Should we keep the Two-Step?

Get rid of the Two-Step! (5.00 / 2)

I know first hand good loyal Democrats who voted in the primary but could not participate in the caucus because of physical or economic impossibilities. We are the party of inclusion, the party that cares for the elderly, that provides aid to the impoverished, but the way we choose our nominee excludes those not as fortunate as some of us.

The special election down in SD17 earlier this week showed us what happens when we don't have a long period of early voting without weekend voting. It is ridiculous to tell people they have to be in a certain building at a certain time on a certain day to participate. Our democracy should accommodate our needs, we should not have to work around our democracy. Some people need that long period of time to find a time to be able to vote.

---

by: DallasDavid @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 20:40:17 PM UTC

keep it ! (3.00 / 1)

I honestly don't see the problem with the current "two step" system.  Those who don't really have time to help the party can make their choice known and get to pick the majority of delegates.  Those who are willing and able to take the time to engage in the party process (and these are really the workers who are willing to block-walk or make calls) get to choose the rest.  Sounds fair to me.

---

by: jobsanger @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 21:09:05 PM UTC

Read the commentary by Castillo first (0.00 / 0)

I used to agree with your position but I think you need to read a little about Bill before you jump to that conclusion. It's not that Bill is not willing to take the time. In fact he has for 66 years. It's just that he can't take the time any more physically. Bill is more of a worker than you and I combined. He does it unselfishly. I'm sure there are people like Bill in your community too.

In other words, it's not fair any more. Besides you really don't have answers for my questions. Why must Texas be different than the rest of the nation? What have we accomplished above and beyond the other 49 states? What are we really gaining by the system? If Bill can't participate and there's no compelling reason why have it? What's makes our process so special? Why isn't the rest of the nation changing if it's really that special?

---

by: RBearSAT @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 21:43:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What about those (0.00 / 0)

who are willing but not able?

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 06:52:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know it's against the grain but... (3.00 / 1)

I say dump the primary and go with the caucus - period. Our open primary system allows too many GOP pranksters with nothing better to do to come in and mess with our elections.  

---

by: mrcarter1 @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 00:00:42 AM UTC

Pro Two-step I am (0.00 / 0)

as long as it's smarter.
It gives us a bunch of information about voters and activists in each precinct.
That information is power.  A lot of power.

---

by: not humble enough @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 00:24:41 AM UTC

How much more information? (0.00 / 0)

The only additional information the caucus gives you over the primary is possibly an e-mail address, a presidential preference and some demographic information that is really not useful for anything other than delegate selection. So I'm not sure what "powerful information" you are talking about.

The rest can be retrieved from the voter roles. In fact the information on the caucus roles was so difficult to read at times I had to resort back to the voter roles to make sure I transcribed it accurately on the electronic submission form which weren't used in a lot of cases at the state level. It's like they ignored the electronic files and transcribed the info again, inaccurately in many cases. What were they thinking?

Regarding activists couldn't we get that in a convention not tied to delegate allocation? We should be able to get everything you specify without the allocation issue. Am I missing something in your comment? Why is gathering this information tied to delegate allocation?

---

by: RBearSAT @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 00:37:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It goes into VAN (3.00 / 1)

The information we harvested from VAN did wonders in the HD 105 race--we have created two new Democratic clubs in Irving from it already and a third is in the formation stages.

We pulled I don't know how many new activists in this year, stuffing envelopes, knocking on doors, calling voters.  It was amazing to see that in Irving.  This data really changed the game here.

That is its value.

We never get this level of activism in the gubernatorial years simply because there is not as much value in taking part in the process if it is not tied to delegate allocation.  Voters who aren't enticed by the thought of going to the state convention DO want their Presidential candidate to win.

---

by: irvingguy @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 01:34:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some voters do (3.00 / 1)

but the reality is that in 2008 -- the year we've had BY FAR the highest caucus turnout -- only about 1 in 4 voters bothered to show up.

One of my worries about the caucus is that it simply puts too much power in the hands of those 1 in 4 (and, in most years, more like 1 in 100) people.

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:09:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't we still get that from a precinct convention? (3.00 / 1)

Why can't we still get this information from a precinct convention without the silly delegate allocation thing? Does it really take that kind of stupid allocation mess to get true activists? I would speculate that a true activist would still show up even without the delegate allocation thing. How do other states get the activists without the allocation carrot and we can't seem to figure that out in Texas? Have we ever thought of looking at other states? Once again, no one seems to be able to answer me on the "why only in Texas yet not in other states" questions.

