for governor, has to be the same everywhere.)

2) Do precinct business in the precincts, not at the county conventions. Let the precinct delegations convene at a time and place of their own choosing.  I'd much rather settle things at somebody's house, over a bottle of wine, than sit in the stands for half the day waiting for permission to take an official vote on something that had been settled long before. (In my precinct, we had everything figured out on election night -- 25 Obama delgates + 12 Clinton delegates meant 2 statewide Obama delegates and one statewide Clinton delegate, with everybody agreeing that was fair.)

3) Allow electronic sign-ins for county delegates who only want to have their presidential preferences counted, and don't really want to participate in the county convention. Yes, there are potential problems with fake sign-ins, but we have 4 years to figure out solutions. We're smart enough to do that.

4) Use the county/SD conventions to do as much county/SD business as possible. With the precinct business done elsewhere, we can pick the at-large delegates to state, nominate people for the various committees at state, hear from candidates and other speakers and discuss resolutions, and still get home at a reasonable hour.

5) Where possible, do SD business in the SDs, not at state. There's no reason why (say) a Dallas-based SD has to travel to Austin to pick its own SDEC representatives and national delegates. They should meet in Dallas, at a time and place of their own choosing, to do all of their SD caucusing. [The rural SDs may still want to wait for June, maybe meeting on the afternoon before the state convention starts, since it would take a lot of traveling to get everybody together at another time.]

6) Use the state convention to do statewide business. Elect the at-large national delegates. Pick the state party officers. Discuss resolutions and changes to the TDP rules (like reforming the caucus system). And of course, hear from candidates and do a ton of networking.

Basically, the problem this year is that too much time was spent by people who didn't really want to be there on business that would have been better done elsewhere. By reducing the number of county delegates, and conducting business at the logical levels, we can streamline the process.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 18:09:17 PM UTC

I like this perspective Lorenzo (0.00 / 0)

....thinking from an "order of operations" perspective :)  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 18:20:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A few more details (0.00 / 0)

If we hold the precinct caucuses a few days after the vote (say, the Saturday evening after), we could have complete rolls of everybody who voted in the primary, and ONLY of people who voted in the primary.  This would make the sign-in incredibly easy.  Folks could just sign by their names, put an X in the relevant box, and move on.

In order to have precincts free to do their business before the county conventions, the credentials committee would have to meet ahead of time and have their decisions approved by the county executive committee.  Once that happened, the precincts could meet (say, in a one week window), and the lists of precinct-selected state delegates and applications for at-large state delegates could be finished before the county convention. This would make the nomination committee's job a lot easier.

Likewise, the state credentials committee should meet long before the state convention, settle challenges, and have their decisions approved by the SDEC (rather than by the convention). That would free the SDs to pick their representatives to all the other committees, and also their SDEC members, before the state convention.

The biggest problem with the SD conventions is the sheer size. Switching to HDs might work, but the simplest fix is just to reduce the number of county delegates.  At one delegate per 50 votes for governor, they would only be 30% of this year's size, which is managable.

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 20:38:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

<b>This is just common sense</b> (0.00 / 0)

It would have made the process so much less divisive and frustrating. Another point that should be implemented is that there is even distribution of voting booths across the state based on number of democratic voters.  

---

by: CorinneA @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:26:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stop actively discouraging people to attend (0.00 / 0)

My comments are from the perspective of attending the SD14/SD25 convention. It is difficult for me to believe that there were not at least some people involved in the planning who wanted to drive people away. I base this on the following.

1) It's not like SD14 and SD25 are small districts. Why were these combined?

2) 13,000 people. Two entrances with merging traffic from both directions. No shuttle buses from a park-in-ride. Three hour sign-in. Something doesn't compute.

3) Only 30 sign-in windows with a shortage of volunteers directing people to the correct line and horrible line balancing. Did anyone even count the number of delegates/alternates who would need to sign-in at each window and balance them out? Or was it just my precinct (and other unlucky precincts grouped with mine) that had 4x the number of people in line for alternate credentials. Why not just have the delegation chair pick up the credentials for his precinct and be responsible for verifying that everyone is who they say they are (with an observer from the other candidate if there is a lack of trust in the delegation chair).

I realize that few people were getting paid, but at least pay an event organizer who can do some basic  math, or confess that your main goal is to make it painful for folks so they turn around and go home.

I tried to help by going up and down one of the lines with a whiteboard listing precincts with empty sign-in windows so that at least those people could 'BINGO' and get in quicker.  

I like the county convention idea with precinct caucuses, but this last one was a complete waste of time.  Limit conventions to <3000 people and a lot of these problems will be more manageable.

---

by: mason @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 18:54:19 PM UTC

Good Starting Places (0.00 / 0)

I like a lot of these suggestions, especially the documents one. As we were working out who were going to be our delegates to the county convention, the secretary noticed that a lot of people that had signed in had put "D" in the D/A column. So she made a hand list, then fixed the registration forms before turning them in.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that confusing lists ended up coming back to the precincts.

And, related to the "don't combine precincts," I'll second mason's "don't combine SDs".

The idea of switching to HDs is interesting. Obviously, it would all have to be studied.

But to be honest, the biggest problem was that the Democratic candidate hadn't been determined yet. Is it worth putting in all this energy to protect against a once in every 20-30 years event?

If a Democrat wins the Presidency, it won't matter 4 years from now. And in that case, also most likely not 8 years from now.

I would like to learn more how states with only a primary determine their delegates to the national convention. Because, while it was a pain in the ass, I do believe this brought people into the party that otherwise wouldn't have been involved. And for that reason alone, I would hate to scrap the caucus.

---

by: reklemrov @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 19:31:18 PM UTC

YES allow writing "D" on the sign in form (0.00 / 0)

At the end of the evening, you find you are entitled to some dozens of delegates and alternates, but most people have gone home. Surprise! You can't fill out your slate!

If people had the opportunity to write "D" on the form ("I am willing to be a delegate"), then the late-night survivors could choose / elect a full slate for a change.

---

by: morgan @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 21:37:26 PM UTC

Right (0.00 / 0)

Of course. Hadn't thought about that.

Hm. So what's the solution? Pencils?

Because allowing it, in cases like this time around, we have way too many listed when we send them in to the party HQ.

---

by: reklemrov @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 22:58:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At the end of the evening, survivors choose (0.00 / 0)

Example:

Forty people write "D"
Your candidate is entitled to eleven delegates w/ eleven alternates.
Whoever stays until the end of the caucus holds a vote and chooses the 22 D/A out of the forty who indicated willingness.

The 22 D/A are reported to the party.

---

by: morgan @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One Problem, Albeit Minor (0.00 / 0)

Someone need not be present to be nominated; he/she merely need to have voted in the primary. (How nice would it be, btw, to have precinct convention sign-in sheets based on the voter roll? Ah...) So how do you get those names in nomination?

This tends to come up in fairly surprising ways, as with local campaign leadership being so needed on election night that they cannot attend their own precinct conventions.

Only reason I mention it is because the suggestion is very close to being perfect, and I'd like to get the gap closed!

---

by: chris @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 22:45:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Simple suggestions, No changes to the law (0.00 / 0)

The single easiest fix seems to be to the forms and to the "how to" sheet in the precinct packet.

Instead of filling out sign-in sheets at the precinct convention, add two 1 1/2 inch spaces after each name in the voter roll provided by the county. Each voter simply signs their name and preference.

Add individual delegate/alternate "tickets" to the packet, just like they had at the county convention. No extra delegates or alternates could be selected.

Instead of providing a rulebook and a vague, complex (for many people) set of instructions, provide a convention "script." It would state what the chair should say and do, step-by-step. The rulebook would still be available for reference. Combine the script with the minutes and the EZ math steps.

Finally, remove resolutions from the precinct level. They could still be submitted with the packet, but no votes would be necessary.  

---

by: davidfrye @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 22:44:44 PM UTC

Technology! (0.00 / 0)

I think the caucuses have a lot of value and should be continued.

The problem is that we are still using a 19th Century process for a 21st Century population of Texans.  Using computers could drastically reduce those all those hours and hours spent counting and recounting delegates and splitting them up by senatorial district.

I noticed there is a bar code on every voter registration card and driver's license.  Is there a reason we can't use those?  Scan the code, print the person's information on a label, put the label on a sheet and have the person write their presidential preference, sign their name, and enter their preference in the computer.  It would be fast, accurate and verifiable.

Whatever the best solution is, there has to be a way for technology to help with all that counting.

---

by: RachelQ @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 23:15:54 PM UTC

Barcode and barcode readers (0.00 / 0)

When I early voted in Travis every person in line before me and after me while I was there, about 25 minutes, had that reader fail to read the card.  Looks like the technology we bought in Travis once again doesn't meet the hype.  Who knows how much that equipment cost, but if it doesn't work, it doesn't help you.

And don't even get me started on that "fast, accurate, and verifiable" when it comes to the faith based voting we do on paperless DREs.

I'm not a Luddite, I like technology, but Texas is failing to keep up with the technology.  While the majority of states are moving to optical scan and voter marked ballots, we're stuck with the worst of the technology that other states are pretty much dumping wholesale.

Verify, then trust.  And always have a backup method to do recounts.

---

by: sonia @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 00:57:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

public accounting (0.00 / 0)

Sorry to hear Travis County bought bad bar code scanners.  Here in Collin County I got a nice little printed label as a receipt when I early voted -- identical to the label they put in the voter roll.  If every retail store and hospital in America has a working bar code scanner, it has to be feasible.

I absolutely agree with you that "accurate and verifiable" is a joke when it comes to a secret ballot on digital voting machines with no paper trail.

However, in conventions there's no secret ballot.  We could have the most accurate voting  of all time in these things.  Instead of sending a huge paperwork nightmare to committee, publically display the delegates of each precinct, one precinct at a time, divided by presidential preference.  Show a running tally as you go.  Anyone who has a problem as the display goes by can go talk to the credentials committee, and the revised precincts can get shown again at the end.  I can't imagine a system with better verification, and it would STILL be faster and more entertaining than what we just did.

---

by: RachelQ @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:18:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If I were in charge, (0.00 / 0)

I would acknowledge that caucuses and conventions are huge time wasters, that credentials and complex rules add very little security and accountability, and that various votes taken at the caucuses and conventions are often neither wise nor fair  Delegates could be allocated to candidates only in proportion to the primary election results.

Precinct caucuses could be short meetings after the primary.  Participants could celebrate, get to know one another, and organize future political activities.  Anyone who voted in the Democrat Primary could be allowed to register at a Senate District or County Convention and participate as a full voting member of the convention. Conventions by State House District or County, whichever is smaller, would alleviate some of the overcrowding.  A more efficient system of casting and tabulating convention votes is needed.  This might require either computers or forms that could be scanned by optical character readers.

Resolutions could be submitted on-line and minimally edited by the appropriate level Resolutions Committee for legality, use of plain English, and civility.  Gone would be the "whereases", "wherefores", "therefores"and all other unnecessary jargon.  Voter verifiable, auditable ballots would be a state issue.  Cleaning up the Dallas County Jail would be a county issue.  The State Party and its subdivisions could use on line elections or statistically valid opinion polls to determine which resolutions to adopt.

Does anyone really believe that voting on delegates you don't know provides better results than selecting delegates by lottery?  Because party activists do deserve recognition and rewards for their efforts, a certain number of delegate slots could be reserved for them.   Nominations Committees could either grade activists or choose by lottery.  After party activist slots are filled, the balance of the delegates could be selected by lottery including any party activist not yet called.

---

by: leulerus @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:39:59 AM UTC

Some Lessons From a Texan in Exile. (0.00 / 0)

By way of background, I lived in Texas when the switch was made from the pure caucus system to the mixed system currently used.  My current state (Missouri) made the switch a couple years back from the caucus system.  While there are problems that I would like to fix with the Missouri system, here are a couple of the things that I have learned in 5 cycles in Missouri that make things a little bit smoother.

1)  If we use the first tier units (e.g. precincts) to select delegates to the final tier (state/congressional district convention), we choose those delegates at the first tier level.  If we hold a second tier convention, the delegates are elected at large.  The more subgroups that you divide a convention into the greater the chaos.

2)  While larger number of delegates means more participation at the later levels, it also means more chaos.  Newcomers do better at our precinct and congressional district conventions (typically involving 300 or fewer persons)than at the state conventions (typically involving around 1,000-2,000 persons).  Large numbers favor those who know how to work the rules and the nominating committee.  Given typical turnout for caucuses, one delegate per 30 votes or one delegate for 50 votes will still allow most people at most caucuses to go to the next level if they are interested.

3)  Require submission of applications by those interested in running for delegate prior to the convention.  This allows nominating committees a complete list of those interested -- and a better chance to consider new people, though one that may not be used.  (If you shrink the number of delegates, you might not even need to use the nominating committee and can just let all those running for the next level speak).

4)  Have the caucus on a separate day than the primary -- preferably on the weekend.  While there will always be some who can't make a caucus anyhow, it is more difficult to get people to attend meetings in the evening.

5)  Plan in advance for a lag time between the end of sign-in and the beginning of the delegate selection process.  Put something in the schedule to fill that time that doesn't require a quorum.  Regardless of how many trained volunteers working the sign-in area and how many separate lines there are for sign-in, you will be swamped by delegates arriving just before the end of sign-in.

6)  Make sure that there is enough time between the different conventions.  Our conventions are normally 4 weeks from the first tier until the congressional district then another 6 weeks to the state convention.  It is difficult getting everything organized in that short of a time-frame.  Texas holds its state conveniton later than ours.  It shouldn't be that hard to move the County/Senate District conventions back a bit (say to mid-April).

7)  Get credential committees up and running quickly and shorten the time for filing a challenge.  Someone should know that their precinct convention (or county/senate district convention) was screwed up pretty quickly after its over.  The longer that you give for filing challenges, the less likely that all of the challenges will be resolved in time.  In addition, if there are a lot of challenges, an early deadline allows you to schedule them over a more leisurely pace -- say holding the credentials committee meeting the weekend before the convention to consider challenges.  If all that needs to be done on the convention weekend is replacing delegates with alternates that takes a lot less time than hearing a credentials challenge.

---

by: tmess2 @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:20:02 AM UTC

A Few Point (0.00 / 0)

1.  I disagree about a blanket prohibiting on combining precincts for caucuses.  In smaller rural counties, that is necessary.  In my County -- Harrison -- some of our boxes only vote 20 - 40 people in a primary.  Occasionally, they will combing a few small boxes for caucuses, otherwise, they could hold the meeting in a broom closet.  I think a better solution is to put a cap on the size of the precinct where combining can be done.

2.  The system generally needs to be a) more organized and b) move faster.  The biggest complaint that I head, both at the County Convention (which was over at 5 p.m.), and at the precinct convention (which ended around 10 p.m.  Most of the time about both was spent sitting around and waiting for people to get organized, or standing in line filling out form.  I don't think people would mind the long times if their time was fully being used.  However, I don't think working parents nor business owners are going to really look forward to standing around all day doing essentially nothing.  We expect our time to be respected when dealing with professionals.  And the party should project an organized and professional image.  Not look like a bunch of bumbling fools.  Our local newspaper had talk about the efficient manner in which the local Republican convention was handled and contrasted it unfavorably with the disorganized atmosphere of the Democratic convention.  We're just reinforcing negative stereotypes.  The more organized, the more efficiently we use time, the more people who will want to attend and be active in the party.  

---

by: MikeM @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:48:59 AM UTC

Abolish the district caucuses! They accomplish NOTHING! (0.00 / 0)

At the precinct, we chose 52 district delegates.

At the district caucus, only two things happened:
1. The 52 are pared down to only four (4) state delegates (so what the heck was the point of having 52 anyway)
2. The "head count" of the 52 contributes to the ratio for selecting at-large state delegates from district (of course, you could have accomplished the same just by totalling the district's votes).

That's it!  Twelve hours wasted for nothing!

Simpler: At the precinct caucus,
1. Our precinct would just choose four (4) state delegates
2. We report the precinct vote
3. We provide a list of people willing to be at-large state delegates. The TDP can then choose at-large state delegates exactly as it does, based on grand totals by district.

Identifying the "52" and dragging them to district caucus accomplished NOTHING AT ALL !

---

by: morgan @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM UTC

agreed (3.00 / 1)

We did have a lot of complaints about that in Denton County. The majority of precincts only got 1 delegate, and several precincts had to be combined to get that 1. It does not make a lot of sense to send 20+ people to county when you're only sending 1 of them to state.

Of course one of the problems when I explained how the state delegates were calculated, an immediate response from one long time Democrat was "well who the hell is Chris Bell?". And of course my response then again was "that is why you're only getting 1 delegate".

---

by: John McClelland @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 16:25:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Middle governing bodies ... (0.00 / 0)

is a term from the ecclesiastical (church) world that refers to the bodies that aren't directly related to the congregation or to the highest level of governance. These middle governing bodies don't really do much in the church world and they do even less in the political party world.

SD conventions and County Conventions were just a hoop to jump through. If we went straight from the precinct to the state convention we could save time and money. We wouldn't have to deal with the headache of the county level rubber stamping everything that the precinct does. We could pass everything to the state level and let the comittees start meeting earlier and let the delegates begin caucusing if they wish to do so.

In general middle governing bodies are only rubber stampers that don't have any business that originates their. The county party is a very useful tool but as a convention doesn't accomplish much and especially senate districts.

---

by: matthew_lt @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 17:08:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, normally... (0.00 / 0)

...you'd get more accomplished at the convention in a shorter amount of time. Ordinarily, platform/resolutions is a blast for people like me who, well, love politics.

That just got blasted all to hell this year due to the flood.

---

by: chris @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 22:47:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]