Caucus Opponents Prepare To Descend On Democratic Convention

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Caucus Opponents Prepare To Descend On Democratic Convention stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 08-18-08 05:29 PM   |   Updated: 09-18-08 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Together

Two weekends ago, an amendment that would have banned all caucuses from future Democratic nominating contests was rejected at a DNC platform committee meeting. Take it to the rules committee, backers of the amendment were told. Nothing if not dedicated, that is precisely what those activists -- most of whom were staunch backers of Sen. Hillary Clinton -- are planning to do.

As it happens, the rules committee's next meeting is set for this Saturday in Denver. Any amendments that are passed from that body -- or that gain enough votes to achieve "minority report" status -- will in turn be reported to the floor of the convention, representing perhaps one of the few legitimately unscripted possibilities of the entire extravaganza.

Bob Remer, a Clinton delegate from Illinois who drafted the failed platform amendment, has more modest goals this time around. Instead of killing off the caucus system altogether via an amendment at the rules committee, he simply hopes to propose the establishment of a "Nomination Voting Rights Commission" that can look into the system's shortcomings going forward. Unlike some anti-caucus activists who appear focused on undermining the legitimacy of Barack Obama's path to the nomination, Remer swears that he simply wants to add fairness and legitimacy to a system that was responsible for so much heartburn this time around.

"We need to win the White House, and increase our margins in Congress, that's on the front burner," Remer said. "But I want to see a firm commitment to addressing this issue, too. If the party can find a way to protect voting rights within the caucus system, God bless. I don't know how it could be done. And I understand there are costs involved when implementing a primary system [in all states]. But I want the party to commit itself to some basic principles. This isn't about picking on Iowa or Texas or Nevada. This is about respecting the rights of the individual voter."

In an email to anti-caucus activists that was also provided to the Huffington Post, Remer outlines a familiar litany of grievances against the caucus system. "Those of us who vote in primary states are accustomed and fortunate to have the secret ballot, early voting, absentee voting, supervised and protected nursing home absentee voting, absentee ballots for those in military service or overseas, lengthy hours so people who work all shifts can vote, ADA compliant polling places, legal protections against intimidation and coercion in or near the polling place, and many other civil rights and protections under law," Remer wrote. "Under the caucus nomination method these protections do not exist."

To that end, Remer has drafted a proposed amendment that currently reads:

Whereas the Democratic Party is dedicated to strong general election voting rights,


and Whereas the Democratic Party has a strong platform statement (as approved by the Platform Committee) in support of general election voting rights, including passage of the "Count Every Vote Act,"

and Whereas the Democratic party is always committed to, but not limited to, a) the secret ballot, b) ADA disability accessibility for all voters, c) maximizing voter participation in the Democratic Party nomination process, d) and protecting all other voters' rights in the nomination process that are protected in general elections,

Therefore, be it resolved that effective February 2009, the Democratic National Committee will appoint a Nomination Voting Rights Commission, with the charge to determine how the secret ballot and all other general election democratic voting rights can be applied to every state and territory for the Democratic Party presidential nomination process to be effective for all nomination activities in advance of the 2012 national convention and general election of 2012, and thereafter. The Commission shall report back to the Democratic National Committee no later than December 2009 with firm recommendations for implementing voters' rights in every state and territory. Under separate resolution the Convention Rules Committee shall promulgate procedures and suggested membership for such a Commission, taking into account representation from voters' rights advocates, caucus states, non caucus states, representatives of the major candidates in the immediate past nomination process, etc.

In his email to supporters, Remer revealed that he hopes to address the rules committee in person -- though if he is denied that opportunity, "we already have a couple of Rules members interested in sponsoring such a resolution. More would be better." According to Remer, of the 191 rules committee members, 87 are identified as committed to Obama, 76 are identified with Clinton, with one for Senator John Edwards and 27 others who hold no designation. "We would like supporters of all the candidates to sponsor this," he wrote, encouraging other anti-caucus activists to contact rules committee members directly in order to lobby for their support.

Since Remer calculates that he will only need the support of 37 committee members to merit a "minority report" that would then be passed on to the convention, he feels fairly confident that he and his allies can reach that threshold. Though he hasn't given up passing the amendment outright, either. "My resolution is not pro-Clinton or anti-Obama or whatever. And it may take a few years to work this out with all the states in terms of transitions. But I know that they [the rules committee] is eager to avoid floor fights [at the convention]."

While the platform committee meeting was organized to process a great number of amendments, the rules committee in Denver could turn out to be a more restricted affair. And while sources close to the DNC are acknowledge the fact that the caucus system needs a careful evaluation before 2012, it's not hard to see why they might seek to avoid kicking off that discussion two days before the start of the 2008 convention. But with some media watchdogs expressing skepticism regarding the news value of an over-scripted convention, the uncertainty of the caucus reform issue could add a welcome dose of suspense.

Two weekends ago, an amendment that would have banned all caucuses from future Democratic nominating contests was rejected at a DNC platform committee meeting. Take it to the rules committee, backers ...
Two weekends ago, an amendment that would have banned all caucuses from future Democratic nominating contests was rejected at a DNC platform committee meeting. Take it to the rules committee, backers ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
872
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (16 pages total)
photo

Circus defined: a large public entertainment, typically presented in one or more very large tents or in an outdoor or indoor arena, featuring exhibitions of pageantry, feats of skill and daring, performing animals, etc., interspersed throughout with the slapstick antics of clowns.

Special showings of the Clintons and their supporters acting out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:54 PM on 08/22/2008

Indistinct instinct could lead to an extinct in the patriotic precincts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 AM on 08/22/2008

The Democratic party said at the beginning of the primaries that the "will of the voters" would be the theme of the primary season. Between the way the caucuses were skewed for Barack Obama to the literal documented cheating by his followers, esp. I know of in Texas and the rules committee halving the voters in FL and MI there has been NO "will of the voters." NOW BUYING OF SUPER DELEGATES: All these names pertain to BOUGHT elected officials. Next to the names is how much they received as well as where the money came from:
Obama paid:
$11,500 Carol Shea Porter NH
$12,500 Rep Baron Hill IN
$4,200 Sen Jeff Bingaman NH
$11,000 Ron Klein Fl
$9,000 Sen Frank Lautenberg NJ
$7,500 Rep Joe Donnelly IN
$5,000 Re. Gerald McNerney CA
$10,000 Rep.Jason Altmire PA
$5,000 Niki Tsongas MA
$4,000 Rep. Dennis Cardoza
$9,000 Rep Gabrielle Giffords AZ
$4,000 Rep. Jim Costa
$7,500 Rep. Zack Space OH
$7,000 Rep. Charles Wilson OH
$5,000 Sen Jay Rockefeller WV

Pelosi paid
$2,500 John Adler NJ
$10,000 Jason Altmire PA
$10,000 Andre Carson IN
$10,000 Joe Donnelly IN
$10,000 Gabrielle Giffords AZ
$10,000 Baron Hill IN
$10,000 Ron Klein FL
$10,000 Tim Mahoney FL
$10,000 Harry Mitchell AZ
$10,000 Patrick Murphy AZ
$10,000 Joe Sestack PA
$10,000 Carol Shea Porter NH
$10,000 Zach Space OH
$10,000 Niki Tsongas MA
$7,500 Nick Lampson"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:50 PM on 08/20/2008
photo

And you wonder why no one trust b i l l a r i e s people. Look in the mirror. Go away and stop hold REAL Americans hostage!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:55 PM on 08/21/2008
photo

AMEN! I can't believe these Clintonistas or the couple, themselves. If they get four years of McCain, I hope they suffer like h e l l. Actually, we all will.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 08/22/2008

It's good to see that Bob Remer along with other democratic special interests is concentrating on what's most important in this election.

The philosophy of, "Give me what I want or you won't get my support." appears to be the prevailing ideology of the Democratic Party. Anyone want to take a guess why we've had eight years of Bush? The Republicans seem to do a much better job of keeping their collective eyes on the ball.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:25 PM on 08/20/2008
photo

The Clinton way...unde­rmine the guy who won. they disgust me. The causes were fine when Hill Billy was winning them. Just like not allowing MI and FL to be seated was fine till she needed them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:32 PM on 08/19/2008

It's been said that the Clintons can't stand losing, won't accept it. I believe it. The Clintons have had their time. They have reaped the rewards of everything this country has had to offer: top notch educations, public office, books published with million dollar contracts, influences in business and governments around the world, and speaking engagements paying them in the hundreds of thousands.
Have they given back equally in return? I'm not so sure.

The caucuses bring people together to debate candidates and issues, require people to make active commitments to a party, require more than just checking off a name on a ballot. I would argue that caucuses are a better mode of democracy than voting in a primary because they demand presence, participation, knowledge, and the ability to persuade.

This is simply a ploy to appease the grievances of the Clintons and the DLC. It's a waste of effort and will have deleterious effects if it is allowed to go forward.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:42 PM on 08/19/2008
- Aesthete I'm a Fan of Aesthete 31 fans permalink

I think that many Hillary backers seek to "punish" Iowa for choosing Obama overwhelmingly over her (Edwards came in a respectable second place). In this instance, I do believe that the outcome would have been quite similar whether the system was a caucus or a primary. In the early fall of 2007, it became apparent to me that many with whom I spoke or heard from simply did not favor Hillary as their choice. It's as simple as that. No amount of dinking around with or seeking to micromanage the system would have changed the outcome. The voters spoke loud and clear. Hillary came in at an embarrassingly distant third. It seems that she did not come around very much or or took us for granted, being a state that is 96% white. In fact, some caucus votes had to be donated to her campaign in order to keep her viable as we needed to produce three viable candidates. Actually, the results for her cause might have been far worse if the Iowa caucus had instead been a primary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 PM on 08/19/2008

This seems to be an MO of the 0bama-supporters. Post a personal observation, which may or not be true, and have it set the norm for what happened in any incident. How may anti-Hillary comments end with, "and I am a 66 year old white woman, or when pushing a black attitude, "I am a 5O year old black man." Now some of these posts may be perfectly legitimate, but I for one am so suspicious of anonymous posting pushing personal agendas with made up facts. Just an observation. Same is true with the caucus....­so many "I was there, and.......­...."

The biggest negative about caucuses as I see it is that it is a function of the very deeply committed political people....­.people with their own agenda. It does eliminate and silence the voice of citizens that for one reason or another are not able to participat­e.........­.the elderly, the shift workers and others. The biggest demonstration of the division of the caucus vote and the primary vote...(op­en to all for a longer period of time enabling more people to participate) was the vote in Texas. One person won the primary and another won the caucus. it ended up that the person who won the caucus got more delegates than the one who won the primary. This example of Texas should demonstrate the undemocratic aspect of caucuses.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:17 PM on 08/19/2008

When you get rid of the caucuses because they do not represent the will of the people, get rid of the electoral college also for the same reason.

Good luck with that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 PM on 08/20/2008
- Aesthete I'm a Fan of Aesthete 31 fans permalink

Do not try to "rationalize" away the facts cited in my post. They are real and the people who participated in the caucuses were ordinary citizens, not political hacks. Hillary simply lost. Why can't you people accept that fact? Although I'm an Obama support,er I , too, was somewhat surprised at the outcome. A year ago, I would have sworn she'd be the nominee, but that's not what happened.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 PM on 08/21/2008

Justsaynodeal: As someone who witnessed the fiasco in Texas, the damage was done at the local level and there were over 2000 recorded instances of misconduct carried out by paid college students who were Obama supporters. They disrupted the caucuses and intimidated the more mature voters who supported Clinton. The "anything to win" attitude was praised as being "organization" on the part of the Obama campaign.
There appears to be nothing that can be done at this point about the current nomination but all good Democrats should see that it doesn't happen again. With the buying of the superdelegates, the caucus is just another way to thwart "the will of the people".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 PM on 08/23/2008
- lejoueur I'm a Fan of lejoueur 2 fans permalink
photo

New Hampshire has a better track record of picking the POTUS than Iowa. I would go off on on limb to say that this has something to do with the broader (hence truer) representation of its primary system compared to a causus state like Iowa.

Since 1920, when New Hampshire earned first-in-the-nation primary status, most expect the state to pick a winner. Only twice since New Hampshire voters have chosen a presidential nominee have they failed to pick a winner.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 PM on 08/20/2008
- Aesthete I'm a Fan of Aesthete 31 fans permalink

Not this year.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:25 PM on 08/21/2008
photo

Classic Clinton! She didn't lose because of the caucus system, she lost because she ran a bad campaign!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 08/19/2008

I know your candidate benefited from the caucus process this time, but what if the one you choose next time is not benefited? If there is a problem, and I think there is enough of a issue with the limited participation in the process, is this not a good time to evaluate that which we may have outgrown with the population growth. I can see this working fine in a small rural area....bu­t elsewhere it might eliminate hundreds/thousands from having a voice in selecting the nominee for POTUS.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:26 PM on 08/19/2008
- STParker I'm a Fan of STParker 10 fans permalink
photo

Just popped in to say that a national primary is an epically, and laughably STUPID idea. Why not just auction the election to the highest bidder every four years?
The same celebrity-mongers who almost handed us Hillary Clinton (yes Hillary Clinton was an uber-celebrity among the Oprah set LONG before Obama became the "messiah") will just choose the most popular and richest Democrat every four years, and leave us next to no time to consider it at all.

stupid. stupid. stupid.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 AM on 08/19/2008

"Why not just auction the election to the highest bidder every four years?"

Some think this is what happened this year......­...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 PM on 08/19/2008
- yhgtup I'm a Fan of yhgtup 12 fans permalink

Ain't life a @@@@@!!!! After the black man wins, the rules need to be changed! They've been sufficient all these years, TILL NOW!!! Go figure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 08/19/2008
- Cakey4814 I'm a Fan of Cakey4814 18 fans permalink

Right on target..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 PM on 08/19/2008

You are so right. It seems like this election year all the rules are wrong, reading from a teleprompter is a sin and having confidence in yourself is a moral flaw. They want people to believe that inexperience and not race is the problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 PM on 08/19/2008

"They want people to believe that inexperience and not race is the problem."

Well......­..........­you may find that inexperience is THE problem. But alas, you will never believe that because it couldn't be anything except racism to the koolaid crowd.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:31 PM on 08/19/2008
- iLogos I'm a Fan of iLogos 4 fans permalink

If you really want to make things fair ignore states, run a national primary over a week where you carry counties. Have instant run-offs and allow people to rank the candidates how they would prefer them where all votes that do not gain a 15% total move to the next candidate chosen.

Done.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 AM on 08/19/2008
- Aesthete I'm a Fan of Aesthete 31 fans permalink

I participated in a caucus for the first time during this election season. I found the experience wonderful, engendering a great sense of community and real patriotism. It was representative of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" in the truest sense of that phrase. My caucus site was crowded with enthusiastic participants as many more waited in line outdoors in the early January cold for their chance to participate in this great exercise in democracy at work. I found the whole experience quite moving. I'm aware that some would love to smash this system for the simple reason that the outcome was not according to their wishes. It would be wrong, however, to allow such an attitude to destroy a great democratic system to pacify self-serving agendas. Let the people speak, be they black, white, urban, rural, rich, or poor!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:54 AM on 08/19/2008

a caucus is fine if your are a deadbeat with no job to worry about.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 08/19/2008
- olivia I'm a Fan of olivia 96 fans permalink

My town caucused at 7 p.m.

It was far easier for me to get to the caucus than fighting the mad rush at the polls between 5:30 and 7 p.m. or before work in the morning.

I seriously doubt caucus turnout has much to do with people's work. Caucuses and primaries have been lightly attended because not that many people care enough to participate.

In my state, it was the Republican primary that was the snoozer this year. The caucus had many times normal turnout.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 AM on 08/19/2008
- gapanther I'm a Fan of gapanther 9 fans permalink
photo

you would know deadbeat wouldn't you?

you can also caucus if you're smart enough to be your own and set your own hours. But that revelation would never have occurred to such a small minded person like you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 AM on 08/19/2008
photo

... or a pathetic candidate looking for excuses, beyond personal incompetence, to explain your loss. Crawled out a little late today Brad??? The Sun didn't warm up the rock early enough???

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:10 AM on 08/19/2008
- reliant1 I'm a Fan of reliant1 24 fans permalink
photo

I own a farm and run a business in town. I am no deadbeat. I could work your ass into the ground anyday of the week - and I'm a 55 year old woman.

We causcused just fine. Huge Dem turnout - put the Reps to shame. Obama all the way.

Hillory was no where to be found...th­at was her choice. No one kept kept away.

Her poor planning isn't anybodies problem but her own.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 AM on 08/19/2008

We are in for many, many testimonials now!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:34 PM on 08/19/2008

Thanks for your refreshing post. Well said.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 PM on 08/25/2008

Maybe If Senator Clinton cared more about the people who caucus instead of just caring about only the big states she would have done better. Hillarys camp was to big and important for the little caucus forums.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 08/19/2008

She sure as h*ll didn't bus people in to participate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:33 PM on 08/19/2008
- WoodyIV I'm a Fan of WoodyIV 4 fans permalink

On a whole, I believe the cuacus system is superior to the strict primary. Within a caucus, people have the opportunity to assign a greater amount of thought to their choice. Beliefs they may have, as a result of the MSM, have a chance to be challenged. In many cases this is a necessity to make a well informed choice. A primary system is more likely to produce a choice based on popularity, name recoginition, campaign funding, etc. These are all negative. The caucus has one major problem. They are not built to reach the masses, but only those who are passionate enough to devote time to really investigate the canidates. If we could expand the caucus system, that would be great! However, if we cannot, the strict primary will lead to many poor choices.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 AM on 08/19/2008
- joeinvt I'm a Fan of joeinvt 10 fans permalink

Woody

Good points, but don't they lead to the conclusion that all elections should be by caucus?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 AM on 08/19/2008
- olivia I'm a Fan of olivia 96 fans permalink

Caucuses have another advantage:

You can choose more than one person. First you declare your first choice. Then if they don't have enough votes, you reallocate your vote to another choice.

A fault in our regular elections is that it always boils down to 2 candidates so there is no way to support anyone but the 2 front runners except by "wasting a vote."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 AM on 08/19/2008

Another advantage to Caucuses is that they are not private - and your Union can coerce you into voting for their candidate - if you want to keep your job.
Plus you get to appear "progressive" for the media and the general public, by voting for the "approved" candidate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 08/19/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (16 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect