Why the Texas Hybrid Primary / Caucus System is the Fairest and Best System

[crispini]

I’ve seen a lot of complaining on here lately about how hard our system is to understand. People have been throwing around the words “disgrace” and “undemocratic” and “a sham.” I will concede that there are a lot of nuances to the system, and it can seem a bit complicated. However, it is most certainly NOT unfair, disgraceful, or undemocratic. In fact, I would say that it combines the best qualities of a primary with the best qualities of a caucus. We’ve had this system in place for 20 years, and I have every confidence that on Tuesday it will be fairly employed in order to select the best candidate.

Let’s look at why, exactly, this system is the best.

First of all, let’s do Democratic party 101. It’s important to understand that there are many different constituencies in “the Democratic Party.” There are our elected officials who represent us. There are activist party members such as precinct chairs, labor unions, members of Democratic clubs, and involved people who are committed to the party. And, finally, there are the voters. Each one of these constituencies is given a fair representation in the Texas hybrid election system.

Next, let’s recap the delegate allocation in Texas.
- 126 chosen in the primary - 55%
- 67 chosen in the convention (caucus) – 29%
- 35 superdelegates - 15%

As you can see, each of the three methods of selecting delegates is representative of a different constituency of the Democratic Party.

The superdelegates are, of course, our elected officials. 15% seems about right for them.

The convention-goers, in my mind, represent the activists, those who are involved with and committed to the party and are prepared and able to spend a little extra time in the process. These people deserve to be given their own voice. They are the people who sit in countless hours of committee meetings, who spend their own money on copies and office supplies, go to club meetings, and do so much more. These people are the very heart and soul of the Democratic party. Without them, nothing would get done. And so, come nominating time, they deserve to have their voice heard.

Furthermore, for those of you who have never attended a convention / caucus, let me tell you this: it is a great way to get people hooked on politics and involved in the Democratic party. You see, after we elect delegates, we debate platform planks and resolutions, which get made into the Texas Democratic Party platform and ultimately to the national party platform. It’s very empowering to sit with a group of your neighbors and discuss issues and solutions. It’s retail-level politics at its best.

Finally, we have the voters, that 55% chosen in the primary. This is simple and direct: go, vote, be heard. (Well, at least when the lines are not as long as they have been this week, LOL.) And yes, it’s an open primary, meaning anyone can vote. I’m even prepared to defend an open primary in this case. First of all, an open primary is a truly democratic primary. You do not have any extra hurdles to jump through before you can vote. We want to be able to welcome new members to the party without having to make it more difficult for them. Furthermore, in our case, your primary vote becomes your party of registration for the next two years. Your vote in that primary is a matter of public record. It will prevent you from holding any activist role in the other party. It will prevent you from running for office as a member of the other party for two years. If you run for office in the other party after that, it will most certainly be seen as a blot on your record by members of the other party.

And, to deal with what everybody’s been saying: that the Republicans are crossing over and voting in our primary. First, I don’t believe the ‘hard-core’ Republicans will do so for the reasons I have cited above. As for the ‘strategic’ ones who are reportedly crossing over to pick the ‘weaker’ candidate: which one is the ‘weaker?’ We’re hearing about both of our candidates being the ‘weaker’ candidate. So this is of no import. Furthermore, for those Republicans who are genuinely interested in the contest and have a sincere wish to vote for a candidate, why not? Because, finally, the presence of the other types of delegates, allotted to the activists and the superdelegates, can balance out the overall delegation somewhat. And I would like to point out that even in the extreme case, if ALL of the caucus-chosen delegates, and ALL of the superdelegates, voted in direct opposition to the primary-chosen delegates, the primary chosen delegates would still be in the majority, 155 to 105. So you see it is not possible for those two categories to over-rule that one, although they can certainly temper the results.

So, there. Perhaps a bit complicated, but eminently fair, and with ample opportunity for citizen involvement. I suggest all of you adopt it in your own state. ;)