Question on Texas caucus --- delegates--it's a farce, isn't it? (updated for clarity)

[antigop]

Anyone attending the caucus can request to be a delegate, right? So people who are supposed to be delegates for candidate x could vote for candidate Y at the convention, right? There's no way for someone who is supposed to be a delegate for candidate x at the convention to be actually forced to vote for candidate x at the convention, right?

So the whole thing is a farce, right?

<edited> for clarity

[cosmik debris]

1. Wrong

delegates are elected at the caucus. They are elected by those who support their candidate. They are apportioned by the number of supporters for each candidate.

It is true that they could double cross their candidate, but they would be unlikely to get away with it.

[antigop]

2. And how would anyone know if they "double crossed their candidate"?

Is it a private vote at the convention, or are the convention results made public-- with numbers of votes for each candidate BY PRECINCT?

[crispini]

3. The other people in their delegation are their neighbors.

As they go on to the next steps in the process, they are going along with the rest of your delegation.

Believe me, do you really want to switch and piss off your neighbor across the street who is caucusing with you at the senatorial district convention and have her talk smack about you around the whole neighborhood for the next year?

[antigop]

4. You didn't answer the question. Are the results made public?

How do I know that the delegates from my precinct actually voted at the convention the way they were supposed to?

[antigop]

5. And I didn't recognize any of my "Neighbors across the street" at the caucus.

In fact, I didn't know anyone.

[cosmik debris]

6. At the convention you must sign in according to your preference

If you are elected as an Obama delegate and you sign in as a Clinton delegate it will be there IN WRITING for all to see.

And then there is the issue of numbers. Some people actually add these things up and look for problems. It is called grass roots activism. Try it you'll like it.

[antigop]

7. And how do I get a copy of who signed in if I don't go to the convention?

If I can't get a copy of it, then it's NOT FOR ALL TO SEE, then, is it?

The question remains: How do I find out if the delegates in my precinct vote the way they are supposed to?

[cosmik debris]

8. contact your local party chair.

From the rules of the Democratic Party of Texas: Sec. 1 Part 3 (b) Secret ballots are specifically prohibited.

http://www.txdemocrats.org/the_party/article_iv_party_conventions

[antigop]

9. Thanks, but if I'm NOT THERE, how do I find out? Where does it say that I am entitled to a listing

of the votes?

[antigop]

11. OK, here is part of the answer...Thanks, -- look like I'm on my own to audit

>>
. The poll records, including the ballots, sign-in sheets, or roll call poll, shall be retained by the County or Senatorial District Chair as part of the official files of the Convention for at least six months. Such records shall be open to public inspection at reasonable hours upon request.
>>

So I have to inspect the records myself and audit them myself.

[cosmik debris]

10. You may attend the convention as a spectator if you wish.

There will not be a special vote on presidential preference. That is what the sign in sheets are for. That is the only vote on presidential preference. and that is IN WRITING. It is a record kept by the party chair. It will be available for your inspection during regular business hours after the party convention. If you are willing to make the effort, you can get the information.


Contact your local party chair and discuss your concerns with him/her. The records are public documents. If you don't come across as an asshole, you will get friendly cooperation.

[antigop]

12. looks like we posted at the same time -- yep, I'm on my own to audit my precinct.

I wonder how many people will audit their precinct?

[cosmik debris]

13. Most of us have a personal relationship with those we elected

We don't really need to audit because we only elect our friends and neighbors that we trust.

But don't forget, the numbers from the precinct caucuses will match the numbers from the county (or senate district) convention. If the precincts report 100 Clinton delegates and 200 Obama delegates but the convention reports 150 each, there will be some serious investigation going on.

[antigop]

14. I don't know if that is a true statement:"Most of us have a personal relationship with those we

elected."

A lot of people showed up this year at the caucuses. I doubt that people really knew all of the delegates.

[cosmik debris]

15. And whose fault is that?

If you waited until the day after the caucus to try to figure out what is going on, you really shouldn't expect to have all your issues resolved.

If you don't know the people you elected, maybe you shouldn't have voted for them.

Maybe you should get to know them.

Maybe you should have thought of this six weeks ago when both candidates were begging for canvassers to walk the precincts and get to know the voters.

I'm glad you finally got involved, but you can't expect the rest of the party to slow down just because you are behind the curve.

[antigop]

16. Oh, how ridiculous. GMAFB!

There were about the same number of people who voted for delegates as the number of delegates we needed. A lot of people left early and didn't stay.

DID YOU KNOW ALMOST EVERYONE WHO STAYED TO VOTE IN YOUR PRECINCT?

DID EVERYONE WHO STAYED TO VOTE KNOW EVERYONE ELSE?

Give me a frikkin' break.

[cosmik debris]

18. I know most of my delegates by their first name.

I have caucused with them before.

I have discussed this caucus with them before the fact.

I was throughly prepared.

I'm sorry you were not.

Better luck next time.

[antigop]

19. Oh, GMAFB. You didn't even read my post! I'm done with you. And this is the TX DEm Party?

Wow, no thank you.

[elizfeelinggreat]

25. yikes

I'm not trying to take sides at all in this argument going on here but I'm trying to figure out the process myself and you make it sound like some kind of good old boys network where only those "in the know" have any chance of accomplishing what they want.

Sorry if I'm wrong, you might not mean it that way but that's how it feels as I read it.

Everything I've read this morning points to the caucuses being a mess - they weren't prepared for all the people who wanted to be involved. They should have been - the early voting turnouts in Texas have been phenomenal. Just because it's always been done that way in the past is no excuse for shutting out those who want to participate. I spent some time talking to friends who participated last night and they were shocked at the way this played out. Perhaps we haven't participated for years but that's no excuse for the incompetence (gross in some instances, like no voter rolls to check the legitimacy of those who showed up to caucus) of people who are entrusted to run the process.

Please reconsider your stance, we certainly seem to need a better system. Wouldn't we all love to see the Democratic turnout in Texas continue to grow and not lapse into apathy because of feeling disenfranchised?

[cosmik debris]

26. If by "good old boys" you mean those who prepared

You are right. Those of us who took the time to prepare for the caucus were better able to manipulate the system to satisfy our goals. But the knowledge for this preparation is not proprietary. It is easily accessible to everyone. People who wanted to participate should have prepared. It is free, it is easy, and you meet the best people in your neighborhood.

You don't show up at a baseball game to play shortstop unless you know how to handle an infield fly or a bunt. Likewise you shouldn't show up at a caucus unless you know a little about how it works and who you intend to vote for. It is just the basic preparation.

As for precincts that did not have the proper leadership, that is an administrative problem. And who do you think chooses the administrators and leaders? Your fellow Democrats, that's who. You have the opportunity to change your leadership, but if you choose not to participate, you will get to deal with the choices made by others.

We each have a responsibility to participate in the system. Those who don't honor that responsibility should understand that the problem lies with them, not the system.

[elizfeelinggreat]

28. but surely not

when those who know the "system" don't honor their responsibility to the whole process but put their egos above helping others whose opinions may not agree with theirs? Such as being prepared themselves and providing information so that those who are not in their click of know-it-alls can participate. Give me a break. Did you all get secret tattoos and only let in those who knew the code-word?

I call BS on your statement that voters shouldn't show up unless they're experts on the procedures. Surely you aren't saying only those who study the process in detail, those with connections and their resulting egos, trump the voters' desire to participate? That's what it sounds like you're saying.

Your "basic preparation" was obviously inadequate for many who wanted to participate last night unless of course the old network keeping their little clique intact was the reason for the disenfranchisement going on. You conveniently ignored the glaring problems caused by those who thought or claimed they knew how to run these caucuses but were incapable of doing so properly.


Is this GD-P? I thought I was in the Texas forum.

[cosmik debris]

29. Sure sounds like sour grapes to me.

No one was denied the right to participate in my precinct. No one was denied the knowledge necessary to educate themselves. I didn't go door to door trying to educate everyone in my precinct because I feel that personal responsibility is important. You obviously disagree and feel that everyone has a responsibility to help you. Sorry, but I disagree. You are responsible for your own education and preparation. All the necessary information was available.

You seriously misrepresented my statements about "basic preparation". I never said anything about being an expert or knowing details. You made that up because you haven't got a better argument than blaming others.

I am not responsible for the actions of others and I am not responsible for precincts other than my own. In my precinct we were prepared. We ran a smooth caucus in spite of the ten fold increase in attendance. No one was denied their right to participate. No one was disenfranchised. We followed the rules and we were successful.

So don't blame me for the failings of others. My precinct did not fail. My precinct prepared. If your precinct did not prepare and did not succeed, you should address those who were responsible for that preparation and success. You should either vote them out of office or assist them in making the system work. But whining and complaining about the unfair system doesn't help anyone. The system does work. It worked in hundreds of precincts all across Texas.

[antigop]

32. Nope-- it's a "holier than thou" attitude on your part. Great going! Way to unify! n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[antigop]

37. Wow! I must REALLY be on to something for questioning the system.

There must be something REALLY going on here for me to be met with such derision.

Simply asking about an AUDIT -- and I get this kind of response.

Hmmm...

[elizfeelinggreat]

36. not sour grapes here

My district did not fail me but it certainly sounded like they screwed up the process in a big way.

