Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "Many left caucuses before being counted"

[Tom Rinaldo]

Many left caucuses before being counted
By AMAN BATHEJAStar-Telegram Staff Writer
SPECIAL TO THE S-T/BRANDON WADE

Democrats stand in line to sign in for their precinct caucus at Hurst Recreation Center on Tuesday. Long lines caused many Texans to leave without being counted. No one was in charge. The rules were unclear. Confusion reigned.

The day after thousands of Texans participated in Democratic caucuses around the state, the overall disorganization of the events is getting closer attention as disgruntled voters compared horror stories...


...Kenya Whitaker of Arlington left at 9 p.m. because her son had to take the TAKS on Wednesday.

"We had been standing outside for 2 hours without any direction," Whitaker wrote in an e-mail. "There were tow trucks, because cars were stuck in the mud. It was a mess!"

The disabled, elderly, and people with young children were often the first to leave without getting a chance to participate...


...Tarrant County Democratic Chairman Art Brender spent much of the evening at Sagamore Hill Elementary School in Fort Worth, where voting stretched to 7:30 p.m.. Brender said some people who couldn't stay for the start of their caucus were permitted to sign in early, state their presidential preference and leave.

Some precincts did the same thing while others refused to allow voters to begin signing in until the last person voted.

The Texas Democratic Party's precinct caucus rules clearly state that early sign-ins are forbidden.

"No one can sign in before 7:15 pm, or when the last person has voted -- whichever occurs later," the rules state.

Even once the caucuses started, the disorder caused some to leave in frustration...."

http://www.star-telegram.com/localelections/story/514300.html

[Lucinda]

1. In heard about that happening from a friend in San Antonio

She said it was chaos and lots of people left

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Anyone who is not disgusted by caucuses has no principles whatsoever

Of all the habitual moral offenses of the typical Obama supporter, that is the worst.

Caucuses are indefensible.

People who are now in love with caucuses because the format seems to favor their candidate are vile. It's not an arguable position... it's like being in favor of lice.

[Abacus]

7. I like caucuses.

Paper and Machine ballots have problems too; e.g. Florida '00 and Ohio '04.

[thevoiceofreason]

14. Turning this into another attack is irresponsible

Obama did not set this up. He played by the same rules the Clintons did. And by the way, the Clinton's were quite happy with the process in 1992 and 1996. And it hasn't changed since then. I guess though, somehow, it's Obama's fault.

What a bunch of crybabies.

[doyourealize1]

23. OP didn't mention Clinton

You sure sound like a repug telling people that they should quit being crybabies even though some parts of an election are undemocratic.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I don't blame Obama. The rules were the same for both sides

But the more I learn about caucuses the less I like them.

And I ask for the 4th time on this thread, why have a caucus that only the people who already voted in the primary are eligible to attend, when everyone knows only a fraction of the people who voted are likely to participate in if for any number or reasons? What is the purpose? How is that more Democratic than just having the primary and giving out delegates based on the vote there?

[bigbrother05]

45. The voter is only declared as a Dem/Rep when they vote in the primary

In Texas, your party affiliation is set for the election cycle when you pick which primary to vote in. Once that happens, you're locked in for that year. If there are runoffs, you have to stick with that party until the general.

[CitizenRob]

34. I didn't understand what a caucus was before... but now that I do...

But now that I do, I like them. I don't know if I agree with the role they play in our presidential selection process, but I do like that we all get together every now and then and talk to each other.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. I'll take caucuses over Diebold any damn day. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Texas ran a perfectly fine Primary Election on the same day

with millions of votes recorded without any significant hitches. What is the explanation for the system in Texas that holds a Primary and then invites the same voters who just voted to come back and do a caucus?

[KittyWampus]

11. Bill Clinton ran under same rules STOP WHINING.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Wanting elections that work is Whining?

Democrats approved the legislation that installed Electronic Voting machines for most States around the nation also, but when they were shown not to work, it was not called "whining" to point out how that the system disenfranchises people and distorts results.

There are many sub par systems in the world that seem to do OK as long as there is no real demand on that system, but they break down when the pressure is on. That is not good enough when it comes to voting in a Democracy.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

36. Yet you think a primary where people vote into those same machines is preferable to a public caucus.

:crazy:

[stillcool]

49. It would be really nice..

if people cared about their own votes counting in their own states. Is not that the problem? Rush Holt introduced that bill after New Hampshire, that would pay states that chose to obtain paper ballots with Touch screens, and do automatic audits after each election. I don't think people care. Until after the fact. We use Optical Scan and when I first called my Secretary of State's office, the person I spoke to had never heard of a standard audit.

[libbygurl]

13. Crazy Texas rules? Out with caucuses, I say, which only disenfranchise a lot of...

...voters with its inconvenience. Truly not representative of general voter preference. Texas showing discrepancy between primary and caucus results clearly demonstrates that fact.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. Of course, since caucuses don't favor your candidate they must be unfair.

Whereas primary voting into hackable RW-owned machines, conducted during a weekday (favoring retirees and people in non-hourly wage jobs) is the apex of general voter representation.

[AX10]

4. The caucus system needs to be scrapped.

[Gruenemann]

5. Caucus ended at 3 AM (seriously)

That's not an allusion to any campaign ad. A friend of mine's caucus (in San Antonio) didn't even start til midnight because people were still voting. The caucus ended at 3.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. A caucus that starts at midnight

Nothing undemocratic about that. I'm sure buses run all night.

[Zachstar]

44. I will admit that I find starting the Caucus after Primary voting is a little extreme.

Both Clinton and Obama supporters got burned buy such late starts.

Texas is weird but the rules were set long ago and we cant really complain about them till after the GE less we give ammo to the republicans that will campaign in Texas.

Bring this back up after the GE as it needs to be discussed. In my view I think if they are going to have a hybrid.. They need to start the primary at 5AM and end at 5PM with a caucus system well set up to quickly get people in to caucus at once. Tho that is to discuss later.

Remember that Texas is a special case and is a totally different caucus as compared with other Caucus states.

[LisaM]

8. I think they are ridiculous on many levels, but turnout is one of the many problems

I've been to three caucuses in Washington state (we didn't have them every time). At the first, in 1992, there were nine people. Everything went smoothly. At the next, in 2004, we had 29 people. It was rowdy, but everything went smoothly.

This year, we had a much smaller space, and 129 people (in our precinct - there were more than 1000 in the room). Nobody could hear. People signed in late. No one seemed to know the rules. Everyone who wanted to speak for Hillary couldn't (in my precinct). We were never given a revised total of votes after the uncommitted switched. The people tabulating the votes didn't understand, and couldn't explain, how delegates were allocated. We broke down a few times approving resolutions, but other caucuses didn't do resolutions at all. People who had to work had no way of participating. I know that the Obama voters (he won handily) had a good time, but the Hillary people had an awful experience and left seething. We had no opportunity to actually "caucus" anyone. It was a madhouse, and many party rules were broken.

[marlakay]

9. This only happens once every 4 yrs

my thought on it is can't you find sitter, take a few hours off once every 4 yrs? i thought it was great going to caucus and meeting dem neighbors. i don't talk politics with them so wouldn't know if they were right or left if we hadn't gone.

as far as long lines go that is the fault of the precincts they knew ahead of time lots of people were coming and should have prepared for the extra folks.

we had about 350 people at mine and we all joked and laughed and waiting in line talking about how exciting this election was.

now voting from home by mail or in a ballot booth is so quiet and secretive its like you are hiding your vote...sure its easier and we usually vote by mail in my area and thats fine too but it was great meeting people.

[anigbrowl]

16. hear hear

if you can't find time to participate in the nomination process once every 4 years then its your problem. It's worth taking a day's holiday for and/or signing the kids out of school so they can see what it means to participate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. It isn't a social, or a public hearing, or even a Town Hall meeting

This is about electing a President, and Democrats traditionally push to make voting as easy and as inclusive as possible. Perhaps some states can't afford to hold Primaries, but Texas can and does.

