West: No "Dramatic" Changes Coming to Primary/Caucus System

Good (5.00 / 1)

I think our two-step process rages, and I'm glad to see that it won't be significantly changed.

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

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 14:21:29 PM UTC

Not So Good (3.00 / 2)

Supporters of the confusing, laborious caucus system claim or believe it increases party participation, thus "building" the party base.  But at what cost?  Any party-process that dilutes votes cast during the State-sponsored balloting process and disproportionately impacts classes of voters (elderly people, parents taking care of young children, people in the military, working people who do not have flexible work schedules, voters who are out of town, and people who just do not know about the caucuses) leaves a sour taste in my mouth.  Let's face it:  Many Democratic party activists and leaders like the current system because it "rages" for their vote to count more.  I don't want my vote to count more than any other person's vote.  And I desire and hope for Party leadership that favors inclusion and respects the will of all Democratic party voters.  

---

by: lburgess @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 17:05:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe, Maybe Not (5.00 / 1)

End open primaries then okay, otherwise keep the Texas Two Step. Remember Rush trying to get ditto head R voters to vote in some Democratic primaries last year?

---

by: ssuits @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 17:42:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No Bueno (0.00 / 0)

Texas two step was a complete cluster fuck. Angry Hillary supporters turned into crybaby non-participants in the fall elections.  

---

by: Bluefish @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 01:36:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ch-ch-changes (0.00 / 0)

Substantial changes are off the table.  Good.

But, are they still considering other changes, like Saturday precinct caucuses and more time to organize the SD conventions?

---

by: Jeb @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 15:39:20 PM UTC

Not again! (3.00 / 2)

We've heard all the arguments for and against the 2-step a zillion times, and most of us can recite the entire debate by heart. I happen to agree with Phillip and disagree with lburgess, but I won't bore you with the 375th repetition of my reasons.

Since abolition seems to be off the table, how about if we find out what is on the table, and discuss that instead?

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 17:59:13 PM UTC

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

I was not trying to restart that debate (because I have read some great back and forths on BOR on this topic), I was just trying to report on what West's committee had decided to do.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:41:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's not much on the table (0.00 / 0)

As I read Royce West's comments there is not much on the table to discuss.  His examples of retooling are:  "training for the activists" and "big enough" locations.  

Notably, according to the article, Aaron Pena wants to give the Party time to develop recommendations for changes to the system and then take a look at those recommendations.  And from the article, it appears at least two Legislators (Juan Hinojosa and Pena) understand that there are classes of voters who cannot attend the caucuses and "record" their vote a second time.  So if the Party does nothing to address that issue, the Legislature just might do so next Session. I certainly hope so.    

---

by: lburgess @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 23:36:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Methinks there be some party hacks commenting here (3.00 / 1)

Nice to see Pena call a spade a spade.  And the argument about Repub shenanigans is nonsensical.  If anything, a Repub with mischief on his/her mind can do a lot more damage at a precinct caucus.  After all, at a minimum, a vote there will count more than a vote at the voting booth.

---

by: A-man @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:34:14 PM UTC

Huh? (5.00 / 1)

At our caucuses there were A LOT of new people.  And they certainly weren't party hacks.  If anything, the party hacks were the ones complaining about the 2-step -- they had been outdone by a system that they themselves had created

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 04:32:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama-Clinton is over (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, David, for pointing out that folks who want to be constructive need to discard their 2008 candidate preference filter. Sure, a reporter like Selby used that in his article because he looks for controversy. But we won't do this again until 2012, so there's time to make any necessary changes with the benefit of proper reflection about what provides maximum participation for every individual and also serves to build a stronger party. Problem is none of us are clairvoyant and every election cycle is different, so no one can make that determination with absolutely certainty. Of course, I suspect some folks disagree, and as Democrats, thank God we can.

---

by: Ed Martin @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 02:55:29 AM UTC

The Controversy (0.00 / 0)

Gardner Selby understands the controversy and who is in it, but his article comes up a little short because he colors the issue with the tired Obama-Clinton theme.  Just so I'm clear:  The controvery is between those who want caucus goers to have more of a say in the delegate selection over the average voter who does not or cannot attend the caucus, and those who want delegate selection to follow the will of the voters as reflected at the polls.  Many believe (like I do) that the most inclusive vote (all registered voters who make it to the polls) should govern delegate selection.  So, instead of the debate being colored by the tired Obama-Clinton filter, we should focus on the true issue:  exclusionary process versus inclusionary process and at what cost.        

---

by: lburgess @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 16:20:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

whatever (5.00 / 3)

Just so I'm clear:  The controvery is between those who want caucus goers to have more of a say in the delegate selection over the average voter who does not or cannot attend the caucus, and those who want delegate selection to follow the will of the voters as reflected at the polls.  

Yeah, that's a much more fair assessment.
Bullshit. Nobody is asking for "more of a say". They (at least, ME, and many others that I worked with last year)are asserting that it should matter whether a candidate can summon the grassroots-level enthusiasm from those willing to do the work of winning elections. And I'd also add that it's rather shortsighted, if not stupid, to insult the people who bust their asses for little to no money to help our candidates get the vote out and win. An engaged and motivated base of volunteers and activists is precisely what this party has been sorely lacking for the last 20 + years, Rep. Pena. Calling us hacks and "bosses" - whatever that means - is exactly the opposite of what he should be doing. Only someone content with our losing streak in statewide elections would seriously believe what Pena said.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 03:03:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]