DeAnneTexas Caucus - Part 2
March 30th 2008 18:47
Well, the second phase of the Texas caucus didn't make me feel much better about the process.
I wrote a few weeks ago about my first experience with the caucus process in Texas. I had hoped that the second phase - the county convention - would be better. It wasn't.
The first phase of this process took place on the evening of the Texas primary - March 4. After the polls closed, anyone who wanted to take part in the caucus - and had voted in the primary - was able to participate. It was chaos, but we finally got it done. We all had to sign in and be verified (to prove we were eligible). Then we divided into supporters of Clinton and supporters of Obama. If any were undecided - they would form a separate group (but none were in our precinct). Though the application of the process was chaotic, the result was fair. Our precinct was allowed a total of 10 delegates to the county convention, based on the vote of a previous election. Because of the ratio of Clinton supporters to Obama supporters, we chose 8 delegates and 8 alternates from the Clinton supporters and 2 delegates and 2 alternates from the Obama supporters. We were all told to attend the county convention on March 29 at 10:00 am.
Again, chaos! The line was long to sign in, and the process slow - because everyone had to be verified again by the list of chosen delegates and alternates (which was full of errors so that several of us had to be re-verified by going back to the original paperwork). Only delegates would have a vote in the convention. The convention finally began. We were again divided - but by precincts, not by whom we supported. We were to choose a total of 11 delegates by voting (in addition to some who were automatically delegates to the state convention because of their service to the Democratic Party, and one "At Large" delegate chosen by a committee).
Anyway - each group was to choose 1 delegate and 1 alternate - with one group getting to choose 2 of each (because they represented a larger part of the community). Once this process began, we found that not all of our delegates (the ones who had been chosen at the first level) were there. Though we had plenty of alternates on hand, they were not to be allowed to vote, because they had not been verified as delegates. What exactly is the point of having alternates there if they are not going to take the place of delegates who are not available?
I found this entire process to be unfair and misleading. Once we were done with this process, the ratio of supporters for the different candidates had changed. Why did we not divide into groups who supported the different candidates as we had done in the first phase? The ratio principle could have been used again. I don't understand why it wasn't.
I was selected as an alternate to the next phase. I could have been a delegate, but I didn't want to. This process is flawed, and I don't really want to continue to be a part of it.
I was thankful, however, that a resolution was passed (unanimously) to eliminate the caucus. I hope it passes at the state level. If it is not going to be conducted in a fair and balanced way, we shouldn't use it at all. I sure hope my delegate is able to make it to the state convention, because I really do not want to go.
Election reform is needed. Locally, at the state level, and nationally. This entire process (not just the caucus, but the whole primary and the electoral college process) is outdated and flawed.
I wrote a few weeks ago about my first experience with the caucus process in Texas. I had hoped that the second phase - the county convention - would be better. It wasn't.
The first phase of this process took place on the evening of the Texas primary - March 4. After the polls closed, anyone who wanted to take part in the caucus - and had voted in the primary - was able to participate. It was chaos, but we finally got it done. We all had to sign in and be verified (to prove we were eligible). Then we divided into supporters of Clinton and supporters of Obama. If any were undecided - they would form a separate group (but none were in our precinct). Though the application of the process was chaotic, the result was fair. Our precinct was allowed a total of 10 delegates to the county convention, based on the vote of a previous election. Because of the ratio of Clinton supporters to Obama supporters, we chose 8 delegates and 8 alternates from the Clinton supporters and 2 delegates and 2 alternates from the Obama supporters. We were all told to attend the county convention on March 29 at 10:00 am.
Again, chaos! The line was long to sign in, and the process slow - because everyone had to be verified again by the list of chosen delegates and alternates (which was full of errors so that several of us had to be re-verified by going back to the original paperwork). Only delegates would have a vote in the convention. The convention finally began. We were again divided - but by precincts, not by whom we supported. We were to choose a total of 11 delegates by voting (in addition to some who were automatically delegates to the state convention because of their service to the Democratic Party, and one "At Large" delegate chosen by a committee).
Anyway - each group was to choose 1 delegate and 1 alternate - with one group getting to choose 2 of each (because they represented a larger part of the community). Once this process began, we found that not all of our delegates (the ones who had been chosen at the first level) were there. Though we had plenty of alternates on hand, they were not to be allowed to vote, because they had not been verified as delegates. What exactly is the point of having alternates there if they are not going to take the place of delegates who are not available?
I found this entire process to be unfair and misleading. Once we were done with this process, the ratio of supporters for the different candidates had changed. Why did we not divide into groups who supported the different candidates as we had done in the first phase? The ratio principle could have been used again. I don't understand why it wasn't.
I was selected as an alternate to the next phase. I could have been a delegate, but I didn't want to. This process is flawed, and I don't really want to continue to be a part of it.
I was thankful, however, that a resolution was passed (unanimously) to eliminate the caucus. I hope it passes at the state level. If it is not going to be conducted in a fair and balanced way, we shouldn't use it at all. I sure hope my delegate is able to make it to the state convention, because I really do not want to go.
Election reform is needed. Locally, at the state level, and nationally. This entire process (not just the caucus, but the whole primary and the electoral college process) is outdated and flawed.
| 93 |
| Vote |
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak