Texas Democratic Party votes to keep two-step delegation process

[derby378]

Source: From the floor of the 2010 TDP State Convention in Corpus Christi

The controversial "Texas Two-Step" lives on to fight another day.

The process by which the Texas Democratic Party allocates delegates for Presidential elections was preserved at the 2010 state convention in Corpus Christi today when TDP delegates, under the supervision of TDP Chair Boyd Richie, declined to adopt a minority report that would have effectively scrapped the allocation process.

Many have blamed the Texas Two-Step for costing Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) the state of Texas during the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary race. Clinton won the initial primary vote, but Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) wound up with more Texas delegates in the second phase of the Two-Step.

No link yet.

[Skink]

1. Caucuses should be banned anyway.

Texas has early voting to in primaries and General elections which is the democratic thing to do. Vote at your liesure not during the appointed traffic jam.

[hayu_lol]

2. Texas continues to play the 'fool' with their Texas Two Step...

which essentially makes a mockery out of what an election is all about.

Yeah Skink, I'm for banning caucuses as well...they are, not in any form, an election.

[CapnSteve]

7. Hey, it's worked for over 20 years here...

I was one of the delegates at the convention that voted to keep the two-step primary system. Why?

1) It diluted the power of the 400k Rush Limpbaugh voters who tried to rig the primary.
2) The primary voters still have the power (65% of the votes are assigned by the voter, 35% by the caucuses - which by the way, are primary voters as well)
3) During the 2008 primary, the caucus energized a whole new crop of dedicated Democrats!

Because of this, we are ready to take back the majority in the state house and senate, and will kick Rick "most likely to secede" Perry out.

Be nice to us: Texas is turning BLUE!

[boppers]

9. Welcome to DU!

Thanks for offering a perspective from somebody who was actually involved.

[blogslut]

10. Welcome!

I was the secretary for my precinct's caucus. It was a wonderful experience. I love the TX Two-Step!

[Braulio]

20. On the other hand....

There's no constitutional requirement anywhere to make elections the means whereby representatives to a party convention are elected. The party machines are NOT part of government. They CAN if they so choose, have candidates elected by caucus, by duel, lottery, or whatever suits them. And this is as it should be. Seeing the poor candidates the parties send up, I'm not convinced elections are the best method we should use to select primary candidates. They tend to be dominated by party extremists, which have helped polarize the nation.

[UTUSN]

21. Excellent. You said it all much better than I did below. n/t

[boppers]

3. Anybody willing to offer a succinct explanation of what this process is?

They allocated most of their delegates (126) with open primary voting, and the remainder (67) with party caucuses? Is that right?

Seems like an weird way to ensure balance, short of, oh, having closed primaries.

[UTUSN]

4. Caucuses favor smaller #s of intense supporters over real numbers.

The TX system (crazy) is that you vote at the polls, but for "real" #s to count, you have to go personally after the polls close to vote. 2-step.

People who WORK, who have kids to TEND to, who have OTHER LIVES have to suspend everything and stay three or four hours in some idiotic elementary gym and cater to "precinct chairs" (BLOWHARDS) while those campaign for votes to get to go to State conventions.

[boppers]

5. So, it's a caucus system, where the voting portion is a formality, with no actual weight?

I might be confused.... because it's confusing? Most of the sources I've read seem to have delegates coming from both systems, but you seem to be implying that the numbers allocated by voting are just thrown out by the caucuses?

[UTUSN]

12. It's BOTH primary (popular vote) AND caucus, 2/3 and 1/3 - see post #11

It's a travesty. I don't get the rationale its supporters quoted in the news articles used, that it "identifies" strong supporters of the party and "increases participation." It is ANTI-democratic (small "d"), potentially (and actually) giving more votes to somebody who lost in the popular (primary) vote.

Except in elections where passions run high (OBAMA vs CLINTON), primary voters ignore the caucuses because there is usually just one clear choice who wins both "steps."

As I said, caucuses favor very charismatic/very organized candidates because their supporters, who might be FEWER in numbers are very much higher in commitment and intensity and will TURN OUT to go to the hassle of the caucus.

[derby378]

13. Whoa thar...

I'm one of those Texas precinct chairs. I'm ornery at times, but I don't think I've regressed to "blowhard" status yet.

Also, at one of those precinct conventions, it's possible to run right over the precinct chair if you've got enough mouth and backers to do it. Our 2008 precinct convention was a mess for many reasons, and that was one of them.

[UTUSN]

14. Precinct organization is absolutely necessary & fine for party organization

There's NO disputing that. I object to this system's tying the mechanics of organization to COUNTING VOTES.

Now, the "blowhard" crack of mine *was* broad brush, but the poor, hardworking, over-extended VOTERS who just wanted to make sure their primary vote would get its full clout had to stay at over-crowded, poorly run "precinct conventions" whose REAL main purpose was for local/precinct party activists to slug it out for the chance to travel to the regional and state conventions----FINE for them. People were tired from work, had to get home to deliver child care, and get a little rest for tomorrow's work.

All I'm saying is to democratize the VOTING, not make it harder and SKEWED. This system is a mini-Electoral College crap.



On Edit: Look, I admire the nuts and bolts local politicians, "professional" politicians if you will ----BY AND LARGE. But, you know, it ain't always (or even mostly) pretty. And, frankly, the pols who benefitted from that TX system just voted to KEEP it, what a surprise. Actually, I *am* surprised, because there was so much disapproval of it----so much POPULAR WILL (that is being ignored again).

[Skink]

8. I'm probably wrong but I think in order to Caucus you had to vote in the primary..

on the official primary day. About half the primary votes come in from the three weeks of early voting.

[UTUSN]

11. "Not absolutely necessary ... Rules followed loosely"

**********QUOTE********

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5583761.html

A guide to Texas' electoral two-step

High turnout could make an already confusing process clumsy
By CAROLYN FEIBEL Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
March 1, 2008

.... Primary polls will run for 12 hours. Then Democratic voters can return for their precinct's caucus. Roughly two-thirds of Texas' Democratic delegates come from the primaries, and one-third from the caucus process that night. ....

The caucus — officially dubbed a "precinct convention" — begins at 7:15 p.m. or when the polls close, whichever is later.

Caucus-goers arrive and put their names and presidential preference on the "sign-in sheet." Ideally, they should show proof of having voted in the Democratic primary, but it is not absolutely necessary, according to the Harris County Democratic Party.

The group first elects a chair and secretary. Those two then take a count, noting the total number of people and how many are for Obama or Clinton. Delegates then are distributed proportionally.

For example, say 100 people show up at a given precinct on Tuesday night. If 75 of them support Clinton, and 25 support Obama, then she gets 75 percent of the delegates and he gets 25 percent. If the precinct has 20 delegates to allot, Clinton gets 15, Obama 5.


Rules followed loosely

On Tuesday night, each precinct will have a preset number of delegates to send up to the next level. The number is determined by how many Democrats from the precinct voted for Chris Bell (the previous winner) in the 2006 gubernatorial race (the previous election). ....

********UNQUOTE********

[Skink]

15. I guess to show proof you voted in the primary you produce that receipt they gave you.

[tammywammy]

16. No, they have the voter rolls

It shows if you voted in the primary when you sign in for the caucus.

[UTUSN]

17. Re: your "half of the primary votes ... from early voting" - But withOUT going to the caucus on

election day (that is, AFTER the polls close), your early vote is ONLY the same as the vote at the polls, minus that EXTRA CLOUT of the caucus vote.

I fail to see why this system does NOT violate one-person/one-vote, since most of the SAME people are voting TWICE, or rather, those voters are getting a more powerful vote than the ones who just voted at the polls.

As for showing a receipt, as the article says, the rules are loosely enforced, and, besides, WHAT receipt?!1 ON EDIT, the post ahead of this one corrects me, that the primary's rolls show that you voted.

[Skink]

18. looking your vote up on the primary rolls probably causes a huge delay.

I voted early and had to work on the official caucus night. Caucuses disenfranchise basically the whole country.

[UTUSN]

19. "Caucuses disenfranchise": That says it all. Thanks. Well, besides "ALL" I'll add:

Caucuses violate the pillars of voting: 1) Secret ballot, and 2) one-person/one vote.

Why should anybody have to go participate in a group and declare who you're voting for? This exerts group pressure on individuals. And it favors extroverts while diminishing us anti-social types!1

[summerintx]

6. Hey, here in Texas we really CAN

vote early AND vote often! Don't forget, we'd have probably ended up with a different nominee and lost the election without our Texas Two-Step.