BTW, isn't that data already available via the voter registration roles?

---

by: RBearSAT @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:00:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two Step System (5.00 / 1)

The current system is anti-democratic and discriminates against the Democratic Texans in the military and their families proudly serving our country.  While they can vote by absentee for the Primary Day vote, they cannot come back from Iraq, Afghanistan and other states and countries to vote along with their family members residing overseas stationed in Germany, Korea, etc.  

The Democratic Party stands for democracy so lets do the right thing and have the vote during the day count as a full vote and use the night system to just elect members to the Senatorial Convention.  Let do the right thing and stand up for our military and have their vote count fully.  

Thanks, Happy Holidays,

Larry Romo
Texas Democratic Veterans Chairman

---

by: llromo @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 01:59:23 AM UTC

Thank You (3.00 / 1)

Thank you for your work attracting veterans to our great party as well as making an argument for their participation. The caucus system discriminates against the brave men and women in our active armed forces, and we need their voices to be fully heard.

---

by: DallasDavid @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 02:20:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is wonderful to have a growing military presence in our party (0.00 / 0)

But the problem you described could just as easily be solved by allowing mail in ballots to cast 1.33 or 1.5 (or whatever) votes in the Presidential race.

An interesting bill has been filed in the Legislature to allow voting purely by email for military members.  That coupled with this could go a very long way in bringing our military members and their families into the full mainstream of our Texas Democratic Party.  

---

by: irvingguy @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 01:25:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why even have the funny allocations to start with? (0.00 / 0)

If that's your solution what about disabled voters? Should we give them 1.33 or some other funny allocation also? What about people who have to work? Should they get the allocation also? You see this starts to get silly as you try to avoid being discriminatory. Why don't people just give this silly allocation thing up and get to fair and just allocations of one vote, one person? It's like we can't get candidates elected in Texas unless we have the silly system yet the rest of the nation seems to get by just fine without it. Are we that flawed in the Texas Democratic Party?

I'm in Arkansas for Christmas and mentioned this to several of my D buddies here. They just laugh at this system and ask me what it really accomplishes. Several were here working for both Obama and Clinton and never could really understand what the delegate allocation thing was all about. They've been working in campaigns for over 20 years in many states. Texas continues to baffle them.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:55:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

scrap it (5.00 / 1)

scrap it. i know too many disabled and elderly folks who couldnt take the lines just to caucus. they are lifelong dems-some voted for fdr. it as heartbreaking to me. tx dems also need to change the deal with the valley. the valley folks got less delegates etc based on 06 turnout. why cant we do like most the states and have a primary?

---

by: benhur @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 03:11:46 AM UTC

Get rid of caucuses (0.00 / 0)

The first caucus I attended was in Colorado in 1972.  The process was broken in 1972 and remains broken in 2008.  Depending upon the state, I have attended precinct, county, state senate district, congressional district, and state caucuses/conventions. The current review of the caucus system is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

We have a state chairman and state executive committee accountable to nobody and unable to get statewide candidates elected.  At a precinct caucus I attended in Dallas, black homophobes monopolized the caucus, torpedoed a resolution banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and packed the senate district convention slate with their black friends.  What purpose is served at senate district and state conventions asking me to select delegates to the next level when I don't know one delegate candidate from another?  A lottery would be just as productive and take a lot less time.  The state senate district and state conventions have too many people to either have rational debate on party business or conduct votes in a reasonably, short period of time.

Delegates should be allotted solely on primary election results. Voters should have to register to vote in the Democratic primary at least 30 days before the primary.  The primary election date should be moved up from its current almost always also ran status.

---

by: Hermes @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 04:53:50 AM UTC

Do the work (0.00 / 0)

Get off your rear and reach out to folks to get them to vote your way.  Frankly, I have grown weary of gay activists whining about how blacks don't support them.  Start working to convince them.  Did you even ask any of them why they were voting no?

---

by: irvingguy @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 01:21:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some have asked actually... (0.00 / 0)

Most African-Americans respond with a "I'm a Christian and I don't approve of homosexuality."

My response to one very nasty African-American woman who pointed that out without my having asked was to inform her that I was a Christian, too, and that I believed in the Curse of Ham and so what she did or did not approve of obviously didn't matter.

As I recall our current state Democratic party chairman sent out his minions at the state convention to put out the word that the "rank and file" would never accept a gay chairman.

So the whining isn't just about the African-Americans.  

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 19:55:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

End the Texas Two Step and Create a Real Grassroots Strategy (3.67 / 3)

We should of course continue to hold precinct conventions, but the allocation of delegates should be based solely on the results of the vote in the primary.

I also think we should ramp up our grassroots organizing activities at the precinct level. For starters, every precinct chair should operate an interactive social networking-powered website that lets precinct Democrats join and get to know each other.

There should also be meetings within each precinct 3 or 4 times a year, instead of once every two years which is probably what happens in most precincts.

TDP should encourage local grassroots meetings on issues important to Democrats, such as the ones the Obama transition team is asking people to organize right now for Health Care Community Discussions. We should be having grassroots meetings at the precinct level on state-level issues. We should use those meetings to help build support for the agenda of our Democrats in the Legislature.  

By reforming the current system, we can both build the party through new grassroots strategies while respecting the principle of one person one vote during the delegate allocation system.

---

by: Scott Cobb @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 08:11:46 AM UTC

keep the primary, (3.00 / 1)

scrap the caucus. determine delegate numbers solely by primary election results. the question then is: how to select the delegates?

voters signal their interest in being a delegate by signing up for their candidate when they vote, and those on the list choose among themselves who will attend the convention as either a delegate or alternate.

OK, so for example, three candidates for president, and your precinct awards 50 delegates (and alternates).

candidate A has 60% on election night; cand B, 30%; and cand C, 10%. that translates to candidate A = 30 delegates; candidate B = 15; candidate C = 5. this removes the chancey proposition of late nights, long lines, physical limits, and the gaps left due to chaos.

to get to the actual delegate, either the top names from each sign in sheet become delegates (and alternates), or those wanting to be a delegate for their candidate meet and choose among themselves. this would be done after primary night so there's no grabbing for advantage from the other sides. it has the possibility of making the selection process more accessible and - one hopes - increase opportunity for everyone who wants to be involved to do so.

I expect the party to retain some slots to fill with elected folks. this is fine, as electeds would surface either via a super delegate method or through the sign-in approach. either way, they'd participate, as they should.

I've been a delegate up to state many many times. I've seen the feast and the famine with regard to interest. feast is better and would be extra-fine, minus the chaos.

---

by: leslie pool @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 15:16:03 PM UTC

A new direction is needed. (0.00 / 0)

   Let us scrape the two-step process --
   one person, one vote --
   that is the American way.  

---

by: Gabrielle Burns @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 00:43:44 AM UTC

What would happen if we scrapped the 2-step? (5.00 / 1)

No, Texas wouldn't fall into the Gulf. No, it wouldn't completely kill our precinct organizing. But we'd be giving up substantial organizational advantages, and that would be a shame.

Personally, I strongly support having a precinct convention that matters, and that means having delegates at stake. I've liked caucuses ever since I saw them in Iowa in 1984, and as a precinct chair, I thought they were great in Texas, too. If I had my druthers, we'd be a caucus state, pure and simple.

But it wouldn't kill me, or anybody else, to move to a primary-only system. If that's what most people want (and it seems to be), so be it!

What amazes me is that instead of celebrating the new administration of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, we're still rehashing the nomination battle. I know that some Clinton supporters feel they got a raw deal, but if we had allocated delegates based entirely on the primary, then Clinton would only have received another 5-10 delegates (out of 200+ from Texas) and the nomination would have turned out exactly the same. If we had allocated delegates based entirely on the caucus, then Obama would have had another 10-20 delegates and the nomination would have turned out exactly the same.

In terms of the horse race, the Two-Step just doesn't matter! Instead of nursing old grievances, how about moving on?  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:08:41 AM UTC

Doesn't matter? (3.00 / 1)

There's been too much discussion about it for it not to matter. It's the way we conduct our politics, here. So, until it's settled, we really can't move on.

I've liked caucuses ever since I saw them in Iowa in 1984, and as a precinct chair, I thought they were great in Texas, too.

Since you state that you've served as a precinct chair in Texas, I'm amazed that you see the Iowa caucuses and the Texas precinct conventions as the same process. They're definitely not.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 18:13:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]