Could Texans Vote In Primaries Before Cupid?

this would heavily favor (0.00 / 0)

Clinton, Obama and Edwards, the candidates with the most $$

---

by: David Mauro @ Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 20:06:01 PM CST

personally, i'd support this. (0.00 / 0)

i am so sick and tired of the presidential nominee race being decided by the time the primaries get here in march.


Fudd's first law of opposition: Push something hard enough and it will fall over.

---

by: annatopia @ Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 21:17:52 PM CST

i would love to see... (0.00 / 0)

texas and california and nevada and washington play a proportional role in this process.

i mean, if we are gonna have, basically, a mock-election, lets make it slightly similar in structure.

ideally, i would love regional primaries (sometime multi-and-contiguous-states, sometimes one big state, like TX or CA) with UNDISCLOSED results until, say 66% of potential voters have voted. thats right, the good folks of iowa get their say early, but they dont get it loudly.

throw in instant registration, ranking/instant runoff, county-or-state-wide polling jurisdictions and we would be approaching something much more in-line with its 'perceived' use.

just my 2cents,
mario

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

---

by: mariochampion @ Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 21:36:54 PM CST

I would support an earlier primary (0.00 / 0)

I asked for a resolution at my county convention to this effect in 2006 and was shot down.

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 00:04:14 AM CST

US constitutional amendment (0.00 / 0)

I think we need a US amendment forcing the primaries to all be on the same day.  I know it would force candidates to spend more money, but it would also be fair to the voters of every state.  Maybe it could go along with the other needed amendment getting rid of the electoral college.

"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 @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 02:36:56 AM CST

Moving the Party to the Right but not in the Right Direction (0.00 / 0)

Seems to me that moving Texas up in the process is a sure way to kill the more liberal candidates in both parties. We gave the nation our Bush.  That's quite enough.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 08:04:20 AM CST

Moving the primaries (0.00 / 0)

would only happen if the Republican primaries become real tight, and Perry, who is angling for a VP slot in '08, wants to endear himself to one of the top tier candidates who would benefit from all of those Texas delegates.  Then it'll move.

Otherwise, it's likely a pipe dream. 

TMH

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Todd Hill @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 08:35:04 AM CST

Late primaries hurt us in November (0.00 / 0)

During the 20 years I've lived in Texas, Democratic presidential primaries were first in May, now March.  They had already been decided before Texas weighed in, from 1984 through 2004.

As a result, many Democratic leaners don't bother to vote in the primary or vote in the Republican primary for someone they know who's running for judge.  That means, we have to always scramble to November, building a GOTV without really knowing who the Democratic leaners are.  We need to get these people excited and to the primary polls, so we can capture the names to have a more reliable GOTV .

---

by: merci_me @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 09:26:14 AM CST

Primary Date is March 4th..not 11th (0.00 / 0)

Although websites galore have Texas listed at March 11th, the date in 2008 will be on March 4th.  In 2003, Legislature moved it up to the FIRST Tuesday.  The DeLay redistricting bill temporarily moved it back to second Tuesday for 2004 so that they had time to do pre-clearance.  But in 2006, it reverted back to the first Tuesday.

Still I'd like to see it up front so Texans could influence the process.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 10:20:39 AM CST

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the correction. I had seen both dates online so I wasn't sure which is right. I guess I should always believe Wikipedia over anyone else.

www.stonewalldemocratsofdentoncounty.org

---

by: John McClelland @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 10:30:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

I know I've personally corrected this on Wikipedia a couple of times.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 12:30:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

:) (0.00 / 0)

Wiki nerd

www.stonewalldemocratsofdentoncounty.org

---

by: John McClelland @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 13:39:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Quarter of Texas delegates allocated through conventions (5.00 / 1)

Texas is one of the only states that allocates our national delegates through a process divided between convention and primary.

The convention process is also the one way the Party collects the names of its most "active" voters... those who actually go to a precinct caucus.

However, because we start this process SO LATE in the calendar, most of the most active folks don't show up at the caucus because it's no longer meaningful.

Example:  Dean had a list of over 35,000 folks in Texas.  But Dean had withdrawn from the race so most of those people didn't attend a caucus.  The Texas Democratic Party never collected their names on that magic list of activists.  (And for that matter, didn't get most of the Edwards, Clark, Lieberman, Gephardt, Braun or Sharpton folks).

If we were serious about using this process to build the Party, we'd change the rules to allow participants to "register" with the Party beginning now, give some weight to which candidate's campaign registers the most folks (i.e., builds the Party's acivist list).  Just as meaningful as going to a precinct caucus... and probably more beneficial in the long run.

Moreover, if you truly want to streamline this process we'd get the Lege to abolish the requirement for 7:15 on Tuesday night precinct caucuses and move that business to be in conjunction with the county/senatatorial district conventions.

In most of Texas, this precinct caucus is a dismal, poorly run, clusterF... anyway. 

We should use technology (with safeguards for those without) to "collect the names of supporters of presidential candidates" who then, after the primary and have voted, can attend the county/SD conventions.  Allocate delegates in the proportion that "register" instead of showing up at a precinct caucus.

Lots of other ways to do this, but the way we do this now is archaic and unproductive.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 10:36:28 AM CST

Speaking of clusters (0.00 / 0)

In my short experience, and from what I heard from some other colleagues in Dallas, a lot of the county/SD conventions are just as much a cluster as the precinct conventions, if not more so.

So would it really help to even more it up to that time rather than at the smaller precinct level where you have less people to deal with at one time? The only disadvantage I saw to the precinct convention was our election judge wanting to rush us through the process to get us out of there (who was an SDEC member by the way).

I do see the point that the TDP does a piss poor job of collecting names of Democrats, and we're guilty of that on the county level as well.

www.stonewalldemocratsofdentoncounty.org

---

by: John McClelland @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 11:18:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Depends of the purpose... (0.00 / 0)

In a presidential year, turnout at the caucus begins the count toward the support level of a presidential candidates getting national delegates.  So if you think of this process just in those terms, you get a very different process than if you think of the caucus as a part of Party building.

If we're about building the Party, then we should make the process fit that goal.  And that would mean building a process that's not dependent on a rain storm on Tuesday night at 7:15 pm  (or candidates dropping out of a race).

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 11:32:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Questions (0.00 / 0)

Can you give some more information on how the registration that you are speaking about would work?

Also, why do you think that the precinct caucuses are a "dismal, poorly run, clusterF..."?  I'm not questioning that they are, but why they are.  It would seem that with a little bit of grassroots precinct organizing they could be good way for the rank and file to have some voice.  I would worry that moving them upstream in the process might dilute that voice, as those more organized, articulate and connected would have an opportunity to circumvent or usurp this potential bit of populism.  This cynicism is brought to you in large part by witnessing the chair's race at the last state convention.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 11:30:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Logistical nightmare (0.00 / 0)

There are over 8500 precincts in Texas.  The TDP goes to much expense printing forms etc. for these and trying to distribute them to county parties, etc.

However, historically there is never even a convention held in thousands of these.  And in thousands of others, the process is mangled or done inappropriately.

I'm just saying it's not at all efficient for any of the goals we set out as the purpose (and with some thought and planning, it could be dynamic and useful).

I think that in about 200 counties (almost all where there is a county convention), the people who attend the precinct conventions are equal to the people who attend the county convention.  In other words, there is no "winnowing" of the numbers -- just same people coming back a second time.  So, by practice, we now have county chairs who simply tell everyone to blow off the precinct convention and come to the county convention.  So, in effect, the practice is what I'd propose for those counties.

You can easily do the precinct caucus stuff as the first step at a county convention in these smaller and suburban counties.

But all that discussion is mute if we don't take these details out of the state statutes... where we're hamstrung to keep doing it like we did in the 1950's without computers and the internet.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 11:45:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the reply.  While there may not be a "winnowing" of the numbers, I am pretty certain that there would be a winnowing of the number of voices heard from.  Giving more platform to the voices at a precinct level could be an important part of building the base as well as leadership development.  But I sure do see your point about the ineffectiveness of this process.  The idea of starting the county conventions with the precinct stuff makes good sense to me.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 12:07:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Registration...instead of warm bodies (3.00 / 1)

We now allocate delegates by how many "bodies" are in a room at different conventions.

Can we creatively develop a "register support for my choice" by mail, internet, or in person at party offices, etc. that would count in the way the warm bodies has in the past?

Then the job of the Obama and Clinton and Edwards et al campaigns would be to get people to register with the TDP in order to get a bigger slice of delegates. (Now done as a "show up" at the convention to get a bigger slice of delegates).

If TDP began that process in the fall, they'd have a huge database of activists and emails by the time the conventions start.

In today's world, all those people get excited and then stay home, because the first time the Party as in institution "gets their names" is at the caucus.  And by our March caucus there might not be but one candidate standing.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 11:57:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Party Building... (2.00 / 1)

As you can see.. I'm not so concerned with writing the rules to help a presidential candidate, I'm for using the presidential convention process effectively to build the Texas Democratic Party.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 12:00:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Straw Poll (0.00 / 0)

I see your point. Even without a change in the rules couldn't the party implement a sort of Internet based unofficial straw poll to effectively do the same thing?  This may not directly net a candidate delegates but it would be worth their while to build a base and show their strength leading up to delegate selection.  By setting up a straw poll that collects email addresses and precinct locations the state would be benefiting itself, its precincts, and county efforts as well as those of the candidates.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 12:24:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

Just know that if there is some carrot on the stick, the campaigns will drive people to the poll... etc.

It's just a shame that we let this huge wave of excitement come and go and don't reap a damn thing from it.

In 2004, John Edwards won 9 national delegates through the primary allocation, but at the state convention all 9 were filled by people who were originally "Dean" folks.  Nobody even had a list of "Edwards" supporters in those districts, so Dean folks stepped up for a free ride to Boston.  A system like this would at least allow the Party to communicate with these folks in situatons like this.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 12:39:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The process (0.00 / 0)

Glen,

Maybe later on you could write a followup on how the 08 convention process is going to work. Because a lot of us have never been through it at all.

I only have my experience from 06 to base off of, which didn't include having to come up with delegates based on presidential preference. And those of us who were in Fort Worth all know the chaos that ensued with them attempting to even tally the number of votes for party chair.

www.stonewalldemocratsofdentoncounty.org

---

by: John McClelland @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 14:26:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so the Lege sets the pct rule? (0.00 / 0)

Glen, are you aware of anyone planning to file legislation to this purpose? It makes sense to move it.

---

by: colin @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 12:47:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's the law... (0.00 / 0)

It's statutory that parties must have these conventions at 7:15 on Tuesday, etc.

There are lots of these things in statute which should really just be in Party Rules.

Always tricky to do this stuff, cuz Republicans have to agree.

I'm having some conversations with some legislators now... about perhaps just doing an exception...such as (paraphrased):

"A party may adopt rules about the time, place, and agenda of their conventions other than what's in statute."

In other words, we certainly don't want to put into statute some other process that would need to be tweaked or changed in the future.  We just need to have the Lege say it's a Party's perogative about these things.

I really wish the TDP would lead on this though. 

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 14:17:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's see a national primary. (0.00 / 0)

Or as close to one as possible.  With CA, IL, FL, etc, moving up to Super Early Tuesday, I don't see why we shouldn't follow suit.

Retail politicking just isn't all that relevant to contemporary Presidential campaigns.

---

by: Ramo @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 12:57:14 PM CST