Why the Texas caucuses are a farce.

[antigop]

http://txdemocrats.org/grassroots/precinct_convention_results

"...the results are non-binding, and delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose."


http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district

Although delegates generally do not switch presidential preferences, party rules do not formally bind delegates to support the same candidate at every step in the convention process,...

I wonder how many people who voted in the caucuses know that and I wonder how many people will actually AUDIT the results to ensure that the people they elected as delegates actually vote the way they were elected to vote?

<edit> fixed HTML

[MadHound]

1. Whine whimper

The candidates knew the rules going into the game, they were all on a level playing field. You can't go changing the rules in mid season, only after it is done. Time for the candidates to suck it up and move on.

[antigop]

4. Who's whining? I'm pointing out why they are a farce. n/t

[MadHound]

10. They are what they are

And apparently Texas Democrats are happy with them, since they've been in place over thirty years. Complaining about them now does indeed sound like whining:shrug:

[antigop]

11. Nope, not whining, just educating people who may not know how it works. n/t

[Zynx]

13. How do we know that the majority of the nearly 3 million Democrats in Texas are happy with this?

[antigop]

14. Deleted-double post. n/t

[antigop]

16. especially if they really don't understand how it works? I'm not sure people really understand. n/t

[MadHound]

17. Well gee, they've had thirty plus years to change it,

Yet they haven't. Seems like a pretty good indication that they are happy with it, don't you think.

[antigop]

18. Um. no. Not if they don't understand how it really works. n/t

[MadHound]

25. LOL, I think that after thirty plus years, the Texas Democrats know how their system works

Geez, knock it off already, you're only coming across as whining and moaning, and worse yet, patronizing to the people of Texas. You, an outsider, are trying to make the argument that Texas Democrats don't know how their primary system works, yet they are the ones who set it up and run it every election cycle. I'm fully confident that they are intelligent people in Texas and know how their own system works, apparently much better than outsiders like you.

[antigop]

32. HA! Another flame -- I'm REALLY onto something here. n/t

[MadHound]

39. I call them as I see them

You act in a matter that is whining and patronizing, you can expect to be called on it. I notice that you have no cognizant responses, just more of the same ol' same ol'. Wonder why that is:think:

[antigop]

42. More proof I'm onto something. Thanks. n/t

[MadHound]

36. Umm, three examples, and one of them from a new Texas resident,

Doesn't a sound critique make.

Like I said earlier, the Texas system has been around for thirty years, long enough for people in the state to know how it works and what to do. Is it complicated, yes. Does it mean that a person has to inform themselves before voting, yes. Is that a bad thing, not necessarily. If Texans don't like it, they can change it, but they don't need outsiders whining and complaining about it just because the outsiders either don't understand it or don't like the results that come out of it. It is a matter for Texas Democrats and Texas Democrats alone. Would you want outsiders meddling in your state's primary process? Somehow I doubt it, so stop trying to meddle in the process of other states.

[Zynx]

35. No. Actually it doesn't.

When a system's never been put under a stress test before, it's difficult to know whether or not it should be changed.

[Horse with no Name]

19. No they aren't happy with them

and they haven't been used in a very long time which is why ALL of the confusion surrounding them.
http://www.herald-democrat.com/articles/2008/03/07/local_news/doc47cf0aebaafe4184776760.txt

[antigop]

40. More ltte's from the Star-Telegram. NO, they ARE NOT happy.

http://startelegrameditwriters.typepad.com/letters_to_the_startelegr/2008/03/flawed-caucuses.html

[joeybee12]

29. Not whining...it could hurt both candidates equally...maybe BO

more so since he got more delegates and some decide later to switch...hopefully some of the shit can get changed by 2012.

[hueyshort]

51. Clinton voters were locked out of some TX caucuses

and they were yelled down.
Just how far into the Obama camp have Republicans gotten?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

68. About as far as you have in DU.

[Renew Deal]

2. This is not limited to Texas

All the states that go through this convention process are set up that way. It's common.

[antigop]

5. I wonder how many people who vote in caucuses know this? n/t

[Renew Deal]

15. It's not limited to caucuses.

Many primary states are the same way. People are elected to local conventions that feed county conventions that feed state conventions that feed the national convention.

Thankfully NY is smarter than setting up like this.

[antigop]

6. Are the results non=binding in all other states? Is there a documented way to audit the results? n/

[antigop]

3. I have come to the conclusion that the caucuses are for the Party, not the people. n/t

[skipos]

7. Unfortunately, you and Hillary aren't going to be able to move those goalposts in

the middle of this game. You are free to try to change the rules before the next Democratic primaries in 2012 though.

[antigop]

8. Why in the world are you putting me and Hillary together? Check my posts.

<edit to add> I'm merely pointing out what a farce the process is. I don't think people who voted in the caucuses are aware of how it really works.

[blogslut]

9. What do you know about Texas caucuses?

Besides what you choose to know?

[antigop]

12. um, I posted links from the TX Democrats website. n/t

[blogslut]

20. Yes, I have read the information in those links

It was very helpful when I was secretary for my precinct's caucus on Tuesday.

I'm asking you, what do you know about the process? Why do you feel our caucus system is a joke?

It is true that the delegates are not bound to follow their candidate but do you know how those delegates are chosen? Do you understand how the wishes of local citizens make it into the Texas Democratic party platform?

[antigop]

22. Yes, the delegates are chosen by the people in the caucus. n/t

[blogslut]

26. The delegates are chosen by the supporters of the candidate

You understand that, right? Clinton supporters elect delegates. Obama supporters select delegates.

[antigop]

31. And that assumes everyone in the caucus KNOWS everyone else.

There were LOTS of new faces at the caucuses -- no way for the new faces to know everyone who wanted to be a delegate.

[blogslut]

41. So, individuals from precincts pretend to support a candidate

...only to change their vote later on? You think this is common or happens enough to warrant a concern?

Yes, people are flawed but I seriously doubt there is any measurable number of double-agent caucus attendees, just waiting to game our process.

[antigop]

43. It's a hole in the system that I have pointed out. And it's the AUDIT problem. n/t

[blogslut]

46. One of the things one can do is propose resolutions at a caucus

I've read that a couple of precincts voted and passed resolutions concerning the caucus this year. You know about the resolutions, don't know?

[antigop]

48. ooh,, nice sidestep. n/t

[blogslut]

52. Who is sidestepping?

You introduce a flaw and I show you how that flaw can be repaired. Through the caucus process. Through precinct resolutions that make it all the way from the individual precincts to the party platform. If a proposal to amend the delegate's stance so that they must support their original candidate passes through the system, the flaw is repaired. If it doesn't the people have spoken.

[antigop]

55. Thank you for admitting the flaw exists. Thank you very much. n/t

[blogslut]

63. Look, I'm not trying to attack you

I just am trying to show you that I think your fears are baseless.

Let me ask you. If the Texas Democratic party were to amend the rules so that a delegate is formally bound to support their original candidate, how would that affect this theoretical situation:

Sometime before the state convention - where the final 67 delegates are elected - Barack Obama murders a puppy. All the Obama delegates want to change their votes but can't because the rules have bound them to a notorious puppy-killer.

?

[antigop]

64. Oh, really? Not trying to attack me...could have fooled me. n/t

[blogslut]

66. Okay

I'm sorry you feel I am attacking you. I thought I was challenging your original statement.

I don't think the Texas caucuses are a farce. You said that you do.

Have my words been hostile?

[antigop]

56. oh, and thanks for the kicks -- this way other people can be educated about the "process" n/t

[antigop]

57. And the flaws....n/t

[kennetha]

21. Do you think either side is dirty enough?

to have one of their supporters run as a delegate for the other side, with the intention of luring X's voters thinking that they intend to vote for X when they really intend to vote for Y?

Now that would be depressing. But since they delegates aren't hand picked by the candidates, but just sort of volunteer at the caucuses to stand as delegates, it's certainly possible.

[antigop]

23. Yep. Lots of room for "gaming the system". And do people know how to audit the results? n/t

[antigop]

24. That's why people in each precinct need to audit the results of the convention.

To make sure the delegates from whom they VOTED ACTUALLY VOTE the way they are supposed to vote.

[antigop]

27. And the fact that I seem to be getting flamed for pointing some of this stuff out is, well,

interesting.

[Radical Activist]

28. Because Hillary lost them?

Let's just be honest. That's the only reason why.

[antigop]

33. PLEASE, check my other posts. Definitely NOT a Hillary supporter. n/t

[redqueen]

30. Um, that's not just TX caucuses... that's all primaries, all caucuses.

[antigop]

34. Well, I can't vouch for "all" of them. I wonder if people really understand how it works.

I'll bet they don't.