And I'm not blaming you, I'm just pointing out that you seem to be attacking anyone who asks questions about that process as being at fault for its failings.

I also didn't mean to make anything up, I have questioned if you really mean what it sounds to me like you're saying. “We’ve always done it this way” is not a good argument when you're not doing it correctly or it's not working.

Have you not read any of the other threads here about the HUGE turnouts at the Democratic caucuses? What in the world would make you want to disenfranchise those people, many of whom may be new to our party? Why do you insist on blaming the victim in a lot of these stories?

Lots of people are very well versed in many things political other than this one - just because being up to snuff on caucusing isn’t one of them does NOT mean their caucus vote shouldn’t count.

I'll just let it go at this point. You can go argue with someone else who's just trying to understand.

[antigop]

40. Yes, I DARED ASK about THE PROCESS. I DARED to. n/t

[antigop]

38. Yes, that's EXACTLY what it is and it's probably why I'm being flamed for asking about "the system".

Yup. A good old boy network.

And I DARED to question it.

[antigop]

17. And you missed the point.

I said that there were a LOT of people who showed up at caucuses. There is no way they could know everyone.

[cosmik debris]

20. You don't have to know everyone,

Just the ones you vote for.

[antigop]

21. READ MY FRIKKIN' POST! THE NUMBER OF VOTERS ALMOST EQUALED THE NUMBER OF DELEGATES!

Honestly, did you even read what I wrote?

[cosmik debris]

23. I no longer care

I tried to help you and you just wanted to rant.

Carry on.

[antigop]

22. I'm done -- my last post. What a sorry state of the TX DEM party. n.t

[Melissa G]

27. For most of us who are long time activists and have lived in the same place, it is true. n/t

[antigop]

31. But that's different from "most of us" who participated in the caucus.

There were a LOT of people who voted in the primary who had not voted previously. There was NO WAY to know everyone who showed up at the caucus.

And I seriously question the "delegates" who will represent my precinct. I don't even think they were Democrats.

[flamin lib]

24. About as many as make asinine picayune arguments like this.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[antigop]

30. Wow! So now it's "picayune" to ask how to audit election results? n/t

[flamin lib]

53. No, it's picayune to ask, get an answer and then bithch about the

answer. I'll say again; lead, follow or get out of the way. Carping from the sidelines does no one any good.

[antigop]

54. wow! Another flame. I'm really onto something here and "they" don't like it. Not at all. n/t

[Gothmog]

33. People who stayed to be picked were committed to their candidate

We actually had a list with phone numbers from people who were committed to their candidate done that night. The Obama people on that list seemed really committed as did the Clinton people. I do not think that these people will flip flop.

[antigop]

34. But that's my whole point -- is the AUDITING of the process. n/t

[antigop]

42. People COULD flip flop and who would know? It's the AUDITING. n/t

[antigop]

39. Wow! I MUST REALLY BE ONTO SOMETHING HERE.

Look at the response for asking a SIMPLE question.

I ask how to AUDIT the results and I'm told to "get off my lazy ass".

[antigop]

41. Trust,...but verify! Heck, if Ronnie knew that! n/t

[antigop]

43. Hmmm... I SIMPLY ask about AUDITING the results and I get flamed. Gee, I wonder why. n/t

[cosmik debris]

44. The problem with a pity party

Is the short guest list.

[antigop]

45. Ah, divert and don't answer the real issue. Rinse. Repeat. So typical. n/t

[antigop]

46. And you just proved my point that I must be onto something. Attack the messenger. n/t

[Melissa G]

47. LOL

:rofl:

[antigop]

48. Well, I'm glad you find questions about auditing of elections so funny. n/t

[antigop]

49. WOW! I really am onto something here. Ask for auditing of votes and I get flamed. n/t

[twompy]

50. From the TDP website

You must click on this link before the TDP will let you look at the percent convention results. THey also make you fill out a form with your info. I don't know if this answers your question. It looks like once a delegate you can vote for who ever you want.

"I understand these results are unofficial, and official results will not be available until they are certified by the Credentials committee at County and Senatorial District Conventions on March 29th. I also understand that these results are nonbinding, and delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose. Allocation of delegates to the National Convention is not finally determined until the June 6-7 State Convention." http://txdemocrats.org/grassroots/precinct_convention_results

[antigop]

51. Hmmm....very, very, interesting...thank you! n/t

[antigop]

52. "party rules do not formally bind delegates to support the same candidate at every step in the

convention process and the allocation of delegates to the national convention is not finally determined until the June 6-7 State Convention. Therefore, these results may not reflect the final allocation of 67 delegates determined by the TDP convention/caucus process."

http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district


Well, my,my, no wonder I was getting flamed.