[Hoof Hearted]

50. Yeah, and if you're disabled or too elderly to stand for several hours Fuck You Too right?

Quit expecting to vote you old cripples, marlkay wants to have FUN.

[Igel]

53. "find sitter"

Let's see: You have to get transportation to get the tyke to the sitter and pay $60 or so. This is a positive virtue. It affects one portion of the population more than others, no matter.

Once there, you may be standing for a few hours. Hard if you're in a walker or just infirm.

But if you want a photo ID that requires that you get to the DMV and costs $30, that's a poll tax. This is a horrible crime in that it affects one portion of the population more than others.

If you don't provide accommodations to those with special needs at a polling station, it's also a crime. Literally.

Personally, I found it hard to go to the caucus. My vision's going a bit strange--it's a symptom, not an ailment--and so it was hard to be outside and be looking around. I couldn't just sit there and close my eyes to give them a rest, not with a busy parking lot 5 feet away and a four-year-old boy that I have to look after.

Voting should be free, require no more transportation than needed to get to the polls (with that being avoidable), and quick; it should accommodate a variety of schedules. I don't find that I need more of a social life. Many areas have clubs for dems to get together and socialize.

It's an anachronism in Tx that this transplant would like to see vanish from the pages of time.

[Rageneau]

10. These are the kinds of victories Obama scores -- chaotic ones.

Obama comes out on top when the battlefield is a free-for-all caucus that favors organized mobs of primarily young, single and affluent people.

But when rank-and-file registered Democrats cast secret ballots on precribed days in an orderly and fair manner, Hillary wins.

[XemaSab]

19. And in the last two elections, when Americans

cast secret ballots on precribed days in an orderly and fair manner, Chimpco wins. :eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. So you advocate abandoning elections for caucuses instead?

Seriously, is that your position?

[XemaSab]

27. I'm saying that caucuses are impossible to throw

unlike BBV.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. They can be thrown the old fashioned way

Chaotic record keeping, making participation difficult for average voters so machine forces have undue influence, in your face voter intimidation etc.

For decades Democrats have fought to increase voter turnout in America. It doesn't matter where you look, participation in caucuses is always 1/5th to 1/20th the participation in primaries.

Democrats have fought to protect the secret ballot, not to move away from elections. Talk about throwing out the Baby with the bath water.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. And that doesn't even get into vote trading and collusion,

and political alliances of convenience where camps "loan" voters to each other to help deny an opponent delegates by monkeying with the viability thresholds.

[xmas74]

43. Really?

I remember attending MO's last caucus in 1992. At the time I couldn't participate because of my birthday (I didn't turn 18 until after the caucus.)

I remember the intimidation tactics used during the caucus. Nasty things were said to each other in an attempt to get people to side with their candidate. Honest-to-goodness threats were made to the same effect.

Voting-wise, at least people feel safer. My one and only caucus (1996 was Missouri's first real primary) was an eye opening experience. Before I thought it was all kum-bi-yah crap. Instead it was so much more. From what I understand there were people who refused to participate in the caucus because of the past intimidation tactics.

Besides, in my state you can still choose to vote via paper ballot. I did so a month ago and plan to do so again in April. (Local elections-city council, school board, etc)

[Barack_America]

12. Welcome to the voting conditions that college students and people in inner cities...

ROUTINELY face.

[Zachstar]

46. Agreed

Tho I think it is wrong for anyone in a caucus to get rude and crappy. This is why it is so important in my view to take your video camera with atleast 2 hours worth of time memory. to these things.

See we are moving into an era where such horror stories do not hold as much weight when you have video cameras smaller than a thumb that can be bought. If a caucus has 100 people in it. Someone OUGHT to have a video camera. If you cant afford a video camera then take a tape recorder..

However please check the rules of your local precinct first. Also be aware that you need to mostly keep your camera pointed DOWN (To get audio) except when there is something that needs to be documented. Then take whatever steps you can to document the situation but do NOT film their faces. Legal action is a bitch.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I asked above but no one answered...

