This morning the Advisory Committee on the Texas Democratic Party Convention/Caucus System met at Austin Community College to, according to an email from the Texas Democratic Party Chairman Boyd L. Richie, “studying the current convention/caucus system. Furthermore, based on the testimony taken at these meetings, the committee will then consider this feedback and possibly make recommendations for changes.”
This has been a difficult issue for this blogger to take a firm position on, in part because that the caucus system is one of the reasons that I became involved in Democratic politics. However, it would be disingenuous of me to ague a position without honestly examining the system and give an honest assessment. Which has led me to this position: the Texas Democratic Party primary system of caucuses and ballet voting is a flawed misstep.
One of the problems with the current primary system is that it dilutes votes, and it takes away from the importance of a voter casting their single vote. The saying is often heard: one person, one vote. By using this two part system you are penalizing people that in many cases cannot participate in the caucuses.
Another problem with the caucus system is voter disenfranchisement. The caucuses tend to lend towards participation by more affluent white voters. Caucuses are held in the evenings after the polls are closed, during which time those people that are employed in the evenings cannot attend. This also affects elderly voters, disabled voters, single parent voters, and voters living overseas just to name a few. Here in lies the problem; for a party that prides itself on being the party that defends the rights and liberties of minority groups they are same party that is stifling their voice.
Proponents of the dual caucus and voting system have used the argument that the system was created to increase voter turnout and encourage participation. This year 2,874,986 votes where cast in the Texas presidential primary, 839,231 votes where cast in 2004, 786,890 votes where cast in 2000, 921,256 where cast in 1996, and 1,483,047 where cast in 1992. The almost 3 million votes cast had nothing to do with the system used, and everything to do with the people of Texas (and the rest of that county) speaking out for change.
According to the United States Election Project, voter turn out in Iowa increased to 236,000 in 2008 from 122,193 in 2004 and 61,000 in 2000. However, caucus states had a lower percentage of voter turn out than non-caucus states. Iowa and New Mexico had the highest percentage in caucus states (16.3% and 11.2%), while New Hampshire and California had the highest percentage in non-caucus states (52.5% and 41.7%).
The sour grapes argument, that the opposition to the system is mainly Senator Hillary Clinton supporters who are bitter about the primary, is nothing but divisive and diversionary. Those who support Barack Obama, such as this blogger, should feel fortunate that the Democratic Party has been able to unite behind one candidate. Whether or not the primary system is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether or not you have worn an Obama or Clinton button.
The primary system needs to be changed. The Texas Democratic Party must adopt a system of primary voting only. Precinct conventions should be held on the Saturday following the election in order to give everyone an equal opportunity to voice their opinions on local issues and elect precinct delegates.
According to David Mauro, of the Burnt Orange Report, Texas State Senator Royce West said at the committee meeting that there will be four or five hearings over the next three or four months throughout Texas. Local county Democratic Party leaders should organize meetings on their own in order to provide more input to the committee.
Texas Democrats need to speak out. We need to write our Democrat Party officials, we need to speak out at the committee meetings. We need to make sure that we protect the rights of our fellow Democrats.
Should Texas Democrats really be proud of the President Bill Clinton quote, “Texas is the only place in America where you can vote twice in the same election without going to jail”?
If this year is truly about change, then we need to correct our misstep and step into the future of a truly Democratic Texas Party.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
I have to disagree with you. I think the system should stay just like it is.
For those who have neither the time nor inclination to do anything but vote, we hear their voice in the primary and they get to choose the majority of delegates.
But we also need the caucuses. This is where those who can give more to the party get to have a say (those willing to block-walk or make calls and send letters). It also allows the party to identify new people who are willing to work for the party.
What is wrong with allowing those who do more for the party to pick a few delegates? This does not dilute the primary - it rewards the party's workers.
I say again, there is nothing wrong with the current system. Let's keep the "Texas Two-Step" just like it is.
Post a Comment