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. ;)

[Bodhi BloodWave]

1. Thanks for the rundown on how things work, or atleast how you see them work

And i must say that i agree with your perspective of things, it does indeed seem very fair(won't say best as that depend on perspective) :)

[crispini]

3. Heh, well, I have to get a little controversy out there.

Otherwise nobody will read this. :D

[papau]

24. LOL - if it favors Obama and dis-favors a closed primary's ability to include more Dems and exclude

GOP manipulation of who the Dem's chose, then it must be fair - because it favors Obama.

I think that sums up the logic of what the meaning of "fair" is to Obama supporters.

[WolverineDG]

37. It worked for Bill in 1992

I didn't hear him complaining about it then.

dg

[CreekDog]

2. I think all delegates should be chosen in primaries

1) with delegates awarded in proportion to votes overall
2) with votes from non-Democrats counting as 1/2 vote (if you want it to count fully, join the party)

[TexasObserver]

10. Fortunately, it's the right of TEXANS to pick our delegates. You get to pick YOURS.

If you want your opinion to matter, live in Texas, work in the Democratic party, attend party caucuses, go from your precinct convention, to your senatorial district or county convention, to the state convention, to the national convention, and once you get there, propose and pass a rule change that effectuates your unique and absurd proposition.

[papau]

25. Walk on water problem alert! - forget about "fair" - its our ball/our rules

[CreekDog]

28. Oh yes, Texans make much better political decisions than Californians

I seem to have forgotten that. :evilgrin:

[TexasObserver]

29. As if you have any role in any decisionmaking, anywhere.

Time to dump you in the grease.

[CreekDog]

30. Huh?

Don't speak your lingo.

[Bad Thoughts]

4. Bravo!

Great analysis. I'd agree that the hybrid system would be best, allowing all facets of democracy to be practiced in the selection of the process.

On the other hand, fiddling with the system doesn't always lead to success. One poorly designed ballot in Florida led to Deibold!

[crispini]

5. You're right about that. It shouldn't be too complicated.

But as long as there are a few people from both sides at each precinct who know and understand the system thoroughly, even for the majority of caucus goers, it shouldn't be too complicated. Just show up and sign and vote! :)

That's the way I hope it goes anyway. I'm terrified, to be honest. I moved my caucus to the gym. :scared:

[Bad Thoughts]

6. On mischievous cross-overs

I think this is usually a silly argument. Party affiliation is usually a formality in most states. No one pays dues to the parties. No one goes through education or is tested. In this country, you declare to a public servant, not even a member of the party, that you are affiliated with either the republicans or democrats (or someone else). You can do it as many times as you want. The opportunity to wreak havoc with an opponent always exists. Now, if you wanted a hybrid system, you might want to limit caucus participation to party members only: give them a reward for being stalwarts.

[crispini]

7. Exactly!

I might be inclined to agree with your adjustment. Although I am not sure entirely what would constitute "membership" in a state like mine where we don't register people by party. I am a sustaining member, which involves money, but I wouldn't want to see party stalwarts who don't have the money to be a 'member' in this way refused.

[papau]

26. nonsense - you declare a party affiliation - some effort - and there's needed effort to change it

[Bad Thoughts]

40. An effort? really?

In my state, I go to the town hall, to the registrar, fill out a form. I don't look for a local party office, or a local party official, to register my affiliation. In three weeks, I can vote in that party's primary. The form isn't sent to the party for confirmation. I don't get anything that says, "weclome to the party." No one knows about it. No one cares. The process of registration is almost completely independent of the party itself.

[TexasObserver]

8. Great analysis, Crispini! It's more fair than either pure primary or pure caucus.

Primaries can be overwhelmed with media or cross overs. Caucuses are much harder to do that with.

Caucuses can over represent activists, and therefore miss what the voters might see.

The hybrid system gives voice to each of the two approaches in use in most states. If primaries are fair, and caucuses are fair, then a hybrid is a combination of two accepted methods.

The superdelegates exist in every state, and are a function of that state's Democratic prowess in electing Democratic officials.

The truth is that the people complaining about it are either Hillary campaign operatives whining about the system because they lack people on the ground for the caucuses, or wonks who don't have the time or inclination to understand how the system works.

It was designed to accomplish the desires of the Texas Democratic party to pick delegates, and within the guidelines of the DNC. Anyone who doesn't like it can take their appeal to the national convention, which is how we resolve such intraparty issues in this country.

[crispini]

17. Thanks!

I'm having a lot of fun. :)

[TexasObserver]

22. It hasn't been this much fun since 1990!!

Hell yeah!!

[Lisa0825]

35. If it doesn't favor Hillary, it is patently unfair! So there! :-P

Good grief, some of the replies in this thread sound so pouty!

Primaries in small states don't count.
Primaries in Red states don't count.
Caucuses don't count.
Prima-caucus won't count.

The only kind of contest that SHOULD count in some folks opinion is the kind in which Hillary manages to get a majority, because ONLY those could have possibly been fair!

:sarcasm:

[TexasObserver]

38. Hillary's campaign is beginning to look like that table of girls in MEAN GIRLS.

about the same attitude, too

[Justyce]

9. Do you know if there's a site that lists where the caucuses will be held?

According to what I've been reading, it should be at our regular precincts, but if yours has moved to a gym, I'm wondering if there's an accurate list somewhere...?

[crispini]

15. Ah, just down the hall. Still at the school.

I'll put signs up.

But it does look like Obama has put up a statewide caucus finder.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/txevlookup2

It may or may not work for you. Call your county party to see, that's best. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. All The Caucuses Are A Joke, And They Should All Be Done Away With.

Elections should have some sort of integrity, and there really isn't any as it relates to a caucus process. The caucus process is inherently flawed ten times over. From timing, to peer pressure, to non secret balloting, to disenfranchising large numbers of voters, to so many things. Caucuses are just plain dumb in my opinion, and I'd love to see every single one of them done away with by next election. Furthermore, I find it ridiculous to think that the often times jobless, potentially overly zealous, too much time on their hands type activisits should have their voice heard more than anyone else. I think that's an absurd notion.

And open primaries are equally dumb. This is the Democratic primary. It is where OUR party chooses its candidate. That candidate should be chosen by members of OUR party.

As I've made my way through the first primary I've ever really paid attention to and learned about, I am shocked to find that these bullshit caucuses exist as much as they do, and that open primaries exist as much as they do. Both concepts undermine the nomination process in my opinion, and I'm not sure how or why they wouldn't bother the hell out of EVERYBODY. But to each their own perception I guess.

[crispini]

13. Oh please.

Are you at all involved in your local party?

Those people that you call: "often times jobless, potentially overly zealous, too much time on their hands type activists" are, in my experience, nine out of ten times, responsible members of the community who are making a lot of sacrifices to help the party out. Most of my friends in the party have day jobs in that aren't in politics, as do I. I know people who are database guys, lawyers, photographers, project managers at companies, paralegals, researchers at the medical center, and on and on and on. I know a woman who has two small children, and who has decided to run for office. She and her husband both work full time. I don't know how they do it. Our SDEC members haul themselves down to Austin every other month for meetings. I wouldn't want to spend that much on gas. Sure, there are a few oddballs floating around, but most of us are not.

Your local party may be full of dysfunctional types, I don't know. Have you spent so much time there that you can make this blanket denunciation against them? But, please don't make it against my party. I have first-hand experience otherwise.

And I for one don't see how all these armchair warriors and people who have plenty of time to pontificate about politics on the internet, or watch American Idol, or any of the other mindless crap that passes for TV these days, but won't give one hour of their time to make a phone call, or walk a block, or donate a dime to their local party, should have 100% of the say. Any airbag can leverage their carcass out of the Lazy Boy long enough to go out and vote. It takes TIME to build a local party that matters. We are involved in creating a community here. Are you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Your Thinking That Any Voter Should Have More Weight Than Another, Is Pathetic And Anti-Democratic.

You're saying that someone who pontificates about politics on the internet shouldn't have their vote count as much as someone who is able to obsess about politics and have the luxury of time on their hands to be true activists. I find that position to be a disgraceful one to hold, and one that is amazingly anti-democratic. An activist is no more worthy of a vote than any other person, and I find the arrogance in thinking that activists are better than any other every day voter to be quite pathetic.

[crispini]

19. This is the DEMOCRATIC party primary.

It's for members of the DEMOCRATIC party. This is not the general election.

What constitutes membership of the Democratic party? What does that mean? Especially in the context of a state where you do not do party registration?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. Anyone Considering Themselves A Democrat Is A Democrat.

In states where there's no party registration, I'm fine with the 'can only vote in one primary' concept, like in my state. I know there's no perfect answer. What I do know, is that declaring for a second that the more politically obsessed faction of our party deserves a more impactful vote than others in the party, is a total crock of shit that is anti-democratic in sentiment and something that should be shunned for even being said. Seriously, I don't know what you were thinking.

[crispini]

31. Without the activists there would be no party.

As simple as that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. You Can Say Whatever You Want. Saying Their Vote Should Be Worth More Than Mine Is Pathetic.

It's also quite undemocratic in principle. It's that simple.

[Lisa0825]

36. Give it up, crispini... the "ignore" function is your friend!

I have never used ignore before (even during the Dean Scream aftermath), but I know have about 10 folks on it, and it really filters out the static. :evilgrin:

[longshotjohn]

39. as simple as that

One man-one vote.  I don't buy into your elitist view of party
activists.  Elitism has no part in real democracy, despite
your believing it does.

Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive
their attention. …If once they become inattentive to the
public affairs, you and I, and congress and Assemblies, Judges
and governors, shall all become wolves.
____Jefferson to Carrington  1787

[BzaDem]

48. Activists already have extra influence

... by virtue of them being activists. Their vote doesn't need to be worth more than a non-activists' vote. With that logic, you can defend almost any system where any group of people has a higher weighted vote. (Should people who pay higher taxes get more of a right to vote?)

No, No, and No. One person, one vote. That is the only democratic way.

[Clovis Sangrail]

12. some questions (not an attack)

re: votes being "a matter of public record"
Do you mean I can lookup how my employees voted?
That doesn't seem like such a good idea.
Wouldn't this provide the verification needed for people to buy or sell votes?

re: equal representation
Is there a restriction on taking part in both the convention and the vote ?
Political activists already have a greater impact than the average voter simply because their voice is amplified by their activism.
If they're allowed to vote and go to the convention(caucus) I'm guessing as somebody with deeply held feelings they would do so... which would make their voice significantly more important that the average voter.
While I can see some logic behind that it really doesn't seem very democratic.

[crispini]

16. You can see that Person X voted in the Democratic primary.

You can't see how they voted.

And, yes, you have to vote to go to the convention. Still, as you see, the "average vote" gets the majority of the delegates. So.... :shrug: I see your point, but it still seems to me like the average voter gets a voice. And, after all, it is a *Democratic* primary. For members of the *Democratic* party. ;)

[Clovis Sangrail]

33. thanks for the response

The point I was making about unequal representation might be easier with some numbers.

If the primary (voting) is worth 126 delegates and the convention is worth 67 delegates:
(I'm a magician so the following number are pulled out of thin air ;) )

'average votes' = 100,000 = 1 vote = 0.0012600 delegates
convention = 10,000 = 1 vote = 0.0067000 delegates


At 10 to 1, considering that the convention goers also vote, convention goers are 630% as important as an average voter in regards to delegate selection.
At 2 to 1 convention goers are still 200% as important as average voters.
Even if the ratio is dead even those at the convention get 150% more of a voice than average voters.

This is in addition to the increased influence their opinion gets based on their activism.
So even though there are less delegates for the convention, each convention goer has much more political influence.
How much more is related to how big the disparity between the vote and convention.
This doesn't really seem too fair.
:shrug:

re: party affiliation rather than actual vote
Does party affiliation only change in the primary?
Or does it switch back if you vote for the other party in the GE?

I honestly don't know if my party affiliation is public record, but even if it is it doesn't tell anybody how/if I voted.
Even if somebody knows I got a democratic ballot primary ballot, they don't know if I actually voted for anybody.
If your party is changed based on which primary candidate you voted for, then people will know that you did vote for one of the candidates of that party.
While this wouldn't allow an employer to force his employees to vote for a particular candidate, it would allow the employer to verify that they vote for a particular party.

hmmmm...
Do you know how the apportionment of delegates works (beyond the overall split)?
Is there some sort of sort of district split based on previous voter turn out?

[crispini]

41. Sorry for the delay! I've been busy.

And thanks for the thoughtful response.

Answers backwards first:

Apportionment of delegates is in fact based on prior turnout -- it's proportional to the number of people who voted for the Democratic candidate for governor two years before.

Party affiliation only changes in the primary. You can vote for whoever you want in the GE. There's still a secret ballot, of course. The only thing that is public record is which primary you voted in, and you are correct, it's just the fact that you chose a ballot, you may choose to turn in an entirely blank ballot if you want.

You have sort of semi-convinced me with your arguments that maybe the 1/3 - 2/3 split might be too much. (That's the split when you leave out the superdelegates.) We have to keep the convention system, though, because that's the core of the way the party works. Delegates don't just vote for the presidential candidates. They also vote for our DNC members and our SDEC members, as well as the chair of the TDP. You might be able to talk me into backing off to a different proportion, but in my eyes, the caucuses are the "gateway drug" to greater participation in the party. ;) And the more people who are involved, the better. In my mind, there does need to be SOME incentive / reward for the activists.

However, I will concede that I don't know how other states work. What do the states with straight primaries do?

[Clovis Sangrail]

49. they all have their own quirks

In Ca districts get between 3 and 6 delegates based on that district's average turnout over the previous 2 presidential elections. I think somehow basing the delegate count on previous turnout is pretty common, though it's affect is muted more or less depending on the state.
I personally dislike that method of apportioning delegates because it penalizes areas with a high percentage of new voters or returning voters.
In the case of Texas, from what I've been reading, it's going to penalize Latino heavy districts this time around, which isn't really fair to the voters or to their candidates.

What I think would be much more fair (as if anybody listens to me :eyes: ) would be to apportion delegates to districts after the vote based on current turnout.

Regarding the conventions, I completely agree that they are a great way for people to get involved in the process and shouldn't be done away with, I'm just not sold on the idea of 1 person counting as much as 6 (or more) others when it comes to elections.
Something that might be *more fair and let the conventions retains some weight beyond delegate selection might be to allow people to take part in one or the other, but not both, and then apportion delegates between the primary and the convention based on the ratio of turnout to both events.
Doing it that way would allow everybody to have an equal vote or...
if the TDP is dead set on convention goers counting more ( and I think they are until enough people realize just how *much more they can count ) doing it this way would allow the disparity between voter value to be fixed rather than fluctuating based on the ration of turnout to the events.

I honestly don't think the activists who show up for conventions need an incentive of getting extra votes.
As I said before, activists already have more influence than other voters by dint of their activism.
The reward for activists is being a part of the process, and that's a pretty big motivator. ;)

Unfortunately, though, the official election process papers I've read are often like build manuals for Rube Goldberg machines.
I read through the TDP delegate selection plan and by the end I thought my brain was going to drip out my ears.
I can understand trying to be as fair as possible resulting in a more complex process, but at some point the negatives of complexity outstrip the positives gained.

[crispini]

52. But wouldn't apportioning delegates to districts after the vote...

just reward short-term action rather than long-term party building?

Thanks for the good conversation. If I ever get elected to SDEC or DNC .... :rofl: .... I'll keep it in mind. :D

[Clovis Sangrail]

54. it would reward short term action...

but long term party building is really just a result of repeated short term action.
That being the case party building might actually be somewhat *more encouraged because any incremental GOTV achievements would be rewarded immediately.
At the same time it would do away with the unfairness of lowering the value of new voters in areas that didn't have great turn out in previous elections.
:shrug:

Good chatting with you, and good luck on that SDEC/DNC thing ;)

[Support the ACLU]

14. Thanks for explaining and defending the process.

[sonias]

21. Thank you crispini for making this case

I'm tired of being called "undemocratic" in Texas when we're really one of the most democratic primary systems. It rewards everybody at some level.

And we even have a process for nominating delegates at our precinct convention who are not able to attend the pct convention, as long as they've voted in the Democratic primary. No one is being left out.


Sonia

[longshotjohn]

23. texas hybrid primary

Yeah. Right.  In Texas it is vote early vote often.  Texas is
the only state where you can vote 2 times and stay out of
jail.  The assertion that super-delegates should get their own
voice is absurd.  It is like the banker in the Monopoly board
game being paid to be the banker. As far as GOP people voting
for Obama makes it clear that the GOP wants to run aginst
Obama for clearly racial motivations.   The GOP hard-liners
know that any black candidate will enflame Southern bigots and
rednecks-the base of the new GOP (post 1964).  That would
result in McCain winning and the GOP retaining the Presidency.
Hold fast to Hillary, pick Obama for VP and have him run in
eight years when the time is right.  But Texas politics fair? 
I don't think so.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public
office 
____Aesop 

[grantcart]

44. Washington state also has

caucuses and primaries - the Dems count only the caucus while the Reps splilt it

[NoPasaran]

27. One thing I'm interested in seing

Is how many voters who've just heard about the "Texas Two Step" realize that step number two is actually a waltz: yes, they need to show up at their precinct on March 4, but then they need to be elected as delegates to their county or district convention on March 29 to elect their delegates to state. And then those folks need to go to the state convention and sign in for their candidate before those 67 delegates actually are awarded.

[crispini]

42. I anticipate a lot of voters coming back tomorrow and asking to vote again.

LOL. :D

[axordil]

32. I've been thinking the hybrid system has some appeal

Pure caucus states make me twitchy, even though they've worked well for Obama, whom I support. But pure primary states have their own issues: it turns into a media struggle more than an organizational contest, and I feel strongly that ground organizations built and tested in the primary season are ESSENTIAL to winning in November.

Get rid of unelected superdelegates, though. Maybe all of them, but at least the unelected DNC types.

[crispini]

43. But the DNC are elected.

They're elected by the convention system.

You could probably talk me into leaving them out, though.

[axordil]

50. Thanks, didn't know that

[grantcart]

45. I love caucese and attended back when i wa s 18

I was also a delegate to country conventiona and then the state. Now its only primary. People that haven't been in it don't understand. You can also vote on planks for the conventions platform too.

[thevoiceofreason]

46. Another good reason given today in Houston

I went (again) to precinct convention training as we have a few new curve balls. Our county party chair made some good points. We do it this way (have the caucus) because we want to encourage the folks who vote democratic to come out and become party activists. this is how it is done. Th presidential prefence portion is a small deal compared with the business of running the state party. The precinct convention, followed by the county then state conventions, is where we form our rules (like the ones governing us now), etc. That's it. We reward people who participate.

[crispini]

53. Yes. Exactly my point. nt

[BzaDem]

47. Oh, the hypocrisy

I love how you defend an open primary, because you are making it easy, "welcoming new members" without "any extra hurdles to jump through." But then, you defend the caucus, which is a huge extra hurdle to jump through by definition.

[crispini]

51. Well, we have both.

I suppose you would consider it worst of both worlds rather than best of both worlds. :hi: