Democrats: Let’s Abolish The Caucus System

I’m fully behind Hillary Clinton supporters calling for the abolition of the caucus system. This isn’t entirely noise being made for the sake of doing so because we’re mad Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama, but because the caucus system is very flawed—though, it is arguable that Clinton would have wiped the floor with Obama if there were only primaries.

Caucuses undermine core democratic values because it is a very undemocratic way to nominate someone. I think all states should be required to hold primaries instead. Caucuses are inherently unfair to the elderly, the disabled, shift workers, parents, overseas members of the military, and others whose circumstances prevent them from sitting for hours in a caucus vote. In a primary vote, people have the entire day to vote, but caucuses last only for a few hours, usually in the evening (past midnight in Texas this year) and that disenfranchises voters with obligations that prevent them from participating.

Many caucus rules profoundly violate the one person-one vote principle. For example, in certain states' rules if a precinct is entitled to elect four delegates to the county convention and the vote is 59 percent for candidate A and 41 percent for candidate B, the mathematical rules may require a 2-2 division (because candidate A did not win 60 percent). Therefore, 59 percent to 41 percent—a landslide—results in a 50-50 tie and an even split of delegates.

The worse case is in the state I live in (Texas) and that’s the “Texas Two Step” system. This year nearly three million voters participated in the March 4th Democratic primary. Then the caucus began at 7 p.m. when the polls closed. The people who voted in the primary—I’m not kidding you—may return and vote again. But not all votes are equal! Say, you live in Houston or Austin and the 2006 Democratic candidate for governor carried your precinct by a large margin, your vote could be twice or even three times as influential as if you lived in south Texas, which is mostly rural, strong Republican-dominated counties.

How is any of that democratic, particularly when the principle of one-person, one-vote is violated? Doesn't that embarrass a party that calls itself the "Democratic" Party?

Moreover the average turnout in the caucuses—which Obama did very well in—for all of 2008 was under 10 percent. Even in the highest profile caucus state of all, the “I-must-always-be-first-in-the-nation-to-go,” Iowa had their strongest caucus turnout ever this year. 218,000 Iowans made it to the Democratic caucuses that night, in a state with 2.982 million citizens, for a 7.3-percent showing. It doesn’t get any better in other states: New Mexico (11 percent), Nevada (9 percent), Minnesota and Maine (5 percent), North Dakota (4 percent), Colorado and Nebraska (3 percent), and Idaho, Wyoming, and Kansas (2 percent).

More than twenty years ago, the Democrats switched from winner-take-all contest to a proportional allocation of delegates to be more “fair.” Well, the current system is anything but fair with the silly mathematical formulas for allocating delegates.

In the Texas primary on March 4, Hillary defeated Obama by a margin of 100,000 votes out of nearly 3 million. Clinton was awarded 65 delegates, while Obama received 61. But in the Texas caucus over 42,538 caucus goers – 1.4 percent of primary voters – overturned the will of the other 98.6 percent. Talk about stealing democracy from the people by an exclusionary process. In the end, Obama won 38 delegates to Clinton’s 29. Put all this together and Obama came out of Texas with 99 delegates to Clinton’s 94, despite the fact that Clinton handily won the contest where votes were actually counted.

Look at Nevada and New Hampshire. Hillary won the Nevada caucus and the New Hampshire primary yet Obama received more delegates than her in both states.

Or look at Idaho and New Jersey.

In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for the caucus. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes (80 percent of the vote). For that, he won 15 delegates to only 3 for Clinton — a net gain of 12 delegates. In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than a million votes. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama's 48 — a net gain of 11 delegates.

Democrats…please explain, under what system does it make sense for Obama to collect more net delegates for beating Hillary by 13,000 votes in one state than she does for beating Obama by 110,000 in another?

If we kept the mathematical formula of Idaho where Obama picked up 15 of 18 delegates for winning a state with just over 21,000 Democratic votes, then, in a consistent democratic system, using the Idaho math of a net of 12 delegates per 13,000 vote advantage, Hillary’s 215,000 vote win in Pennsylvania should have yielded her a net gain of 198 delegates. Instead, she’s gained a net of only 12 delegates from the Keystone State.

In this case, an Idaho Democrat’s vote counted for 16 times more than a Pennsylvania Democrat’s vote. The system rewards blowout wins in small states and minimizes wins even of 10 or 12 percentage points in big states.

Why should a few thousand people Idaho have an absurdly large say, ultimately quelling a few million in Pennsylvania? One person, one vote? Not in the Democrats’ delegate-allocation system.

Suggestions for the Democratic Party:

One. Abolish the caucus system. Don’t try to bandage it, fix it up, or anything. Just kill it.

Two. Require all states to have primaries; do away with proportional delegate allocation and require a winner-take all system that aligns the nominating system with the Electoral College system for electing presidents—unlike many Democrats, I don’t support abolishing the Electoral College.

Three. Eliminate the super delegates. Nancy Pelosi said she opposed the idea of having super delegates from the beginning yet she was the most biased and the worst behaved. If the political big wigs want to give endorsements and try to sway voters, let them, but their advocacy should not earn any presidential candidate any sort of delegation. By all means, 800 super delegates is beyond excessive and it easily allows party insiders to back a single candidate to the chagrin of the voters. We’re Democrats—let the people decide. Step in if no one reaches the total number of delegates needed by the end of the primary season; it is a race to be elected by the people, not your colleagues.

Four. Why not have five regional primaries starting in mid-January, on a set date, maybe even on a weekend when people are off from work and have one region vote each month through May, with the order of regions rotated every four years so everyone gets a chance to go first (cf. Florida and Michigan controversy; the divine right of Iowa and New Hampshire to always go first to the anger of other states in the union.)

I think this is a sensible and fair request. While those terms are oxymoronic when associated with the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating system, I can always pray and hope.

Hillary Clinton's Letter to Superdelegates

This letter was sent to all Democratic superdelegates yesterday by Hillary Rodham Clinton before this weekend's meeting to decide the fate of Florida and Michigan and the end of the primary season on June 3rd.

Dear ___________,

The stakes in this election are so high: with two wars abroad, our economy in crisis here at home, and so many families struggling across America, the need for new leadership has never been greater.

At this point, we do not yet have a nominee - and when the last votes are cast on June 3, neither Senator Obama nor I will have secured the nomination. It will be up to automatic delegates like you to help choose our party's nominee, and I would like to tell you why I believe I am the stronger candidate against Senator McCain and would be the best President and Commander in Chief.

Voters in every state have made it clear that they want to be heard and counted as part of this historic race. And as we reach the end of the primary season, more than 17 million people have supported me in my effort to become the Democratic nominee - more people than have ever voted for a potential nominee in the history of our party. In the past two weeks alone, record numbers of voters participated in the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries. And with 40 and 35 point margins of victory, it is clear that even when voters are repeatedly told this race is over, they're not giving up on me - and I am not giving up on them either.

After seven years of feeling invisible to the Bush administration, Americans are seeking a President who is strong, experienced, and ready to take on our toughest challenges, from serving as Commander in Chief and ending the war in Iraq to turning our economy around. They want a President who shares their core beliefs about our country and its future and "gets" what they go through every day to care for their families, pay the bills and try to put something away for the future.

We simply cannot afford another four - or eight - years in the wilderness. That is why, everywhere I go, people come up to me, grip my hand or arm, and urge me to keep on running. That is why I continue in this race: because I believe I am best prepared to lead this country as President - and best prepared to put together a broad coalition of voters to break the lock Republicans have had on the electoral map and beat Senator McCain in November.

Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections. From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take back the White House. I am also currently ahead of Senator McCain in Gallup national tracking polls, while Senator Obama is behind him. And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio. I've enclosed a detailed analysis of recent electoral and polling information, and I hope you will take some time to review it carefully.

In addition, when the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries. Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee - the one who would be the best President and Commander in Chief, who has the greatest support from members of our party, and who is most likely to win in November. So I hope you will consider not just the strength of the coalition backing me, but also that more people will have cast their votes for me.

I am in this race for them -- for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American dream - the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

I am in this race for all the women in their nineties who've told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls - and little boys - whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be." As the first woman ever to be in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to them.

Finally, I am in this race because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Senator Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.

In the end, I am committed to unifying this party. What Senator Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences; and no matter who wins this nomination, I will do everything I can to bring us together and move us forward.

But at this point, neither of us has crossed the finish line. I hope that in the time remaining, you will think hard about which candidate has the best chance to lead our party to victory in November. I hope you will consider the results of the recent primaries and what they tell us about the mindset of voters in the key battleground states. I hope you will think about the broad and winning coalition of voters I have built. And most important, I hope you will think about who is ready to stand on that stage with Senator McCain, fight for the deepest principles of our party, and lead our country forward into this new century.

Seating the Florida and Michigan Delegates

On May 31, the DNC will determine what they will do with the Florida and Michigan delegates. Honestly, I think they are going to make a bad decision and pick the weaker candidate, alienate Florida and Michigan despite their attempt to compromise, and lose the general election.

"Tom in Paine" is right on in his blog post on Florida and Michigan.

