No Fireworks on the Closed Primary / Pure Party Primary Bill

Progressive First (0.00 / 0)

I realize that this will likely make me unpopular, but I am a progressive first and a Democrat second.  I personally feel that progressive Democrats should speak loudly about dismantling the two party system.  It is inherently unprogressive. Measures like this only strengthen this anathema of democracy.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 18:09:19 PM CDT

uh huh (2.00 / 2)

Look, we are in a preisdential democracy, not a parliamentary democracy, you're stuck in a two party system as set up by our constitution where 50% of members are required to pass legislation in either House of government. Let's say we get a real third party and the senate is divided 33/33/34. COngratulations, unless two parties are very similar (a democratic and green party for example), nothing happens, ever.

So quit making this argument unless you plan to rewrite the constituion.

---

by: trowaman @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 20:08:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please Tell Me (0.00 / 0)

where in the constitution it lays out two parties?  It does not.  In fact many the framers spoke passionately about their fear of just such a system coming out of their work.  Our constitution works largely because it is a system of checks and balances.  This is someplace where the checks and balances got pushed aside by power politics.  While I seriously doubt that it would take a constitutional change to add breadth to our party system, I see no reason to let that deter the pursuit of excellence in government.  That is, in fact, why they made the constitution malleable.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:01:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

three words (5.00 / 1)

Instant runoff voting

That would certainly create for the ability for more than two parties to survive.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 23:02:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't like instant runoff voting (0.00 / 0)

For a simple reason:  until faced with the actuality of a runoff between two specific individuals, I do not honestly know who my second choice is.  I would not want to be forced to decide prematurely.

---

by: Wanderer @ Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:04:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then you would elect not to vote in that Runoff (0.00 / 0)

That might be what your decision is.

But most voters wouldn't go to the polls for a second time for a runoff.  Most would prefer voting once and only once.  There is good reason that runoffs have lower turnout rates.

While it would be more ideal if all voters would come again if a runoff were necessary, that simply doesn't happen. 

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:44:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It might be, but it might not be (0.00 / 0)

That's the whole point of a campaign for a runoff.  It changes the dynamic of a multi-candidate campaign to reduce it to two candidates.  All the "what if" scenarios go away, and we are left with a reality scenario.  Once reality hits, it forces us to think about our choice more carefully, and perhaps differently, than we might otherwise. 

A great example was the incredible Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in 1984 (I think; sometime around then) -- a three-way race between Kent Hance, Lloyd Doggett, and Bob Krueger.  All three candidates got more than 30%!  That was wild.  I suspect a LOT of folks had trouble with their second choice.  The runoff campaign gave everyone an opportunity to reflect and consider the choices.  Instant runoff removes the opportunity for reflection.

---

by: Wanderer @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 18:27:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Party only primary (0.00 / 0)

I very strongly support a party only primary.  The current system in Texas gave the state a gov the majority did not vote for.  It may have been entertaining but very little was accomplished.

---

by: cham54 @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 16:09:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's a better way to correct that problem (0.00 / 0)

After all, a Repub-only primary will just produce someone even worse.  No, what we really need is a runoff from the general election.  Then no more minority-vote office holders!  Perry would have had real trouble if he had had to go head-to-head against Bell.

---

by: Wanderer @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 18:28:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not sure (4.00 / 2)

Requiring the extra step of declaring party preference would probably push primary turnout even lower, so that's one strike against it.

And nothing would stop the Spring D/Fall R's you mention from declaring the D and still voting R in November, so you wouldn't eliminate that problem completely.

It would help in GOTV efforts to the extent that non-primary voters actually declared a party, but I suspect you'd get a lot of voters not filling out the extra paperwork or indicating 'Independent.'

So - put me down as 'Undecided.'

---

by: George @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 18:18:15 PM CDT

my counter argument (3.67 / 3)

Party registration creates a sense of pride among those who register. That pride would increase turnout and strengthen grassroot movements.

Also, what Republican would openly go around and say "yeah I'm registered as a democrat"?

I'm too tired to flesh this out more, I'm at work and pretty bored.

---

by: trowaman @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 20:15:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When I lived in Ohio (4.00 / 2)

you declared your party affiliation when you went to vote in a primary.  Then it was entered onto your voter ID. 

If you went to vote in the opposition party in the next primary, you had to sign a statement that you had changed parties and that information was then recorded on your voting record.

It was no different than Texas, as to you ability to change parties.  However, it was listed on your voter ID card and the poll records that the pollworker had there.  When you went into the Democratic primary to vote, with a Republican ID on your card, you were asked to sign a statement.  When you recieved your new card, it listed your party affiliation as your last vote.  Not unlike the rubber stamp you get on your Texas ID card.

Personally, I always considered it a matter of pride to have the "D" emblazoned on my voter ID card at all times, not just after I voted in the primary!!  After all, Democrats here can go a longtime between primaries, but my voter ID always said DEMOCRAT.

---

by: merci_me @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 20:42:15 PM CDT

No election day switching... (0.00 / 0)

Remember this bill requires you to affiliate at least 30 days before...not on election day.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:04:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And if you decide to switch, what then? (0.00 / 0)

Are you not allowed to vote at all?  I know you don't want to get into the implementation part, but I am really concerned that I have friends who are dumb enough to not register until it's too late to vote in either generals or primaries.  If I tell them that they have to pick a party, too, they'll just throw up their hands and bail.  If it requires that they be more educated or have to work in any way, they just opt out.

In general, I don't like it.  ID would be great, but I'm not ready to ask people to make affiliations like this.  I think we'd lose more people than we gain.

Full Disclosure: Former Political Director for Lee Leffingwell for Mayor of Austin

---

by: sccs @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 13:36:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With Republican e-voting machines in place in primaries, is that why some Dems have gotten more conservative and Reps have gotten more radically conservative? (0.00 / 0)

Democrats who vote for a Republican speaker?

Really...

And, protect the voting machines?

Really...

Maybe, since Republicans are losing so many people who will now vote Democratic, and Republicans do not want a repeat of 2006 where a "surge" of very unhappy Democrats, Independents and former Republicans beat the numbers...

Perhaps...

Given that the state is now falling way behind in updating registration, this will only add to the problem. My guess this will affect Democrats and Independents and maybe former Republicans more than the last holdouts of the shameful Republican base.

Republicans want to know ahead of time what those numbers might be to try to tackle in many different ways.

---

by: ProveOurDemocracy @ Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 23:55:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't argue the pride aspect (0.00 / 0)

But this is different from the Ohio method. Millions of already registered voters will have to file new paperwork a month before the primaries to be eligible to vote in them. How many will show up to vote and be turned away because they didn't know about the change?

Not to mention the counties having to process all these updates at the same time we're loading them down with the fruits of our registration drives.

This issue goes away with time, but the first couple of primaries are going to be problematic.

---

by: George @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:06:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I tend to agree with the concept.. (4.00 / 4)

but think it makes sense to allow same day voter affiliation this first cycle.  Otherwise you'll never be able to pay the costs or political price to get people registered.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:12:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

With same day declaration, at least for the first time or two, there isn't much downside.

---

by: George @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:19:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a very good point (0.00 / 0)

If you cleared up that one part allowing same day party registration for the first cycle, you'd be able to pick up everyone who normally votes in the primaries without any surprises. Basically expanding the partisan ID rolls without turning people away from their natural habit and educate them (and basically take care of them for the next cycle).

Of course the other option would be to just move the registration deadline in closer and not be one of the worst states in the union with a 30 day out window. Same day registration would be brilliant in my opinion for democracy but I'd settle for 2 weeks and tie the party registration date to that even.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:49:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You absolutely need to have EDR for this to work (3.00 / 2)

Otherwise it will be a fiasco and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters, and they're more likely to be our voters.  We're the party that likes to party and wait until the last second to do things.  We've got real lives to live after all.

He has to put EDR in there or it's a trap.

---

by: sonia @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:56:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I do argue with the pride aspect (0.00 / 0)

Pride is a major character flaw, and a prerequisite to arrogance.  Your pride in being a Democrat is no different from President B-word's pride in his being a Republican, and certainly no better. 

I say forget about pride and focus on whether party declaration will help or harm democracy in Texas ... on that basis, I call it a wash.

---

by: Wanderer @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:52:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also... (5.00 / 1)

If we decide to do this party affiliation, which I would do it in a heart beat, does this mean everyone has to re-register again and dropping people from the rolls?  I haven't read the bill so I'm not so knowledgeable on the requirements and rules.

---

by: michaelapodaca @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:11:30 PM CDT

As drafted, yes. (5.00 / 1)

see my above comment.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:13:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clarification (0.00 / 0)

Everyone has to affiliate before the primary as a Dem or Rep.... those who don't automatically default to independent.

They're still registered, just can't vote in the primary as it's drafted now.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:16:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, no, no (0.00 / 0)

If the bill allowed for registering on election day it might be ok.  But as drafted I can't believe most people are voting "Yes" on the poll above.

I have a hard enough time getting my friends to vote as it is.  They want good government, they're just not political junkies. Please don't give me another barrier I have to help them across. [A Glenn M with two n's.]

This is as bad as the voter ID bill.

---

by: GlennM @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 19:15:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what barrier? (0.00 / 0)

getting them to vote in the primary? Such a change would have no effect on voting in the general.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 19:34:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One Issue that I go back and Forth With (3.00 / 1)

Is the independents.  I'm not entirely sure if it is a good idea to take away power of independents who do not wish to be affiliated with a party.  It gives those who don't mind being affiliated with a party more power, but to me that isn't fair democracy as I would imagine...

Not that this argument sways me entirely one way or another, but its the first thing that comes to my mind.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 23:08:19 PM CDT

Turnout would suffer, I think (0.00 / 0)

especially in the more Republican areas of the state. I recently (2004) worked a campaign in Kansas, and even in a part of the state that was somewhat Democratic, registration was about 75% Republican or Independent. Let me expand on that. In the two most populous counties of the area I worked, the Democratic candidate got approximately 52% of the vote, but only about 25% of the voters in those counties were registered Democrats. The idea is that people would register Republican, because that's where the action is in the primary for statewide races; they want to have a say in who wins those seats.

Now of course, that doesn't always work out even in Kansas; they have a Democratic governor in Kathleen Sibelius. But I think in West Texas, especially, and in larger suburban counties, people might register Republican just as part of the herd mentality.

Bottom line, I think pure affiliation will drive down turnout in the Democratic primary, especially in non-presidential years.

---

by: davew @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 08:31:07 AM CDT

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

I have often wondered why you can not register your party affiliation in Texas. I first registered to vote in North Carolina, and they allow you to do so.

Your options there are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or if you do not choose one, it will list Unaffiliated. I have no doubt they do this because they have a closed primary system as well. However, if the Republicans or Democrats decide to allow it, they allow Unaffiliated voters to vote in their primary but it is at their own discretion.

If Texas allowed people to register by party, it would also help greatly to determine who actually really is in one of those parties, instead of having to guess who the Democrats are in this state.

www.stonewalldemocratsofdentoncounty.org

---

by: John McClelland @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:28:10 AM CDT

Does it make campaigns harder or easier? (0.00 / 0)

I think the primaries will become easier - even in Travis County we have around 120K people with at least some D history.  That is a lot of households for a campaign to contact.  That number will drop dramatically with a preregistration - at least initially.  I think well run campaigns will dominate.  They will have tight call lists, walk lists, mail lists, etc.  Less wasted time and less wasted money talking to tens of thousands of voters that won't show up.  Candidates not supported by the party establishement will be at an even greater disadvantage than they are now.

In November, I think it might make the campaigns harder - at least initially.  We contact voters and categorize them based on their primary history.  It looks like we will have less primary history data to work with.  We will have to make more phone calls, send more mail, and knock on more doors to id these voters.  Right?

I like knowing how well a candidate is doing with heavy Rs, heavy Ds, light Rs, light Ds, etc.  No-primary history data is difficult to read.  I think we will have more no-primary data to fret over.

I fear the party and its candidates will lose contact with these apathetic voters that fail to register, but vote in November.  Maybe this will force campaigns to work harder and the advantage will shift to our smart hard working campaigns.  Maybe???

But as in most things in life, if Glen is for it - I probably will be also.  If he is against it, it is just a horrible idea.

---

by: Mark Littlefield @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:45:37 PM CDT

November... (5.00 / 1)

I think what will occur is that you still have voting history of who voted in a D or R primary.  No difference than before.

What will help, is that that huge number of voters who never vote in primaries, but vote straight D or R in November, will probably now tell us they are a Democrat or Republican. 

Think of the 50,000 new voters who'll register in the fall of 2008 in Travis for the prez election all telling us up front that they are probably a Dem or Rep by their registration.  You'd have a new marker of partisanship of those  folks who've never had a chance of voting in in a primary.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 13:36:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And one other point as well (0.00 / 0)

One they register and declare a party affiliation, for the sake of ID, it doesn't matter if they vote in a primary or not. In a sense, once they actively do so to begin with, it stays with them no matter what they do, until they actively change it. You can still determine how hard or soft they are by seeing how many times they bother to show up and vote in a primary, but at least it does not require them having to show up in a primary in order to ID them.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 16:48:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is Glen right? (0.00 / 0)

Glen thinks that the newly registed in Travis will declare a party.  Maybe they won't.  Maybe they won't statewide in large numbers and we end up with fewer primary voters as a result. 

Then what?

---

by: Mark Littlefield @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 16:51:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I see an interesting trend (2.00 / 1)

You and all the others are advocating this not because it is better for democracy, but because it will make your campaigns easier to manage.  Phooey.

It's bad for democracy.  Any time you take steps that will knowingly reduce the number of voters, you narrow the process and reduce the usefulness of the results.  What Jeb Bush did to narrow the voter rolls in Florida was, in a sense, very similar in purpose.

You can almost guarantee that any legislation good for political consultants is bad for voters who like to have choices.  Is your idea of freedom of choice to give voters the freedom to select from a list of choices you provide?

---

by: Wanderer @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 18:19:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ok (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, voters really need to choice of voting for Gene Kelly. I want to make sure we protect the right of clueless independents to come vote in the Dem primary and make him our nominee again sometime.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 19:36:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a good point (2.00 / 1)

When a campaign cannot be a dormant Gene Kelly in an open primary, the campaign isn't going to win the general.  I think that should be a point we all come to understand.  We aren't protecting the right of clueless independents, because they have a right to voice their 'cluelessness'.  Oddly, we aren't doing too much to protect the Democratic party, either.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 20:15:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am for it (0.00 / 0)

but then Texas is the only State I have lived in where I did not declare party when I registered.
When I got the registration card in the mail, I had to call and make sure they had not sent me something in error. LOL

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow

---

by: refinish69 @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 13:39:20 PM CDT

Registration for party primaries (0.00 / 0)

Re: Glen Maxey's observation that "Across Texas you'd see counties where 70%of the voters voted in the Democratic primary and then see that the county would go two to one Republican in statewide or national elections."

  In a significant number of the 254 counties in Texas, the voters select all or most of their county officals in the Democratic primary, but then they vote for the Republican presidential candidate, and to a lesser extent for the GOP's statewide candidates. These are classic Reagan Democrats who have still not transitioned into that phase of life where they are willing to call themselves Republicans. Said another way, they don't identify with the candidates of the national or state Democratic Party, but they like their local county commissioners, sheriff and constables.

  No doubt that Leo Berman's motive is to keep upscale supporters of the public schools and teachers from voting in the Republican primary against him in Smith County. He probably figures that many of those folks would be reluctant to register as Republican.

  So, count this long-time proponent of the two-party system as not supporting party registration at this time. We will probably find that it turns around and bites us.

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 13:51:25 PM CDT

Bad Idea (0.00 / 0)

This is a terrible idea. Has anyone thought about the poor and un-educated voters. You guys have to remember there are a lot of older people, and people who are not as educated as all of us reading this blog who are Democrats. Unfortunately, it would be VERY difficult to get all of them to register before they go to the polls to vote in the primary. I'm sorry, but I just don't support this, and I think it's a Republican ploy to further destroy the minority vote in the Democratic Party.

---

by: democratdave @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 14:27:43 PM CDT

Quick Counter (0.00 / 0)

Low information voters are now party affiliated. This means they are now easy targets for people runnign and it is extremely easy for them to receive information from candidates running for office.

Pretty much, party registration makes it easier for low information voters to receive information from campaigns, so long as campaigns decide to campaign in primaries, no more searching voter data bases for triple Ds.

---

by: trowaman @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 16:33:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

good point (0.00 / 0)

And remember, just because something is proposed by a Republican does not make it automatically a Republican ploy. Read Glen's opening paragraphs.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 16:53:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Questions Remain (0.00 / 0)

I've just read the bill. The only additions appear to be adding the "party affiliation" language.

Let me preface my commentary by saying we should be aspiring for a world without political parties. Party mentality and big money have fouled up everything decent and good about politics. It's long past the point where the problems caused by "politics" have spoiled what's good in "government". That's why I'm involved in politics: to get good people elected who will change our world for the better.

This bill might be good in the sense that we identify our base early. We will know exactly how people voted. Or how people are supposed to vote. If everyone was truthful. And that's exactly a problem Glen points out. I have a few questions:

1) How many Republicans out there are really screwing up our primaries?

2) How does this take into account the wide variation within the Democratic Party? (Some Democrats are more progressive than others.)

3) If this was law, how flexible could people still be in switching parties? Couldn't you just declare yourself one party before the primary and switch again before the general?

4) Does this have the effect of making the democratic process better, or will have the effect of drawing a more clear line of "us vs. them"?

Skylor Williams 
Conventional Wisdom, Inc.

---

by: Skylor Williams @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 14:41:34 PM CDT

There will always be parties (0.00 / 0)

Voters need to get over this. Every self respecting Democracy has them and is organized around them.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 16:55:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I understand reality... (0.00 / 0)

I understand the reality of parties and that they exist because people like the advantages they provide. I merely take exception to the notion of "self-respecting" and the "that's the way it's been, so it should continue to be" attitude that lots of people have. Call it the last little bit of youthful idealism I have.

S.

 

---

by: Skylor Williams @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 08:31:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You tell 'em! (0.00 / 0)

That's right -- you tell those damn voters what to think!  They are so irritating, aren't they?  You're onto a good thing with this party registration thing, though.  That'll get rid of a lot of the pests.

---

by: Wanderer @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 18:23:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)

That has nothing to do with my comment. If voters don't like parties, they wouldn't register in one anyways. If they do now, I guess they are being hypocritical now aren't they.

Partisan registration has no effect on their ability to vote for whomever they want in the fall election. Any discussion about 'how parties are bad' is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 19:39:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To Question #4 (0.00 / 0)

I am leaning against this proposal, and the reason is primarily to question number 4.  It seems very much like it would be drawing a clearer line of "us vs. them".

Or maybe not that, but it certainly doesn't make the general Democratic process better.  Democracy is "Rule of the People," not "Rule of the people, but more rule of the party people."  It is my view that independents should have as much say in government as Democrats and Republicans, and a registration requirement would not allow that.  It would give Democrats and Republicans, by law, more power than the independent voter.  This is because Democrats and Republicans would be voting more often, and would be choosing much more for the process.

The benefit of this proposal is that it creates more party unity.  It would actually have dedicated members of the parties, as opposed to independents who might vote in primaries but aren't as dedicated.
Unfortunatly, I do not think that party unity is worth sacrificing some democracy.  That is, basically, what the requirement for registration would do.

I personally do not beleive that parties need to be taken away, because that is impossible.  But I would prefer if we had more than a two party system.  At the very least, I think voters should feel more freedom in choosing options besides Democrats and Republicans.  In the current system, voters feel they have to choose Democrat or Republican in order for their voice to matter.  These independent voters already have their voice diminished more than it should be.  This bill would diminish it more.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 23:21:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

two party system (0.00 / 0)

In Texas there are currently 3 registered parties, add in the Libertarians. As recently as 2000 there was also the Green ballot line and in the 90s there was also a Reform line if I remember correctly.

But even though people had these choices, they decided not to vote for them, and as with the Green, lost their ballot status if they couldn't maintain even a measly 5% of the vote in any one statewide election. I'm not a proponent of subsidizing ballot lines for parties that can't prove any measure of deserving them.

Florida has easier standards and has up to 10 parties regularly on the ballot. And what good has that done them there to disable the two party system? Nada.

Yes, parliamentary democracies are attractive and cool and may function better in some ways, but that's not what we have in the US so all the wishing in the world about the 'philosophy of democratic order' is somewhat unrelated to the actual question it seems.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 19:46:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not advocating parliamentary Democracy (0.00 / 0)

I'm advocating one thing in a variety of ways: equal voice.

I think it is clear that this proposal does not create for equal voice.  It takes away the votes of independents, even if some of those independents sign up with the Green or Liberarian party.

I am not advocating easier standards for parties to be on the ballot.  But the five percent standard to get them on the ballot wouldn't be reached with party registration, and it wouldn't be reached with the current system.  People don't want to vote for candidates so that they can reach five percent.  They vote for candidates so that their voice can be heard -- if they have a chance of winning.  This is why Bell lost money in 2006, and why Kinky eventually lost votes; not a viable reason.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 20:20:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right, but (0.00 / 0)

I know we will still have primary hisotry on our primary voters.  I am questioning whether we will have fewer primary voters - initially - due to preregistration and making the job of iding harder in November.

So, are you saying that the 50K new voters that register for the 2008 election will also register for a party affiliation at the same time - thereby negating our need in Travis County of IDing a vast majority of them?

I guess at first it wll be  wash b/c the voters that fail to register will be made up by the newly registered,  After a couple of cycles will have more data than we ever had before?  Do you promise that's going to happen? 

I am old and afraid of new things.

---

by: Mark Littlefield @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 14:47:21 PM CDT

Trojan Horse (0.00 / 0)

On the surface, this looks okay.  But...

As was said above, this will chase off many rural Republicans who vote in our primaries.  But they won't quit voting; they'll go vote in the Republican primary.  So, in rural areas, our primaries will become more pure, but smaller in size.  Meanwhile, the GOP primaries will increase in size.  That's maybe a wash, but I'm not sure it isn't a bad thing.

In the cities, I think all this re-registration will hurt our primary turnout -- and may even turn into a problem in the fall -- because so many more of our voters are older and less-educated.  That's definitely a bad thing.

In the fall, all of this will translate into larger universes of Independent voters and smaller universes of Democratic voters.  In my experience, that reduces the incentive for campaigns to work closely with the party.  That's a bad thing, too.

Call me cynical, but this smells of a Trojan horse.  I think Berman believes we will have a harder time re-registering our older, less-educated voters than the Republicans.  It could be a sick scheme to gently disenfranchise a lot of our voters.  And that's a real bad thing.

---

by: Jeff Crosby @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 15:36:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

God help me . . . (0.00 / 0)

I think Crosby is right - except for the part about not working with the party being a bad thing.  How many cycles has it been since campaigns had an incentive to work with the party in a close election.

Maybe there is value to "purging" the party of rural republicans that vote in D primaries, but won't they still do the same thing: Register as Ds, vote in our primary, and then vote R in statewide races in November.

If it does - for some reason - force them out of the D primary into registering and voting in the R primary - doesn't that put our rural courthouse Ds in a bind?  Do those candidates have to switch parties to survive or does it have less of an impact than I am thinking?

---

by: Mark Littlefield @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 15:44:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

God ain't gonna help you Mark... (0.00 / 0)

But I'm still you're friend.

To the question at hand, many candidates in urban areas work pretty closely with the local Dem parties.  Travis County is a great example.  But they'll have less incentive if the primary turnout falls.

As for the rural areas, let me rephrase:  If you thought our candidates weren't doing enough with the party before, imagine what they'll do when the number of primary voters declines.

And I totally agree that it'll hurt our rural courthouses, the number of which we disproportionately control right now.

Moreover, we also might think about the PR of this.  If this goes down, the GOP will very likely show a much higher percentage of the registered voters than us.  And they'll hammer us over the head in the press to dispirit our voters and suppress our tunout.  We already have to deal with enough of the kind of crap.

---

by: Jeff Crosby @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 16:02:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Being from a rural county with all D officeholders... (0.00 / 0)

I think it will push them to switch parties and will give rural state house seats to repugs due to the "purification" that MIGHT result in D nominees that are out of step with the majority of voters in the district.

If I mention current rural Ds some will freak out and say "we might as well have a repug", so I'll reference Rob Junell, Clyde Alexander and Armbrister.

They were the only version of a Democrat voters in those districts would accept.  Anyone more to the left would have lost (and ultimately did).

I've read this entire thread and I guess I just don't see why there is a problem with the current system.

---

by: colin @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:27:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed completely... (0.00 / 0)

On a theoretical level, since when do Democrats support putting up additional barriers to voting?  Since when do they attempt to silence other people's voices to "purify" the vote?  Voter supression isn't typically something we advocate or engage in, yet the only result from this could be lower turnout numbers, if such a thing is even possible!

On a practical side, Colin is exactly right.  This will further margionalize the party, pushing forward candidates out of step with mainstream Texas. 

Furthermore, as someone else said, the PR on this is AWFUL!  Here's my bet for registration percentages statewide, anyone care to disagree: Republican 55%, Democrat 30%, Ind 15%.  Yes, I know self ID numbers are better for us than this, but this is taking into account who would actually show up/register.  This is also taking into account the Valley, where turnon is so high.  Anyone care to try to get ANYONE credible to EVER run statewide with those numbers? 

---

by: David O. @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:00:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

theoretical level is important (0.00 / 0)

Especially because it is our positive theories that have people vote for us, and that actually drive us positively (as opposed to the corruption that drives some of us negatively). 

Even with practical reasoning aside, I am against this proposal for theoretical and ideological reasons.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 16:20:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so i guess... (0.00 / 0)

...we have to 'trick' people into running?

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 19:48:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Something to consider AFTER 2008 (0.00 / 0)

There are definitive pros but may cause # of Indy votes to shoot to the stars. There's the obvious, more voter fraud to deal with. Think about the reverse effect as here in Bell Co. Lot's of D's who vote in R primary only to save face with local officials, then vote D in gen election. Sadly, Bell Co has absolutely not ONE Democratic official in local government. Believe this will result in even lower voter turn out in Texass: - ) This is an attempt by Berman to help the reds who stand to lose a major portion of their base come 2008.
Bell County Dem. Pct. Chair 111
Past Pres. Bell Co. TDW 

---

by: nannybell @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 15:33:45 PM CDT

Same thing in Gillespie (0.00 / 0)

There are more Dems that vote in the R primary to decide local officials and then go back to vote D in the fall.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 16:58:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the real question (0.00 / 0)

the real question we should be asking ourselves is how we get rid of the two party system, not how we further ensnare ourselves into it.
i love to hear democrats rail about how many people bush is killing in iraq when clinton enforced a terrible and flawed sanctions regime that increased saddam's power as well as lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of iraqis over the years- much more than bush has been able to kill.
if you think that the two parties are actually diametrically opposed forces then you either have not been paying attention or don't care too.
the dems and repubs are a duopoly of the super rich and powerful of the country. (see clinton, kerry, bush, soros). do you really think this cadre of super fat cat capitalists care about progressive and working class values, universal healthcare or good public education?
anyone who would support any bill to increase their power is a fool.
but, maybe in the long run a ridiculous scheme like this would help people to realize that dems and repubs are not working to help people, but only to increase their own power.

---

by: thomen4SBOE @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 15:41:29 PM CDT

No difference between Rs and Ds? (0.00 / 0)

You think after the last six years it would have become painfully clear that we got something drastically different with George W. Bush than we would have had with Al Gore.

---

by: David Mauro @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 17:47:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Increased his power? (0.00 / 0)

Saddam was surrounded. Yes he held sway over his own people, but they could go to the market without the feeling they were going to get blown up. The electricity worked better, water worked better, etc.
They keep yelling, but he was shooting at American pilots! Yeah, but he wasn't hitting them. How many Americans did Saddam kill? Quit trying to blame Clinton for everything.

---

by: Carolyn Moon @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:45:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only Party Members (0.00 / 0)

No one should decide who the nominees of the Democratic Party will be, but Democrats.  No Republican, no independent, no Libertarian should have a vote in our primary.  If you are not a Democrat, do not vote in our primary.  I support the idea of registration by party or no party if you are an independent.  I think a 30 day window to make a change before the primaries is reasonable.  I would also support for this next primary only, a same day declaration which is the way it is now.  When you vote in the Democratic or Republican Primary now, you are declaring that you consider yourself to be a Democrat or Republican.  The difference would be that when you declare your party affiliation at next year's primary; it will continue until you change it at least 30 days prior to the 2010 primary.  I have supported party registration for over 35 years and I still believe it is a good idea.

---

by: Democratex @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 15:45:53 PM CDT

Is that how it worked in Connecticut? (0.00 / 0)

I'll have to ask Ned....

---

by: MsInformed @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 17:32:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Difference Is... (0.00 / 0)

In Texas, one cannot run as an independent if they run in a party primary.  Holy Joe could not have done in Texas what he did in Connecticut. 

---

by: Democratex @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 19:18:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh snap (4.00 / 2)

Looks like someone is informed. :)

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 19:49:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's how it works... (0.00 / 0)

I am either misinformed or I am Miss Informed.
"First one, then the other"

---

by: MsInformed @ Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 13:18:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In spirit (4.00 / 2)

I am all for registering one's affiliation prior to or at the primary.  However, let's not forget the Republicans have a well oiled and successful get out the vote machine.  We saw this in both 2000 and 2004.  They'll likely have an equally effective "get out and declare your party affiliation" effort.

Is our party here as effectively organized as the GOP in this area? 

Because if we are not, it could be a losing proposition for us.  Our party tends to include more members of the less fortunate.  Would an extra step preclude many in this group from registering their affiliation?  If they cannot vote in the primaries some may think they cannot vote in the election either.  Or some snake of a GOP hack might call them and say "if you did not declare your party affiliation you will be arrested if you vote."

We are not as herd  like as the GOP.  I am proud of this fact, but again, we must exercise extreme caution and think this through.  If the GOP are pushing this effort, we should be very very careful. 

Sorry, but I don't trust any Republican, given the way W. got himself "elected" the first time and the shameful voter fraud in Ohio in 04. 

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 17:08:55 PM CDT

It seems that some think (5.00 / 1)

that party affiliation is genetic.  Not only are the parties fairly similar in the way they cater to money, undermining the very essence of democracy, the people in the parties are also similar, wanting ethical decent government.  I would take Lincoln Chaffey over most Texas Democrats.  And don't forget that Phil Graham was a Democrat for a long time.

As a grassroots activist in a very conservative community, it is my extreme pleasure to have helped elect several Republicans.  These Republicans happened to have run for local (City Council) nonpartisan races.  But the fact remains that these were people who cared deeply about their community and the people in it.  I have known these Republicans to have more integrity than their opponents, some of whom happen to have been Democrats.

There is nothing inherently benign in being a Democrat and there is nothing inherently malevolent in being a Republican.  While I find little affinity with most of the efforts that come out of the Republican Party, I have to also admit that I am way more frequently disappointed by Democrats than I would like.  I would like to seem both challenged by the diversity of more political expression. This desire to label and choose irrefutable sides seems to be the stuff of unhealthy nationalism. 

Getting rid of the two party system is not the same as getting rid of political parties.  There will always be a need for coalition building.  It seems a bit silly to try so hard to build such broad, immovable and forced coalitions under the letters D and R rather than under free moving ideas.  With more political parties, or perhaps even just more distinction within the existing monopolies, the system will become more dynamic, it will move more easily to the beat of the people rather than to the beat of money. 

I am a progressive and a populist first and Democrat second.  This is one of those times when it looks like some Democrats are pushing against fundamentally progressive ideas.  Let people move their affiliations as they wish.  If they choose at times to vote against some people rather than for others, so be it.  Relative to the political maneuvering that this state is known for, that is nothing.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 18:23:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excellent points (0.00 / 0)

Rather than go in the direction that Berman proposes, we should remove parties from the process altogether -- eliminate the primaries.  Let everyone file for the general election, hold a runoff where 50% is not reached, and be done with it.  If the parties can enforce enough discipline to rally behind a single candidate, fine.  If not, why should voters conspire with them and against themselves by holding a primary?

Think about it -- the whole purpose of primaries are not to assist the democratic process, but to stifle it by winnowing out the "undesirable" candidates.

---

by: Wanderer @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 18:29:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah, not going to happen (0.00 / 0)

Let's stick to debating in reality and not hypotheticals.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 19:33:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why start now? (1.00 / 1)

This entire website is based on "progressive" fantasies.

---

by: Wanderer @ Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:51:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

since when? (0.00 / 0)

BOR has always been more realist based than progressive. Categlog the articles, I dare say you will find close to zero chattering on about fantasy land issues.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 18:55:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

don't stop there (0.00 / 0)

We should eliminate the process as well.

I vote we teeter-totter between a granola, happy hippy communal society where the person holding the baby dove has the floor and Lord of the Flies...ooohhh...or Lord of the Rings.

Dibs on being the short kid with giant feet!

---

by: colin @ Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 14:09:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Always Will be Parties (0.00 / 0)

There will always be parties in some sort of way - thats how the corruption of power works.  Would we really rather that these parties just be unofficial?

AND I would maintain that the existence of parties, to a point, is somewhat of a good thing.  It gives those without fame or fortune a chance to run for office and have a chance.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 16:58:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Call me skeptical, too (0.00 / 0)

Very well stated, Libby. It's just not the right time for this "change."

I oppose this bill.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 00:59:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

pure primary (0.00 / 0)

I don't see where this would change the voting one way in the primary and another way in the fall.
In towns where there is a large majority-be it Dem or Repub, it is common to "cross lines" so that you've got a vote in the local races, which most people understand usually affect them more directly.
While this *might* drive more folks to run in the opposing party, so there is someone for whom to vote, I don't see this doing a lot of good.
It is just trying to lock in people- I guess so that maybe they can't vote in a primary runoff if they didn't declare that party (and they didn't vote in other party's primary.) That is the only "advantage" I can see- but I'm willing to be "enlightened."
Kathi

Kathi Thomas, SD 25

---

by: Kathi Thomas @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 21:19:48 PM CDT

I vote No. (0.00 / 0)

The reason you supported this idea in the old days, Glen, is because it would've worked great back when Democrats held all statewide offices, a majority in the Lege and most county courthouses.
The problem, now, is that after years of Republican leadership, we are a party in flux.
We have leadership at every level that failed to contain or counter the Republican revolution but refuse to admit there's anything wrong out there.
The last state convention was the most controlled, undemocratic convention of the 10-12 I've been a delegate to over the past 20-plus years.
Committee members were chosen before the vote, delegates were told for whom to vote and ostracized for failing to support party insiders.
Many of us who worked for your election as party chair, Glen, are still fuming.
All over the state, there are battles  between the old guard and newcomers (and recharged old-timers) who have been energized by their fear and/or loathing of George W. Bush and his cronies.
There are precinct chairs being locked out of Executive Committee meetings, secret votes being taken, county chairs who refuse to hold CEC meetings at all.
This isn't the time for party insiders to be making decisions for the rest of us, which is what, I fear, it would mean if this bill passes.
Party registration would mean fewer voters in the primaries, which would be an advantage to hand-picked candidates.
It would mean less participation at precinct conventions (where delegates to county and, eventually, state conventions are chosen and resolutions are made).
It'll backfire on us. Why do you think the Republicans are pushing it?

---

by: pamhumphrey @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 22:55:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Voter Registration by Party (0.00 / 0)

I was for Voter Registration by Party in the 70's, and I'm for it now.  The reasons given then by Dan and Jean Wicker, Ann Lee Roy and others still stand today.

Regards, TOM BLACKWELL, PO Box 25403, Dallas, Texas 75225
  http://pages.sbcglob...

---

by: Tom Blackwell @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 05:12:01 AM CDT

Contested primaries (0.00 / 0)

I am a Democrat but I have voted in Republican primaries in the past. Why? Because that is where the contested races are. As in the old days of Democratic domination, many down-ticket races are decided in the party primary, so anyone who wants to have a voice in electing their government needs to put their ballot where it will matter.

One side effect of voting as a Republican has been getting all of the GOP's direct mail propaganda, which can be useful intelligence for Democratic candidates.

Bottom line: Democrats need to have more down-ticket candidates on the primary ballot to give voters a reason to vote in the party primary.

We aren't just building a party organization, we are electing our government.

Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.

---

by: TO @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:33:48 AM CDT

Good point! (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans are really trying to shut Democrats out of their primary so they can "purify" it and guarantee more conservative candidates, as if that were possible.

---

by: Wanderer @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 18:32:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Don't Think So (0.00 / 0)

The more I think about it, the less impressed with this idea I am. The R's have a well-oiled machine and walk in lock step. If they are told to go re register, they will. After the unfabulous way the Dem party got out for our statewide candidates last year, I'm sure that our herd of cats will wander off.
It will also keep good, viable candidates from running in "Republican" precincts.
The posters who say the party system must go are also probably not R's. So if they decide to be "independent", there's even less chance their voices will be heard on the things that really matter.

---

by: Carolyn Moon @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:39:57 AM CDT

One Party mentality (0.00 / 0)

Texas was at one time a state of Democrats, granted some of them might have made a northern Republican in the 70's look liberal, but they were Democrats by howdy and that is how they ran. Today many parts of Texas are republican, some of these "republicans" may make other democrats look quite conservative but to get elected in parts of this state they are republicans. They might have chaired the Democratic Party in the 80's but they hold office as a Republican in the 2000's, and for those of us who live in these parts of Texas having to register means being forced to either identify ourselves with a party that we don't identify with, or to participate in a primary where in off years and in local elections there is no one on the ballot. I had never voted in anything but the democratic primary, having grown up in Austin, but having moved to West Texas and living in a County where there is not an elected Democrat and only one ran last fall, I just can't see supporting an idea such as this because it is so limiting on those of us who live in a "one party" state.

---

by: tresjo @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 13:49:38 PM CDT

Aren't we being too "academic" ? (0.00 / 0)

Isn't it entirely possible that the Texas Republican Party is salivating over the possibility of mounting a negative ad campaign to demonize the entire Democratic Party - not only confusing and scaring the less informed, but doing a "swiftboat-inspired" hit job on the upcoming presidential race?

These are different times than the 1970s, 80s and 90s. These appear to be different Republicans, too.

I hope we don't "give away" any more power to the Republican Party.  One of the major "strengths" of the Democratic Party right now is that we have incredible Democratic presidential candidates. This is an opportunity for both Independents and Democrats to win back some of that power from the Texas GOP.

And another thing - assuming that the Texas GOP has tons more money than the Texas Democratic Party - I don't want to see the entire party smeared. Seeing how they've just used slick, sick, expensive "negative" mailings here in Dallas against Democratic judges (2006), would it surprise anyone to see more of the same used against all "potential" and "lifetime" Democratic Party primary voters?

Voters, who, if this law passes, might just go ahead and "register" Republican because of negative "ads" mounted in the days preceding the deadline for registration. Or, not register at all - making it appear that Democrats aren't gaining that much strength in the state.

Remember that little item that was "slipped" into the Patriot Act renewal last year? While we were sleeping...

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 15:16:09 PM CDT

I could not agree more (0.00 / 0)

Elsbeth. Today's Republican is indeed cut from a different cloth.  The main imperative under W. and Rove has always been to install a permanent Republican majority nationwide.  Hence the suspension of certain individual rights, the installation of partisan hacks in U.S. attorney posts, W.'s open contempt for the Congress (meaning you and me) and Rove's use of government offices, such as the GSA, for purely political purposes - like how to get Republicans re-elected in targeted areas that could (will) flip 2008.

In their grand scheme and dream, 2006 was not supposed to have the outcome it did.  So, for the GOP to remain in power, a fix has to be worked in for 2008.  Rove knows they will be decimated. 

Students at American University apparently threw objects at Rove yesterday when he was on campus to speak at a Young Republicans event.  And Cheney was booed at Brigham Young University - not exactly a Berkeley or Harvard in terms of political ideologies.  So many Americans are furious, disgusted and fed up the W. monarchy. 

I am sure "normal" Republicans are not proud of their recent party's criminal and low-life type of behavior.  They really should switch to our side.  They'd feel a whole lot better about themselves if they did.  It would certainly be a liberating experience for me to switch parties had I supported the worst President in U.S. history.

Thank you for reminding me of this new breed of a Republican, Elsbeth.  Perhaps their party should take on a new name that begins with F and ends in T.

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 16:09:36 PM CDT

It occurs (3.00 / 1)

to me that we have spent too much time "communing" with Texas Republicans. ;) But it is enlightening, isn't it, Libby? It's true that the herd mentality lives and breathes in the Republican Party.

This bill seems innocent enough. But I seriously doubt that it is. The Democratic Party took back the U.S. Congress and all 42 of the judicial positions in Dallas (amazing accomplishment), but Texas politics is still tightly controlled by the GOP as of tonight.

Based on recent history, I doubt they will give it up without a fight.

Convincing us that a bill championed by Democrats in years past is a good thing is a definite red flag for me. A BIG one.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 21:31:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Republican Evolution (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that we are seeing a new breed of Republican so much as we are seeing an evolution (more likely devolution) of Republican strategies.  Sadly, Republicans should have long since been run from office.  Their longevity owes as much to the stupidity of Democrats as it does to their own pugnacity. Republicans gain strength by limiting individual rights and expression.  The party of the people should find its strength in the grassroots of its people. But so much time and energy is spent trying to play the Republicans at their game of money and deceptive and manipulative politics. All this talk of how much money Clinton and Obama have raised.  At this point it may be more that what any of the Republicans have raised, but just you wait. What have these democrats done to build a structure that will hear the people of the party or help elected county judges?  Who among us thinks that we can compete with Republican across the board at raising money?  Who among us wants our politic system to be about who can raise the most money? Who among our candidates is advocating or advancing change?

It's true that Republicans have run roughshod with process, political appointments and gerrymandering in Texas.  But if we blame them, they have won.  It could only be their fault if we were totally powerless, which means there is no hope for us.  And that just ain't the case.  The Republicans have been able to pull their dirty tricks because we have let them.  The reason that we don't have much say at the capital is because we have failed to build community in 254 counties.  What we do at the primaries doesn't make a rat's ass if we do noting at the precincts before and after the primaries.  But if we are chasing money there is not much hope that we will be paying attention to those people who don't have a lot of it, which is still most Americans. 
 

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 18:10:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There are winds of change (0.00 / 0)

Who among us wants our politic system to be about who can raise the most money? Who among our candidates is advocating or advancing change?

Both John Edwards and Barack Obama have spoken about changing the way we select our leaders. Obama's 100,000+ online donors are proof positive of the power of the grassroots.

Have you visited the John Edwards Web site? Campaign finance reform is often discussed there.

This last election, the democratic judicial candidates in Dallas were bombarded by an ad campaign that was brutal and slick.

When I saw what the GOP was doing with these ads, my heart sank.  They were going to win again because they would intimidate voters by instilling fear and distrust.  These awful mailings depicted the Democratic Party judicial candidates handcuffed and in a police line up.

But then - only a few days later - the Dallas Democrats quietly and gently responded with, "No. Not this time."

The Democratic Party mailers were pure and simple. One in particular, showed the "actual" democratic judicial candidates with their families attending an outdoor barbecue. They looked like the everyday Americans that they truly are.

It was very real. It obviously wasn't as "slick" or as costly as theirs. And it was the perfect response.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:05:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for this more hopeful persp (0.00 / 0)

for this more hopeful perspective.  My own cynicism is fueled by years of candidates in both parties that speak of campaign finance reform then either get corrupted by the system that they must play too or they capitulate to the point of ideological emptiness.  Perhaps Obama and/or Edwards can make a difference.  I hope so.  I suspect that the real hope is to be found in local reforms that will provide the example of better election processes.  Even here in Texas where big money is king and most ordinances that provide restrictions are barred by state law, the city of Austin has passed some fairly progressive voluntary campaign restrictions.  In fact, while I have found many mentions of the general concept of Austin's approach, I have been unable to find specifics about the ordinance or the history of how it was achieved.  If anyone can direct me to source material I would be grateful.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:51:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

On closing the primarys (0.00 / 0)

I can see the torys making this anti-democratic move to protect themselves from a coming repub backlash by surpressing their own vote for a change, in order to keep nominating the same wing-nuts and tools.

There is plenty of room in this state for reform of campaigns and elections, but this ain't it.

Let's find a way to draw centrists and independants to our contests, and field candidates that will throw the pharisees out of the temple.

judge chief charly hoarse

---

by: bcdean @ Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:44:01 AM CDT

Pity the poor election workers (0.00 / 0)

I have worked in the Democratic Primaries for years. Just think of the abusive words election workers are going to suffer from the average voter who only knows it is election day and shows up to vote then finds out the law has been changed requiring the voter to have done something 30 days before the election.

Many Texas voters do not know the difference between a Commissioner Precinct and a Voting Precinct and show up at former's number thinking its the latter only to be told they have travelled all the way across the county for nothing. Now, its really going to hit the fan when they get to their voting precinct only to be told they had to declar their party affiliation in January.

---

by: Ken22640 @ Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 04:15:17 AM CDT

Thanks (3.00 / 2)

To Glen for starting and helping fuel this great discussion and to the BOR staff for letting it scroll on.  It is encouraging to see so much energy about the process of our party. 

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 09:17:32 AM CDT

From the sublime to the ridiculous (0.00 / 0)

About House Bill 3118: The commentary here has shattered my policy of simply reading, but never writing in to venues such as this. Some of you know what you're talking about and some don't. Some of you just scare me. Sadly, all of you are missing the point about this legislation, including Mr. Maxey.

First, this: I'm old. I also know Texas election law, past and present. I can remember poll taxes, segregation, county-convention fist fights, and a time when the Texas Republicans had about the same influence over public affairs as the Libertarians have right now. I remember when the state had to take over administration of party primaries to keep people from killing each other over control of ballot boxes. The parties themselves used to run them. All this sniveling about how bad things are right now makes me want to wretch, and those of you who think us old folks and minorities need your "better educated" help have another thing coming. Save it for yourselves.

HB-3118 is a God-send. It has been needed for a long while and will help pull our election code out of the nineteenth century.
It is so well written that I have doubts as to whether Leo Berman actually authored it. The fact that Berman did a bad job of explaining it to Mr. Maxey's satisfaction makes me suspect that even more, but he has other woes where this bill is concerned.

The point of the bill is to stop what is called "party raiding". That activity is the act of crossing over to another party's primary or runoff to vote for weak candidates. The object is to pair-up those weak candidates against more viable opponents that the raiders like. Taken to its most extreme potential, it would give the electorate nothing but fools to vote for, since current law allows this sort of thing to victimize both parties at once, and there's nothing in place to stop it. It happens a lot, and has for a long time. It contributed, in fact, to the election of John Cornyn to the US Senate. With registration in place, we might have had Victor Morales instead.

Speculation about there being a nefarious Republican agenda behind this is nonsense. HB-3118 only helps the process by keeping polling more honest. The rest is up to you through your direct participation from the Precinct Convention level forward. Know your party's rules and the law beforehand and fight your way up. Just showing up at the polls ain't enough, and never has been.

Lastly, Mr. Maxey is wrong about there being no party opposition to this bill. The Republicans hate it, Leo Berman is in trouble for putting it out, and he's set to kill the bill in Committee. You young folks need to raise hell about this thing to your Representatives to get this bill discharged from the Elections Committee and finally passed into law. Just because it doesn't do something to magically make the Demo Party dominant again is no reason to oppose it. In terms of partisan advantage it is neutral, and therefore good law. There will be no negative "appearances" numbers-wise, either. Such talk is cowardice. If you want your party to succeed, you've got to fight for it both on the inside and outside.
***poll catt*** 

Seen It All; Done Most Of It

---

by: Poll Catt @ Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:37:11 AM CDT