[redqueen]

37. Of course not. Most simply don't give a damn.

They view it as corrupt, so they don't bother. I know it's corrupt, but I disagree with those types that ignoring it will solve anything.

But yeah... the whole system is tilted to the benefit of the powerful. Not by accident, of course.

[antigop]

44. And it seems like some on DU are getting REALLY UPSET that we are pointing this stuff out. Gee..

I wonder why.

[moc]

38. Let's make this point a little louder Redqueen (m)

Attention OP: This is no different than the delegates selected by primaries or caucuses in other states. The delegates are not under any obligation to vote at the DNC for the same candidate for whom they were selected.

So, your point about the Texas caucus is what, exactly? :shrug:

[antigop]

45. I can't vouch for "all" the others -- I can only vouch for Texas from the links I found. n/t

[moc]

50. Great non-answer, there.

Look, I'm in Texas, and I don't take kindly to people throwing crap around about our state when they don't know what the hell they're talking about. You're complaining that delegates selected in Texas caucuses aren't "bound". Well, neither are delegates selected in other state primaries/caucuses.

Again, what's your point?

[antigop]

54. My, my, another attack. Gee, I wonder why...I've only pointed out the TX process.

I don't know about other state primaries/caucuses as I haven't checked the other state websites.

So I can't vouch for them. I posted links from the TX Dem website.

[moc]

58. Playing the victim. That's effective. I've asked you a simple question

which you seem incapable of answering.

Again, delegates in Texas are no different than those of other states. What *specifically* makes the Texas caucus process a farce?

[antigop]

59. Ooh, nice attack again. I DID answer the question. I can't vouch for the other states.

I can only vouch for Texas because of the links I found that demonstrate how it works in Texas.

Maybe the other states are a farce as well. I don't have time to check all of the other states out.

[moc]

61. Read post #53 which lays out exactly what I have told you.

Delegates aren't obligated, whether they're from Texas or other states.

Your bashing of our state's caucus process is tiresome.

[antigop]

62. It ain't bashing if it's the truth. I'm only pointing out how it works in Texas.

I can't vouch for other states.

[antigop]

60. oh, and thanks for the kicks -- this way other people can be educated about the "process" n/t

[mohc]

53. Quite right

There is a slight difference between delegate selection between primary and caucus results. When the national delegates are selected for a state, whether it is a caucus or a primary, the candidates have an opportunity to vet the delegates pledged to them. In some states individuals must apply to become a delegate, and the candidates can remove them from the list if they do not believe they would be loyal. In other states the delegates effectively stand on the ballot on primary day, and the candidates can review the list and remove names from the ballot of delegates standing to be pledged to them if they feel they will not be loyal. This effectively means pledged delegates are not going to stray barring some unforeseen change as the campaigns can review each and every delegate. With caucuses there is a caveat. The delegates for the national convention are not technically selected at the caucuses, instead state or sometimes county or congressional district delegates are selected at the precinct caucuses. While these state, county, or district delegates are similarly "pledged" to the candidates in proportion to their votes at the precinct caucuses, the campaigns do not get to vet them at this level. They only get to vet the delegates selected at the state and district level conventions, so while these delegates will almost certainly be loyal, there is less guarantee that the delegates at the district or state conventions were loyal to the precinct results. I know that may sound confusing. In simplest terms, the national delegates selected by either caucuses or primaries will most likely be loyal due to the vetting process, but there is no guarantee. The state and district delegates selected by precinct caucuses are not vetted, and may therefore be less loyal, but the delegates they in turn select will undergo the vetting process.

[Bongo Prophet]

69. I don't think the OP really wants an answer anyway. But nice of you to try!

I guess the National convention and superdelegates are a "farce" as well. They can change their votes - national delegates after the first round, if memory serves.


What a weird "conversation" in this thread. :crazy:
Almost as if the poster wants something beside information, huh?

[antigop]

47. My, my. why am I getting attacked on this thread? Gee, I wonder.... n/t

[Renew Deal]

67. Because you don't understand the process.

Though I didn't attack you. But it's clear you don't have all the information.

[antigop]

70. Oh, but sweetheart, I DO understand the process. I most certainly do. And that's what upsets people

That I'm pointing out that it's NOT democratic.

How funny, considering it's the DEMOCRATIC party.

[antigop]

49. Thanks for the kicks, guys! I appreciate it -- gets more attention to the issue. n/t

[antigop]

65. Hey, folks this was educational. Thanks. Gotta go...got work to do..not paid to post on DU all day.

n/t