"Obama's internal polling showed he was going to get get landslided by Clinton in Michigan. His own polling had him behind by 20 points. So as a political calculation and to pander to Iowa voters in the upcoming caucus he made a gratuitous public gesture of taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, both because he knew he was going to lose big and to curry favor with Iowans and their first in the nation status. But at the same time he was making a deal with the Michigan Democratic Party for his name to be represented in the primary by the line "Uncommitted" and to have that publicized.

John Edwards joined the uncommitted line and every single voter in Michigan knew long before election day that to vote for Obama or Edwards you voted the "uncommitted line. It was well publicized and everyone knew it. And the proof that they knew it is that "uncommitted" received 40.7% of the vote, the second highest total, while Clinton received 56%. The rest went to the other candidates on the ballot (uninformed journalists and Obama supporters have often said Clinton was the only name on the ballot. Not so).

But Obama topped that display about six weeks ago when he floated the idea that he and Clinton split the delegate count in Florida and Michigan 50-50 as a way of resolving the problem. In other words he wanted delegates that didn't belong to him. This was an attempt at a political mugging. He wanted delegates that weren't his, delegates the voters clearly said were meant for Clinton and delegates they clearly didn't want him to have. It was about as brazen an attempt to to corrupt the political process by a candidate for high office as has been seen in recent memory."

The Clinton/Obama War For The Democratic Nomination

I found this blogpost to be very interesting:

"Clinton has had to fight through a number of handicaps in this race. She has had to carry more weight, placed on her back by the news media, Obama's bullying tactics and party elders who seem more worried about damaging the "brand", and blowing their chances in the fall than who is the best candidate. And when Obama's lead was growing they were more worried about exposing the cracks in the Obama kewpie doll, than whether those cracks were so damaging they made him unelectable in November. The result is that every time Obama has attacked Clinton and she has hit back, she was criticized from all sides.

"The news media who has been in the tank for Obama in probably the most dishonest and biased coverage of an electoral process in history, accuses her of low tactics if she defends herself. Party elders who, if nothing else, have shown since 1996 they haven't a clue how to win a Presidential election, admonish her not to do anything that would damage the Democrats chances in the fall. Howard Dean, more afraid of not losing than making sure the Democrats win by sending out the most electable and qualified candidate, keeps talking about putting an end to race before its over. And Obama seeing that Clinton has one hand tied behind her back, has taken full advantage, taking his swings when he can, then playing victim if Clinton hits back.

...Clinton is virtually assured that she will end the primary season with the popular vote lead. And the only clear and reliable indicator of the true will of the people is the popular vote, not the delegate count given the Democrats bizarre way of apportioning delegates.

"Obama will have won close to 630 delegates in states where he was landslided by Clinton. These are delegates he would never have if the Democrats used the system that is used by the Republicans and in the general election. In that system Clinton would have close to a 500 delegate lead and would have wrapped up the nomination long ago."

Read more here.

My Comments: I think this hits it right on. Clinton through her struggles has become the better candidate over Obama. Morally speaking, she is the better candidate (she didn't vote 'yes' on killing babies that survived abortions like Obama did). If I had to choose one, it would be her. Moreover, she has overcome so many hurdles in this election process that I have developed a deep respect for her. She has had overcome so many unfair odds, she has fought back, and she is still standing.

What's more important is the ridiculous allocation of delegates. In several states, where she won, she also picked up less delegates, e.g. New Hampshire. The Democrats truly need to revise how they allocate delegates because even with the media coverage favoring Obama, etc, I think Hillary could have (and should have) won this thing long ago.

Ann Coulter 'endorses' Hillary Clinton

Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans is quite a character. She is hated by liberals and loved by many conservatives. Despite her controversial and divisive nature, I personally think she is hilarious.

For months now, she has claimed that she will back Hillary Clinton for President if John McCain wins the Republican nomination. Time went by and he did in fact win the Republican primary. She still seems to be sticking to Hillary (who she compared to Joseph Stalin and then apologized to his descendants for the comparison of Stalin to such an evil woman).

Strikingly, Coulter is serious about this. There are several videos online about her disdain for McCain and reluctant support of Hillary Clinton. I think it's humorous and insightful (she raises some good points while she is at it).

Coulter "endorses" Clinton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3DjgvBLUvk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Be5KMg__Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3zNEyAKsP8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX-0iNVYs2o&feature=related

Hillary Clinton: The "Disloyal" Democrat

Some of my devout Democrat friends have been criticizing Hillary Clinton lately for her "disloyalty." Supposedly, she has been "advocating" John McCain over Barack Obama. They cite for their evidence that a now 56% of Hillary Clinton supporters in North Carolina say they won't support Obama if he wins the nomination. This is 11% more than just last month. North Carolina is the next big primary and Obama has a tremendous lead over Clinton.

But it's not just that, in the news and in debates, she often mocks Obama for his lack of experience and idealistic nature. She makes it appear as if he is "not capable" to be president and this allows independent voters to be won over by McCain.

What's the point? I agree with her. He is running on the word change while millions of American translate that one word millions of different ways. He says that he will bring about change that we can believe in but who believes in his claim that he will achieve universal healthcare in his first term? He preaches an audacity of hope. But doesn't he have to? He has only been in the United States Senate for two years and he has the audacity to run for president?

Many of my friends who are Democrats unfortunately support Barack Obama. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Texas Primary. Actually, I voted against Barack Obama not so much for Hillary Clinton. Luckily, she won Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island to save her election bid. Hopefully she will in Pennsylvania tonight and show the Democrats that Obama is not the answer. She won Florida (everyone's names were on the ballot and Obama ran TV-ads), she won Ohio, she's leading in Pennsylvania. She can carry swing states.

But how despite her not so appealing personality has Mrs. Clinton kept herself in the primary so long? I have uncovered it (and it is amusing).

The Sen. McCain/Sen. Clinton Ad

Anne Rice endorses Hillary Clinton

PERSONAL ENDORSEMENT

OF HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT

To my readers:

Some time ago, I made an effort to remove from this website all political statements made by me in the past. Many of these statements were incomplete statements, and many were dated. And a good many of the emails I received about these statements indicated that they were confusing to my newer Christian readers. I felt, when I removed the material, that I was doing what was best for my personal vocation—which is, to write books for Jesus Christ.

My vocation at this time remains unchanged. I am committed to writing books for the Lord, and those books right now, are books about His life on Earth as God and Man. I hope my books will reach all Christians, regardless of denomination or background. This has become my life.

However, I have come to feel that my Christian conscience requires of me a particular political statement at this time.

I hope you will read this statement in a soft voice. It is meant to be spoken in a soft voice.

Let me say first of all that I am devoutly committed to the separation of church and state in America. I believe that the separation of church and state has been good for all Christians in this country, and particularly good for Catholics who had a difficult time gaining acceptance as Americans before the presidential election of John F. Kennedy. The best book I can recommend right now on the separation of church and state is A SECULAR FAITH, Why Christianity Favors The Separation of Church and State, by Darryl Hart. However there are many other good books on the subject.

Believing as I do that church and state should remain separate, I also believe that when one enters the voting booth, church and state become one for the voter. The voter must vote her conscience. He or she must vote for the party and candidate who best reflect all that the voter deeply believes. Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.

My commitment and my vote, therefore, must reflect my deepest Christian convictions; and for me these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ in the Four Gospels.

I am keenly aware as a Christian and as an American that the Gospels are subject to a great variety of interpretation. I am keenly aware that Christians disagree violently on what the Gospels say.

I am also keenly aware that we have only two parties in this country. Only two. This point cannot be emphasized enough. We do not have a slate of parties, including one which is purely Christian. We have two parties, and our system has worked with two parties for generations. This is what we have.

I feel strongly that one should vote for one of these two parties in an election. I suspect that not voting is in fact a vote. I suspect that voting for a third party, when such parties develop, is in effect voting for one of the major parties whether one wants to believe this or not.

To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.

I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.

I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs. Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.

And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure—as a student of history—that Americans should give up the right to abortion.

I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.

The solution to the horror of abortion can and must be found.

Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers—that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.

There is a great deal more to this question, as to how abortion became legal, as to why that happened, as to why there is so little talk of the men who father fetuses that are aborted, and as to the human rights of all individuals involved. I am not qualified as a student of history to fully discuss these issues in detail. I remain conscientiously curious and conscientiously concerned.

But I am called to vote in this, our democracy, and I am called, as an American and a Christian, to put thought and commitment into that vote.

Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs—on a whole variety of issues—most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.

I want to say something further. I am aware as a Christian writer that making a political statement like this is not a particularly wise marketing move. But my Christian conscience compels me to make this statement. My Christian conscience demands that I not lie in order to sell books. Lying to sell books, pandering to a Christian market—these things would mean the deepest betrayal of my vocation to live for and write for Jesus Christ. I repeat: I won’t lie to sell books.

I have felt a certain pressure of late to express my feelings here; that pressure is mounting. That pressure has come from watching political debate on church and state in the media, from private emails from strangers and friends concerning these issues, and from conversations, often heated, with my fellow Christians and Americans.

My commitment to Christ compels me to respond to that pressure and to speak out on issues that I think are of crucial importance: whether or not we vote, and how we vote, and how our vote reflects our deepest moral concerns.

I repeat: I am a Christian; I am a Democrat. I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

If I receive emails on this issue, I will do my best to answer them.

Anne Rice
August 10, 2007

Anne Rice talks about being Catholic, pro-life, and a Democrat.