RK ARCHIVE - It's time for a Democratic Process in Virginia

A primary offers the most open and accessible method for Democrats to choose their Democratic candidate. The national Democratic party saw long ago the need to put the choice in the people's hands rather than bringing delegates to a convention, coupled with off-the-floor caucuses, to select a Presidential ticket. Moving to the primary selection process nationally has been positive and I believe gotten many more Democrats into the party and likewise much more involved in the process. Years ago, I joined a local NC Democratic committee in a Presidential election year. When it came time to select convention delegates (still under the old system), myself and other young 'progressive' members were quickly shooed out of the way, kept out of the process, and the delegates that were selected to go to the national convention were representing George Wallace. I was young and incredibly discouraged. I left the committee and just started working for candidates on my own.

In 2004 when I again had more time to work for Democrats I joined my local Virginia committee but soon found out that the committee itself operated just like what I had experienced back in NC...the members were kept out of the process and those who wanted to use the Leadership Manual's guidance to cobble precinct operations guides for members were thwarted, literally, told we wouldn't even be given maps. And we had a very unhappy scenario in trying to introduce bylaws into the committee. We, who wanted change, figured that that was the only way to allow the committee to be run democratically. So, under pressure from us, the Executive Committee wrote the bylaws. However, the Committee's Chair didn't give the members a chance, at a committee meeting, to go over each Article separately, amend it, and then vote it up or down. When the bylaws were finally brought to the committee meeting in 2006, an immediate vote was sought. I objected and was then shouted down (no Roberts Rules of Order here...they were even excluded from these bylaws one of the officers stated). I didn't stick around (I was the last of "the group-who-wanted-change" to leave). But like before, I ended up working on the "outside".

Further as I've mentioned in an earlier diary, the 2005 reorganization process was hi-jacked by the committee's leadership. In the summer of 2005 I volunteered to work on a delegate's campaign and my husband and I devoted an enormous amount of time to the campaign. In the last months, it was literally full time. I was busy with the campaign and had never been through a reorganization process in Virginia. The 2005 reorganization subject had never been on the agenda at any of the meetings prior to it occurring. We members only learned of the reorg and its date just 13 days before the reorganization in an e-mail. The e-mail stated that you had to have the attached Declaration of Candidacy form back to the Chair or Vice Chair in just 5 days in order to be able to re-join the committee and then vote on officers right after the reorg. The e-mail was sent out only to the committee members ....the leaders decided that all the other county Democrats wouldn't be sent the e-mail telling them about the reorg.

The same officers were re-elected for yet another 2 years and the 2006 Democratic turnout and Democratic results were worse than ever: Percentage of votes in the county -- Warner 46%; Kaine 44%; Webb 42%. .

To conclude, having seen insiders control the selection of delegates for a presidential candidate (Wallace) and then 30 odd years later still seeing how the caucus method can be used to keep Virginia Democrats out of the elective reorganization process, I say that caucuses are undemocratic, exclusionary, and unbecoming the Democratic Party.

Now instead of telling me that I should just get in there and still fight for change, I think it's high time that the Democratic Party of Virginia address this situation where a the control of few can exclude the many. Primaries may be more trouble and more expensive, but what is the price that you'd be willing to say...."being democratic just isn't worth it."

Comments

Inside or Outside the Box? (Dianne - 1/28/2007 9:10:58 PM)

Geez, I'm just going to go away. This just isn't worth it! Guys, I had wanted RK readers to talk about looking at a problem from a new perspective without preconceptions (i.e., we've always done it this way). In my diary I've set up the proposition that possibly caucuses aren't the best way to attract Democrats to the Party (and it doesn't matter whether we are talking reorgs or candidate nominations).

If you want to call me a whiner, you've succeeded. Now put your condescension aside and how about taking the time to start thinking instead of just criticizing.....

I've included the following from Canadaone.com:

Inside The Box
Thinking inside the box means accepting the status quo. For example, Charles H. Duell, Director of the US Patent Office, said, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." That was in 1899: clearly he was in the box!
In-the-box thinkers find it difficult to recognize the quality of an idea. An idea is an idea. A solution is a solution. In fact, they can be quite pigheaded when it comes to valuing an idea. They rarely invest time to turn a mediocre solution into a great solution.
More importantly, in-the-box thinkers are skillful at killing ideas. They are masters of the creativity killer attitude such as "that'll never work" or "it's too risky." The best in-the-box thinkers are unaware that they drain the enthusiasm and passion of innovative thinkers while they kill their innovative ideas.
They also believe that every problem needs only one solution; therefore, finding more than one possible solution is a waste of time. They often say, "There is no time for creative solutions. We just need THE solution."
Even great creative people can become in-the-box thinkers when they stop trying. Apathy and indifference can turn an innovator into an in-the-box thinker.
In only one case is in-the-box thinking necessary. This comes from a cartoon: a man talks to his cat and points to the kitty litter box. He says, "Never ever think outside the box!"
--------------------------------------------------------
Outside the Box
Thinking outside the box requires different attributes that include:
Willingness to take new perspectives to day-to-day work.
Openness to do different things and to do things differently.
Focusing on the value of finding new ideas and acting on them.
Striving to create value in new ways.
Listening to others.
Supporting and respecting others when they come up with new ideas.

If you don't like thinking about or discussing ways to bring more Democrats into the process or don't find that it might be worth a discussion, then that's fine and the subject will be dropped.

Fascinating stuff! (cycle12 - 1/28/2007 11:12:15 PM)

Thanks, Dianne, Alice et al! I've read through your opening remarks and all the other comments in this thread, and your experiences are amazingly similar to ones with which I have either worked directly or been indirectly involved here locally over the past 30 years or so.

In an odd way, it's sort of comforting to know that these problems are repeated in other localities and states. Sometimes, when one is in the middle of emotional clashes or feeling as though he/she is on the "outside", it can be very discouraging and painful. I have witnessed many good people exit the party process for just such reasons.

When our local committee began having problems in 2004/2005, we worked through the DPVA and called on our congressional district committee representative - a neutral third party, as it were - to conduct our reorganizational caucus/meeting for us last year. He did so most ably and, accompanied by other Democrats from a neighborhing locality, helped to produce an end result that has been a totally revitalized, active, positive local committee.

We now have a group-sharing e-mail list, a monthly newsletter - in hard copy and via e-mail, an updated website, a very accurate and open accounting/bookkeeping procedure, precise minutes of regular and executive committee monthly meetings, revised by-laws and a host of other vast improvements. We were very active in Jim Webb's campaign and are quite proud of the part that we played in helping him get elected.

In regard to selecting candidates, I have mixed emotions about primaries, due primarily to the expense entailed, but there is no doubt that primaries can result in the potential of having many new faces joining the effort.

Unfortunately, in most cases, candidate selection primaries usually produce very low voter turnout and I have to balance the monetary cost of that against the possibility of involving more people in the party process.

Regardless, I enjoy spririted debate and recognize the need for occasional venting in order to clear the air for more constructive dialogue and problem-solving once it has run its course.

As I said repeatedly last year - here and elsewhere in regard to the Miller/Webb primary - please say positive things about your preferred candidate and avoid making negative remarks about the other candidate, who may just turn out to be your candidate after all!

My exact quotation was: "We all know the name of the enemy, and it is neither Webb nor Miller."

That's true at every level, and it will be particularly important to remember in this year's election processes.

Please do keep up the good, hard work, and thanks again!

Steve

Perseverance... (cycle12 - 1/29/2007 10:05:06 AM)

...is what was required in our situation a little over a year ago; it wasn't easy, and sometimes it wasn't very pretty.

First, our three elected Democratic constitutional officers and several other local party officials had to get directly involved in a telephone conversation with the DPVA in order to shed light on the situation and to start the ball rolling in the correct direction.

Ours was very similar to your dilemma (that you described here in a later response within this diary) and required extensive conversations with the DPVA, including a couple of conference calls so that all parties could discuss their concerns simultaneously. Eventually, the truth came out.

That worked to get the district chair involved and then, at our reorganizational caucus/meeting in early January of last year, we turned out over 100 supporters vs. less than 10 in the "opposition" camp, and the rest is history. As we've already been reminded - also within this diary - that is the democratic process, and I can assure you that it worked quite well for us!

At times it was angering and frustrating and, on several occasions, we almost decided it wasn't worth all the consternation and negative energy that had to be spent when there were so many positive things that we could be doing.

Once we realized what was occurring, our problems required several months to resolve but our perseverance paid off, eventually, and we've been reaping the rewards of a totally reinvigorated, pro-active local committee ever since then. New members are joining all the time and our monthly meetings, fund-raisers and other party activities have doubled and tripled in attendance in the past year.

Please don't give up, best of luck, and thanks again!

Steve

Primaries aren't necessarily more democratic (cvllelaw - 1/29/2007 12:36:23 AM)

I've been through this a lot over the years. I have seen primaries and caucuses. I've seen winners and losers. I have seen open parties and closed parties. And there does not seem to have been any correlation between "openness" and primaries.

Dianne, the experience that you recite in 2004 has nothing to do with primaries. Unless you want to have party leaders chosen by primary -- which is actually permitted under Virginia law, with the costs of the primary to be borne by the Party unless it is happening at the same time as a candidate primary -- the issue of management of the local Committee could be just as autocratic if the candidates were chosen by primary.

Let's look at what primaries do.

The main good point for primaries is that they usually involve more people in the decision-making process. They can also be useful in identifying Democrats -- folks who come to a primary have identified themselves as Democrats, though we still often have Republicans coming over because they want to influence the choice of their opponent, so that advantage is not without its problems. It is sometimes said that having a primary forces a candidate to "hone his message" -- that the candidate who learns best during the primary process about what it takes to win will fare better in the general election. There may be something to that, if only because practice is a good thing. But if there is a convention or a caucus, the same practice can be had if things are contested hotly.

The bad part of primaries is that they cost a lot of money. They cost a lot of money for the candidates. It is a rare campaign that involves paid media before a caucus, but they are common before a primary. And a primary cost a lot of money for the local government that is putting it on. Just as an example, in Charlottesville (the only place from which I have actual data), even to have a stripped down staff for a low-turnout election costs the City government $19,000. So if we had a primary to pick our candidates for City Council, and we had 1,000 people turn out, that's $19 a voter. We get 500 or 600 coming out to a convention, and the cost to the Party might be about $1,500 -- $3 a voter.

In the Webb/Miller race in Charlottesville, we had turnout that was double the state average of 3.48% -- we were at 6.78%. We had 1,556 voters, or about $13 a voter. If we had had the turnout that the rest of the state had, we'd have been looking at $25 a voter. That cost was born by the City of Charlottesville, and there was no reimbursement in the form of filing fees.

At least if the candidate who is running lives in the jurisdiction, there is the possibility that some of the costs can be recouped because of the filing fees charged. The filing fee is equal to 2% of the minimum salary for the position being sought. In Charlottesville, for City Council, that would be about $200, I think. So if we had a primary with 6 candidates vying for 3 spots, the City would get filing fees of $1,200, and the City would have expenses of $19,000. Is it any wonder that local governments don't like primaries?

Those of you in Fairfax might find these numbers ridiculously small, but I suspect that the ratios involved are fairly similar to the experience up there.

There is also the reality that we would expect to see more candidates running for a convention/caucus nomination, because they would perceive a primary as being too daunting or intimidating. Is it more Democratic, or more democratic, to have a process where more people vote for fewer choices?

Some people claim that a primary allows people who aren't insiders to participate -- that caucus rules are just intimidating. This one ticks me off, because it blames others for a failure to organize.

First, historically, only high-information voters come to caucuses, and only high-information voters come to primaries. There may be more people participating in primaries, but they are not really different sorts of folks. For example, minority participation is dismal in both caucuses and primaries. If there is a minority candidate who organizes his or her own people, that will help him or her in either a caucus or a primary.

Second, getting rules that are intelligible is always a problem, but it is one that can usually be addressed by getting good people on the Rules Committee. There is a lot of formalism that gets into a caucus -- appointing a Permanent Secretary, etc. -- that has nothing to do with anything. I wish that there were a way to dispense with that, but if we dispensed with that, folks would complain that we weren't following Roberts' Rules of Order. If someone finds the Rules intimidating, it is probably because no one said to them, "Don't worry about this stuff. None of this matters except the voting. Let's get through the folderol quickly so that we can vote." If I were organizing for a caucus, I would tell the people that I was bringing exactly that.

In 2005, we in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area had a choice between having a primary or a caucus to nominate a candidate for the 57th House of Delegates seat. Mitch Van Yahres was retiring, and the seat was an open one. David Toscano was a 12-year City Councilor, including having served as Mayor. He was seen as the favorite, and he had two challengers with much less experience in the party, and no elective experience. I personally thought that the dark horse candidates would have been better served by having a caucus, where they stood a better chance to pack the house and win, but they insisted on a primary, and because there was no cost (there was already a primary for Lieutenant Governor, and the Republicans had a primary as well), it was no problem.

The three candidates between them spent almost $200,000, and received 4,152 votes in the primary. That comes out to about $48 a vote. One of the losing candidates spent almost $100 a vote. But as I expected, David Toscano -- with money and organization and long-standing name recognition -- won.

The rhetoric surrounding the decision was heated. "Primaries are more democratic!" "Caucuses are for insider Party bosses to choose the candidate!" And in the end, it didn't matter.

I am not opposed to primaries -- there are times when they are great. They tend to work better for races -- President, Senator -- where the issues are well-known and the media are predisposed to report on both the issues and the race. But let's not romanticize primaries, or revile those who like caucuses. Both caucuses and primaries are valid means to an end -- picking the best candidate to win.

And if your Party is not being run in a democratic manner, bring a few hundred of your friends to a committee reorganization meeting and throw the bums out. THAT's the Democratic way.

Charlottesville-- (Dianne - 1/29/2007 8:58:48 AM)

Thanks for your comments and taking the time to outline what has occurred in your area of Virginia and the costs.

One thing, if I've given the impression that those who like caucuses are to be reviled, then I apologize. I don't feel that way at all.

What I'd hope to express was that, according to the Party Plan, a county Chair has the power to unilaterally decide to hold an assembled caucus to limit participation for the purpose of his re-election.

Not announcing the reorganization until the very last minute (and only in an e-mail), notifying members only, requiring an unrealistic pre-filing deadline (when a county does not limit it's membership)is all allowed under the current rules of the Party. As I said in a previous diary, the Chair notified the DPVA of the reorg date in October but did not tell the members until December, the month of the reorg. The District Committee and DPVA were both notified but neither took any action to my knowledge.

So what would be the harm in looking at situations like this -- where a Chair, using the existing Party rules, can limit the participation of Democrats -- and try to establish rules which would not allow this last-minute, get-myself re-elected ploy. And as several others have said on RK, it's not occurring just in my county.

Progressives, as found here in RK, favor progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods.

I appreciate your response and your knowledge. Any ideas you might further have would be appreciated. The county keeps moving more and more Republican and Democratic activists have walked away from this committee. Trust me, we've tried everything, so that's why I believe that the rules might need looking at.