Lanny Davis Calls Caucuses "Elitist" and "Undemocratic"

by: David Mauro

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:54 PM CDT

Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to the president who was a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton during the primaries, has an interesting editorial on Huffington Post entitled "Fellow Democrats: Kill the Elitist and Undemocratic Caucuses."

While Davis is advocating for Democrats to get rid of caucuses nationwide, he does single out Texas in a section that is excerpted below:

Even nuttier is the "Texas Two Step" system. In 2008, the over 2.8 million voters participated in the March 4 democratic primary. Then comes two step: at 7 pm, the party caucuses begin. People get to vote a second time (I am not making this up). But not all votes are equal. If you lived in Houston and Dallas, and carried your precinct in 2006 for the Democratic candidate for governor by a large margin, your vote could be twice or three times as powerful than if you lived in South Texas, in heavily rural Republican counties.

How can that be small "d" Democratic? How can that be constitutional under one person-one vote principles? Doesn't that embarrass a party that calls itself the "Democratic" Party?

Speaking of embarrassment. The result of these arcane rules for Democratic Party caucuses is incredibly small voter turnouts. The average turnout for all caucuses held in 2008 was under 10 percent. Even in the highest profile caucus state of all, the first one attracting all the media hype for months -- King Iowa -- the turnout among eligible voters was under 20 percent (meaning 80 percent of eligible voters stayed home). Other low turnout states included New Mexico (11 percent), Nevada (9 percent), Minnesota and Maine (5 percent), North Dakota (4 percent), Colorado and Nebraska (3 percent), and Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas (2 percent). You did not read that last number incorrectly: That is 2 percent!

Davis has a few other suggestions that could gain traction, especially these two:

* Limiting primaries to pre-registered Democrats, rather than allowing Rush Limbaugh and others to encourage independents and Republicans to do same day re-registration, motivated only by mischief to muck up the Democratic results;

* Eliminating Super Delegates. After what happened in 2008, it is silly to make believe they can exercise their independent judgment, as they were intended to be able to do when they were created in 1982. They can't and they didn't. If the political big wigs who are the Super Delegates want to go to the convention, then give them free tickets.

I've written about two anti-caucus editorials in the last few days. Personally, I signed the petition to abolish the Two-Step at the state convention, thought it deserved a full floor vote and am interested in seeing it reformed, though not necessarily completely abolished.

However, I know that a lot of our readers (and writers) are passionate supporters of the primary/caucus hybrid system.This is to continue to the productive discussion we had about the Dallas Morning News editorial.

If you come across any pro-caucus editorials, be sure to post them. As the West Committee continues to hear testimony across the state, this is an important dialogue for us to have.

TDP Primary/Caucus Committee Holds First Hearing

by: David Mauro

Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 00:18 PM CDT

Note: It was my initial intention to liveblog the first hearing of the Texas Democratic Party Primary/Caucus System Committee, chaired by Senator Royce West. Unfortunately, I ran into some internet problems, but here is a report of what I saw, including pictures, that continues after the jump.

The movement to end the Texas Two-Step, as many have been saying for a long time, is about a lot more than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

For those who were still trying to paint this as Clinton “sour grapes”, the first speaker at the “End the Texas Two-Step” press conference was quick to put that to rest.

“I’m not sure that it matters,” Peter Nolan began, “but I am and was a supporter of Barack Obama.”

Nolan is right: it doesn’t really matter. His support of Obama is only relevant because some have tried to dismiss those opposed to the Two-Step as bitter Clinton supporters. That is just not the case, and anyone who attended the hearing can attest to that.

And Nolan wasn’t the only Obama supporter at the hearing. I happened to be sitting next to Amy Esdorn, a graduate student who was unable to attend the caucus because of her class schedule.

Esdorn conceded that while Obama may have benefitted from the two-step system in the short run, the results of the primary were really irrelevant at this point.

“[Ending the caucus] is exactly the kind of change Barack Obama stands for,” she said.

“My vote should not count more than someone from the Rio Grande Valley or El Paso just because I’m from Travis County,” Martha Smiley said during the press conference.

Johnnie Limon of Austin held one of the more humorous signs to be seen at the hearing. “Two-Step at the Broken Spoke, One Step at the Polls,” his sign read.

Wendell Scott, a Gonzales County resident who wrote the anti-Two Step resolution and voted for Barack Obama, held a sign that said, “TDP leaders violate their own rules.”

Sue Berkel, a Clinton national delegate, stressed that the caucus could stay in place as a means for delegate selection, even if popular vote became the only means for delegate allocation.

Senator West called the meeting to order just before 10:2am.

To read about what happened during the hearing and to see more pictures, click "THERE'S MORE"

 

Waco Tribune-Herald: Texas Two-Step is "Undemocratic"

by: David Mauro

Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:47 AM CDT

The Waco Tribune-Herald editorial board has come out against the the prima-caucus system the Texas Democratic Party used to allocate delegates in this year's primary.

Texas Democrats have their own version of the Texas two-step that is unpopular and undemocratic.

This version of the two-step needs fixin’ before the next big dance is called in 2012.

It had been so long since the outcome of a Texas Democratic primary had any impact on the outcome of a presidential race that the flaws with the party’s two-step primary process went unnoticed.

The early state primary competition has generally settled on a nominee before Texas Democrats had an opportunity to cast ballots for their favorite candidates.

This year, however, contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama was still neck and neck when Texans turned out to the polls for the March 4 primaries.

Unlike Republican voters, or Democratic primary voters in other states, Texas Democrats were required to cast ballots for the candidate of their choice when the polls were open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and then turn around and convene in precinct conventions, or caucuses, later that evening if they wanted to take full advantage of their opportunity to support their candidate.

This process, which actually is a lot more complicated than it sounds, generated a great deal of confusion and hard feelings on primary night. It also resulted in Clinton winning the popular vote and Obama picking up more Texas delegates once the final tally was determined long after the primary election.

Texas Democrats who voted for their favorite candidate during the day but could not return later that evening to attend their precinct conventions ran the risk of seeing their vote diluted through the extra step of the caucus system.

The purpose behind the caucus system was to increase party participation among Democrats. This year it increased turmoil and feelings of being disenfranchised.

Democratic leaders need to pick one system or the other — just not both.