Why does Texas need a caucus when they have a full Primary on the same day?

[MagickMuffin]

18. The reason for the confusion is because VOTERS do not take the time to educate themselves

If people took the time to research what a caucus is, how to participate, then there would not be the confusion that so many Texans experienced.

I had never participated before, but I educated myself. I went to 3 training seminars. There is NO recuse for Voters to be so ignorant.

I ended up having to run my precinct caucus because our precinct chair did not show up. Everybody there only wanted to sign in and leave. Only a held full of people wanted to be delegates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Yes, and I appreciate your effort

But people understand elections. They know about polling stations and secret ballots. You had a primary, and that worked fine.

[MagickMuffin]

31. And the caucus is more than just allotting delegates

We get to pass resolutions for our next two conventions (county/state) before the national convention. These resolutions then become the Texas Democratic platform to be adopted at state and then national.

There is no reason under the sun, voters shouldn't educate themselves.

Whether it is the primary or caucus, people should educate themselves on the process.

I wasn't excited about our caucus system, but if people knew how the process works then there wouldn't be all the problems we experienced. I now respect our process, since I have taken the time to learn about it.

Most of the voters/caucus participants were senior citizens. There was no excuse for them not to know the system, since it has been in place for decades.

Another thing that screwed up the confusion, is that early voters were told to come back to where they voted early which was incorrect. They should have been told to caucus at their precincts. The TDP needs to educate poll workers, election judges, and precinct chairs. The more informed our officials are the better the voters are served.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I always approve of informed voters, no argument there

And I think caucuses work great for some internal issues, such as debating and approving or rejecting Party resolutions. But we both know that the overwhelming turn out for the Texas Caucus this time had nothing to do with resolutions. People were concerned that the candidate support they gave while voting in the primary not get undermined by the results obtained through a lesser number of people gathered later at a caucus. Overwhelmingly that was the only reason why people attended, and they cared little about other matters.

[Bongo Prophet]

33. I have similar concerns, Tom - esp. access for all. There are some pluses, too.

I agreee with MM on promoting an engaged citizenry, and the progressive nature of bottom up resolutions. After learning about the history, it lessened my "disgust" somewhat. The points about poll workers and the Tx dem party and clueless voter are all real problems.

We can't really discuss this in the heat of primary season, because the biases to the "candidate of choice" skews the conversation. Maybe later? I hope so - I am open to debate about it, and would like to hear all pros and cons. Right now, I would tend to scrap it for electing the presidential nom - while keeping some process for resolutions and convention system. But I would NOT characterize anyone who liked it as "vile" as a poser above did, nor would I praise or condemn for short term pleasure, or to rile up GDP.

Because Obama does better in caucuses, having a better ground game, Hillary voters are angered. If she were doing better in those, there would be less outrage. If Hillary was best at it, Obama voters would be upset. And so on.

The pros and cons would still be there. And there are several.
One VERY positive aspect is transparency. the votes are out in the open, and all sides can monitor that fairness.
I feel more confident in the vote I cast in the caucus than I do in the vote I ran through the optical scan, and MUCH more than I do on the new computerized machines.

Even so, if a crooked chair or someone in the dem offices changed it, there ya go. Always a week link - but that is POST caucus, when the results are filed. In the caucus itself, anyone can monitor the process.


We have to get to a verifiable, easy access (voting holiday!!) process that is watched from registration to vote to final counting and reporting.
Somehow, we need to apply our concerns between the voting cycles, as interest always flares up in mid election, and drops to nothing in between.

I think we agree on that, though details of how that would work are hashed out might take some clever solutions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Good points. Good post. Thanks

My quick premiminary reaction: I think caucuses work best when they deal with the type of matters that are only of concern to a minority of people who are hands on involved on an ongoing basis. Party business, local politics etc are perfect for that.

Although I have some qualms about Presidential caucuses, when they take place in an environment where the public is accustomed to them and in general takes them very seriously, they have some merrit. Iowa comes closest to that for me. They are well attended by people who usually have studied the candidates at length, AND THEY ARE WELL RUN. So many things can do wrong with caucuses but Iowa seems to do them as well as they can be done.

I simply do not see a good reason for having a presidential caucus on the same day in the same state with the same people who just voted in a presidential primary.

[JackORoses]

24. Damn, Obama could have kicked her ass even worse if this hadn't happened

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Or if there were more caucuses voting at 3:00AM

When a lot of young folk are still going strong while elderly voters are fast asleep. Heck anything after 9:00 pm would probably be good enough to really skew the demographics.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. And a lot of young people are working 2 jobs to get by while retirees have all day to vote.

No system is completely fair to everyone.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. No system will ever be completely fair, granted

But a 14 hour window within which to potentially vote, along with provisions for early voting. offers the lowest barriers to participation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Several hundred views and NO ONE can defend this

No one has offered an argument, not even a BAD one, for why the results of a State wide Primary should be be distorted by events like those described in this story. No one has defended the reason for even HAVING a caucus immediately on the heels of a primary. I have my own theory, but I am wondering what other people think.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. I've noticed that when DUers issue these kind of ultimatums

They are never satisfied with any explanation. They just keep moving the goalposts.

At any rate, I'll take a stab. I'm thinking that the purpose of the caucuses in addition to the primaries was so that dedicated party activists (IOW the kind of people who would normally show up for a caucus) would have more weight in the process. It was never expected to have a massive turnout like there was last Tuesday. The woman who was the precinct chair at the one I volunteered at said the last primary caucus she attended in the same precinct had about 10 attendees.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. I think you are right

Goalposts remain firmly in place :)

I have mixed feelings about that rational for holding the follow up caucus, but if the matters being voted on there are internal to Party mechanics, or local in scope, that makes a degree of sense to me. The activists are the people left holding the bag when there is a vote to organize a larger convention, or operate the party mechanics under some new set of rules imposed on them. But in a scenario like the one we just had in this presidential contest, it became more of a re run using a different set of rules than the primary that just was held. And the system wasn't in place to smoothly operate under this type of stress.

[Igel]

55. I'll add to it. For TX.

Primary : caucuses :: caucuses : superdelegates

In each duple, the leftmost term is a larger sample of people, and the people are, on average, less involved in the process, in the party, than those on the right. The leftmost term in each duple is more inclusive, with a wider base.

The rightmost term of each duple is more invested in the party, probably knows more, and can act as a remedy or corrective for the excesses, errors, or lack of knowledge of the larger group. The rightmost term of each duple also has more impact per vote and is a more elite group, priding itself on its power and sagacity.

In each case, each group is also resented by the next larger group for having the potential to override that group's wisdom.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure if I just wrote a defense or a denunciation of the system.

[Zachstar]

47. Put the topic on bookmark and save it till after the GE please.

We cant risk the small chance the democrats can take Texas in November to debate this now. Texans do not like to be told their stuff sucks and it could be quite bad to discuss this now.

Look I am not trying to blow you off. There are concerns on both fronts. But after the GE we will go back to the normal mode at DU and the discussion will not go in and out rapidly as GDP cycles a page cycle every 20 mins or so.

Actually I think the issue of Primary Vs Caucus is so important that after the GE I think DU needs a whole dedicated forum to the debate. For 3 years we can debate and send our views to party leaders.

What say you?

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. I think you are being very reasonable n/t

[blogslut]

54. Our Hybrid is progressive

The results of the precinct level caucus weren't even due until today. The paperwork is filled out by hand by every precinct chair/secretary in a state filled with hundreds of precincts. But that's just the first stage. There's a county delegate election and a state delegate election. The absolute, final number won't be determined until June.

The press reported the Texas Two-step wrong. They tried to turn a slow dance into a snappy jingle. They blew it.

[HughMoran]

48. I'm not a big fan of the caucus system

This primary season has really amplified some of the flaws of the caucus system.

[zarath]

52. Nor am I, but...

...it should go without saying that we don't change the rules in the middle of an election. The caucus system, especially in Texas, needs to change, but no changes should take effect before 2009 at the earliest.