Category Archives: Delegates

Iowa Caucus 2020 Rules — First Look

By tmess2 | Published February 17, 2019

Part of the changes in the DNC Call for the 2020 Convention and National Delegate Selection Rules were provisions governing the caucus states.  In past cycles, the results in states which used caucuses as their delegate selection process but also used a later non-binding primary showed two things.  First, significantly more people participated in the non-binding primary.  Second, the voters in the non-binding primary had different preferences than those who attended the caucuses.  Additionally, the rules in some of the caucus states created an opportunity for “mischief” at the later levels of the delegate selection process permitting a well-organized campaign to win additional delegates at those later levels and costing a poorly-organized campaigns delegates that they had apparently won on caucus nights.  The new rules attempted to address these “problems”  In particular, Rule 2.K of the Delegate Selection Rules includes requirements that caucus state have a procedure for early or absentee votes in the caucus, have a mechanism to allow participation by those who are unable to attend their local caucus at the time and location set for the local caucus, a means for reporting the “statewide and district level results for each candidate based on the first expression of preference by the participants” in the first level of caucuses; and require that “the allocation of all national delegates, be locked in at the final expression of preference” in the first level of caucuses.  However, Rule 14.B and Rule 14.E seem to suggest that caucus states might still be able a later level as the determining step.  (In primary states, these same rules require using the primary vote.)

In 2016, the Iowa Caucus (held under the old rules) did have a process by which voters could vote absentee via satellite and tele-caucuses but the satellite caucuses only elected three state convention delegates and the tele-caucuses only selected two state convention delegates.  Voters participating in either of these alternative caucuses had no role in the selecting delegates at the district level.  For those who could attend the precinct caucuses, at the precinct caucus, attendees would divide into an initial preference and determine which groups were viable (with a general 15% threshold unless the precinct was electing three or fewer delegates to the county convention).  After the initial count, attendees would have the opportunity (based on which preferences were viable or close to viable) to change their preference.  The precinct chair would report the results of this second count to the state party in terms of “state delegate equivalents” and would not result raw votes.  The delegates selected at the precinct caucuses would attend the county conventions where a similar process would occur to select the delegates who would be attending the congressional district convention and the state convention.  A similar process would again occur at the congressional district conventions and the state convention to determine the allocation of the national convention delegates selected at those conventions.  For multiple reasons (the possibility of delegates elected at precinct caucuses and county conventions not attending later conventions, the possibility of changes in preference of such delegates, delegates pledged to withdrawn candidates choosing between the remaining candidates, and the fact that each delegate chosen at a precinct meeting was a fraction of a state delegate and those fractions would be converted to whole numbers at the county convention), the report of the state delegate equivalent only provided a rough estimate of the national delegates that each candidate was likely to receive from Iowa.

We now have a draft of the 2020 Delegate Selection Rules for Iowa.  (Of course, these rules still have to go through a public comment period, be finally approved by the Iowa Democratic Party, and by approved by the Rules and By-laws Committee of the Democratic National Committee before becoming final.)  This draft gives us a first look at how the caucus states might change their state rules to comply with the new national rules.  Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention, Democratic Party, Elections | Tagged , | Comments Off on Iowa Caucus 2020 Rules — First Look

Superdelegates and Pendulums

By DocJess | Published August 29, 2018

Reprinted with Permission

50 years ago, Democratic candidates were chosen by “The Party”.

50 years ago this week, at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago, that began to change. There had been some primaries and caucuses in 1968,  of which Vice President Hubert Humphrey won a tiny amount, but “The Party” wanted Humphrey to be the party’s presidential nominee. They got that, and a whole lot of protests, and a disaster in November. Nixon won the Electoral College 301 – 191, with the remainder going to George Wallace.

Surprisingly, “The Party” formed a committee to see about changes, and some of those changes have lasted until now. To this day, delegates to the DNC are elected by voters in primaries and caucuses, and they need to reflect the diversity of the party. Delegates are required to represent, on at least the first DNC ballot, the will of the voters who elected them.

This lasted through George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976. But the internecine warfare between Carter and Ted Kennedy proved a bridge too far in 1980. Superdelegates were created by “The Party” in 1982. These Superdelegates were elected officials, DNC members, and other “important party members” and all had the right to vote in the first ballot at the DNC.

That lasted until last weekend, when the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to change the role of Superdelgates. (And yes “DNC” is the abbreviation for both the Democratic National Convention and the Democratic National Committee.) Going forward, Superdelegates will not be allowed to vote on the first ballot. Going into a second ballot would be considered a “brokered convention” — the last time that officially happened in the Democratic Party was in 1952. The most number of ballots at a brokered convention was in 1924, where 102 ballots were needed. For a full discussion of the rules changes, see TMess’ article. Unlike this article, his has specific information and no snark.  Onward and downward….

So what does this mean to us as Democrats?

It means that we have come full circle in 46 years, and that in 2020, things will look very different. Back in 2008, DCW published Superdelegate standings daily, because the final tally between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could have come down to those votes. In 2016, Clinton had a lot of “The Party” support from the Superdelegates, and thus went into primary/caucus season with a whole bunch of dedicated DNC votes that had Bernie Sanders fighting to play catch-up from Iowa onward. While the outcome wouldn’t have changed (the primary calendar was somewhat rigged in favour of Clinton) it still came across as unfair to many Berniecrats. There is a case to be made that had the Berniecrats who stayed home or voted third party in November instead voted for Clinton, Washington, DC would look very different today. But I digress.

What is the purpose of any political party? 

To get their candidates elected. Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph.

The Democratic Party is comprised of many factions:

  • The Old Guard (aka “The Party”). These people hold positions of power in the Party, and have for many years. They range from Committee People at the hyperlocal level, through the State Committees, up to the DNC. This also includes a certain percentage of elected officials, as well as the majority of the money people.
  • The Left Flank (aka “Activists”). This is the part of the party that currently most wants to see changes. They call themselves “Progressives”, which is both a misnomer and improper over time. In the current environment, they support the most Liberal of candidates and issues. They want a seat at the table.
  • The Base. These are the people who vote. They vote in all or some general elections (although often not primaries). Oftentimes, they are not “involved”. They may give a little money, but they don’t attend Party meetings, and generally don’t work for candidates.
  • The Rest of the Tent. These are people who don’t fit neatly into any of the other three categories. Many of them could be called “failed Democrats”. They generally vote a straight Democratic ticket, although will consider Third Party candidates. Often, they worked for the party many years ago, and got fed up and left. They give money to candidates, but never to the party. Also included in this group are single-issue voters. Some of them are recalcitrant voters except in presidential years, and others are incredibly active although not necessarily involved with non-Establishment candidates.

It’s a grand experiment to see who can do better in getting candidates elected: “The Party” or the others. We will see a preview of this in 2018 at the local, state and Congressional levels. There have been many Democratic primaries this year where an Establishment-backed candidate ran against an Activist candidate. The results have been mixed, but we will have a clear idea in November of which group did a better job running against the GOP in the General. Some of those GOP candidates are incumbent “moderates” (yeah, I know, but comparatively) and some are aligned with the Trumpite fascist regime.

This will have an impact on who ends up winning the presidential nomination in 2020. Democratic voters of all stripes will have choices between the Left Flank, the Establishment, and “The Famous”. Who wins which races in 2018 will certainly affect who people select. If the Establishment candidates do much better than the Activist candidates, voters may be gun-shy in 2020, and if the Activist candidates prevail, they will capture more votes. Time will tell. One thing to remember, it is the engaged who vote in primaries, not the overall base.

There is an ancillary point here. That being the party platform. That document, created by committee every 4 years, defines what each party stands for – what the party wishes to accomplish if their candidates are elected. And who writes the platform? With the exception of 2008, “The Party”. So there is a potentially interesting dichotomy of what the active party members want in terms of a presidential candidate, and what “The Party” wants that candidate, and other elected officials, to accomplish during the ensuing four years. This is going to be a bigger deal in 2020 than you probably think.

In 2008, the Obama campaign set up hyperlocal platform meetings in virtually every city and town in America. There was a format, and a list of issue positions came from those meetings. That data was sent up to the county level where it was compiled and considered, and the outcome of those meetings went to the state level. Those state documents (including DC, Puerto Rico and the Territories) went to the Platform Committee at the DNC. Only time in history.

When 2020 rolls around, people will run to be delegates. In some states, voters don’t actually choose candidates as much as they select delegates. In most states, delegates are pledged to a specific candidate. It is those delegates who, on the floor of the convention, vote to either accept or amend the proposed platform.  And so, what the party stands for may differ from what the eventual presidential nominee stands for.

An example: In 2020, one of the issues that will be considered for the platform will be Single Payer (in one or various forms). If pro-Single Payer delegates are the majority at the convention, but the eventual candidate is establishment enough to fear running on that issue, there can be a floor fight. Conversely, if the eventual candidate ran on Single Payer as a primary issue, but the preponderance of delegates are establishment, again, floor fight. Remember that the vote on the platform will occur early in the convention, and the candidate will not be finalized until later. By the way, I don’t say this often enough: READ THE PLATFORM.   You should know what your party stands for.

An old Chinese curse is “May you live in interesting times.” And we certainly are doing that now. As our party fights to wrest control of Congress and state legislatures and governors’ mansions, it is a fight between those supporting a fascist regime, and anything else. While there are some third party candidates, we can only hope to too many idiots don’t choose platform over the primary objective of dislodging the criminal, racist…..you know the rest…..

After the midterms, we will, as a party, resume our fight for the soul of the party. As an individual, think about what you want to do….perhaps you’d like to run next year for a local office, because whichever area of our tent wins out, we still need to build from the ground out. School boards control local taxes. Supervisors, Commissioners and Boards enact laws  and regulations that affect your daily life and how your money is spent on things like roads and other infrastructure. Perhaps you’re interested in becoming a delegate in 2020 – it’s not too early to learn the process and what you’ll need to do to win. And do that thinking in your spare time — we need a Blue Wave this November!

 

 

 

  Continue Reading...

Also posted in Bernie Sanders, Delegate Count, Democratic Party, Democrats, DNC, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Primary Elections, Superdelegates | 1 Comment

Delegate Selection Rules for 2020

By tmess2 | Published August 26, 2018

This weekend, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) held its “Summer” Meeting.  One of the items on the agenda was the RBC’s draft of the various documents that together comprise the rules for the 2020 nomination process.  For first time readers of this site, the Democrats have a multi-step process for drawing up the rules for delegate selection.   Typically, step one is a Festivus-type Commission in which the party head appoints a Commission drawing from all parts of the party for an airing of the grievances from the last cycle.  (Sometimes, this step is skipped when a Democrat wins the White House, particularly when a Democratic incumbent is re-elected.)  That Commission then drafts suggestions.  Step Two is the Rules and By-laws Committee (RBC) of the DNC actually takes those suggestions (and other suggestions by RBC members) and amends the rules from the last cycle to incorporate those suggestions that have the support of the RBC.  Step Three is that the full DNC then reviews and approves the new set of rules and issues them to the state parties.  Step Four is that the state parties then (taking into account both legislative changes in their state and the new national rules) draft the state rules.  Typically, the state rules need to be completed by the late spring/early summer of the year after the mid-term.  Step Five is that the state rules are then submitted to the RBC for review for compliance with the national rules and approval (or directions to make changes to comply with the national rules).

The reports out of the Summer Meeting suggests that the RBC drafts were adopted essentially intact; so what follows is based on the draft plans that were approved by the RBC:  the Call for the 2020 Convention and the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2020 Convention.   (Both linked documents show the changes to the old rules.)   There are several important details/changes in the draft documents from the RBC.  (If you want to skip the technicalities of the rules, what these may mean in practical terms is at the end of this post.)

First, the 2020 Convention will take place in mid-July.  (Call, Preamble).  The DNC will select the site later this year or early next year.  The delegate selection process will end by June 20, 2020.  (Call, Part III).

Second, the formula for allocating delegates to the states remains relatively the same.  A base of 3200 that allocates delegates based on the average of each state’s share of the popular vote (over the last three elections) and the state’s share of the electoral vote.  (Call, Part I.B).  A state can get additional delegates for going later in the process (a bonus for going in April with a larger bonus for going in May or June) and/or being part of a “regional cluster” (a minimum of three neighboring states occurring after the fourth Tuesday in March).  (Call, Part I.C).  Each state also gets 15% over its base delegation (for Pleged Party Leaders and Elected Official Delegates a/k/a PLEOs).   (Call, Part I.D).  For those territories (and Democrats Abroad) that do not have electoral votes, the rules assigns each territory a number of delegates.  (Call, Part I.E).  In terms of the composition within each state’s delegation — 75% of the base delegation is considered to be “district” delegates and 25% of the base delegation is considered to be the at-large delegation.  (Rule 8.C).  The sequence for choosing delegates remains district delegates then PLEO delegates then at-large delegates.  (Rule 8, Rule 10, Rule 11).

Third, “superdelegates” (members of the DNC, elected officials, and certain former party leaders) are now “automatic delegates.”   (Call, Part I.F&G&H).  An automatic delegate can opt to run for a “pledged” delegate slot giving up their automatic status if they win.  (Call, Part I.J).  Those attending the convention as automatic delegates will not be eligible to cast a vote on the first ballot for President, but will be able to vote on later ballots.  (Call, Part IX.C.7.b&c).

Fourth, the existing requirement that candidates for the Democratic nomination must be Democrats is beefed up by requiring candidates to sign an affirmation that they are Democrats.  (Call, Part VI).  In particular, the affirmation is that the candidate is a member of the Democratic Party, that the candidate will accept the nomination if the candidate wins, and the candidate will serve as a Democrat if elected.  (Call, Part VI).

Fifth, the rules for state delegations on the various standing committees of the Convention (Rules, Platform, Credentials) are changed to recognize non-binary genders.  (Call, Part VII.E).  Such individuals do not count toward the requirement that the delegation be balanced between men and women.  (Call, Part VII.E).  A similar change is made to the rules regarding the state delegation to the convent.  (Rule 6.C)

Sixth, there is a change to the rules regarding participation in the delegate selection process.  The current version of Rule 2.C (defining who state parties must allow to participate) refers back to Rule 2.A and its subparts.  The new version just refers back to Rule 2.A.  Whether this change is stylistic only or substantive is unclear.  This question could matter because Rule 2.A.1 requires that a voter’s party preference must be publicly recorded before a person is eligible to participate.  (Currently in states that do not publicly record in which primary a voter opts to vote, the state parties record participants in delegate selection meetings on a form signed by the participants in which the participants self-identify as democrats.)  However, Rule 13.H now requires that — if a state has party registration — any candidate for delegate must be a registered Democrat.

Seventh, in some sections, the rules replace “primary” with “process.”  (Rule 2.F&G).  The rules also now include a provision encouraging the use of a state-run primary, but still permit other “processes” (i.e. caucuses) with certain requirements, including efforts to allow participation by those who unable to attend their local caucus.  (Rule 2.K; Rule 2.K.1&8-9).  One of these new requirements is that caucus states must now record and count the initial first preference vote of attendees and the allocation of delegates to the national convention must be based on and fixed by that initial first preference vote.  (Rule 2.K.4-8).

Eighth, the timing rules remain the same from 2016 — Iowa followed by New Hamphshire followed by Nevada followed by South Carolina in February and everyone else beginning on the first Tuesday in March and all “first determining steps” — primaries and initial caucuses — occurring on or before the second Tuesday in June.

Ninth, in a minor change to the “threshold” for earning delegates, if no candidate reaches fifteen percent, the threshold will be half of the vote total of the candidate who finishes first.  (Rule 14.F).

What will be the practical effect of these changes?  If I understand the intent of these rules and the states are required to comply with them, some of the caucus states may see significant changes to how they announce results and allocate delegates.  For example, for the purpose of electing county or district level delegates, many caucus states have a period of time after the “first preference” vote to allow attendees who support a candidate beneath the fifteen percent threshold to either move to a viable candidate or persuade supporters of other candidates to join them and bump their candidate over fifteen percent.  These states then report how many delegates were won to the next level where the same process repeats with delegates only being allocated at the district and state conventions.  Under the new rules, while these same processes for choosing delegates to county conventions will continue, the initial vote will now be reported and that vote total will be what drives the allocation of delegates.  This change could lead to dramatically different outcomes from the early caucus states.

For example, in Iowa in 2016, Governor O’Malley won 0.54% of the delegates to the county conventions.  That probably translated into getting around 5-10% of the initial vote.  Those voters then went to another candidate. (Did they uniformly go to Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or was their behavior based on precinct-by-precinct deals?)  Imagine how differently the subsequent process would have gone if instead of announcing essential a 50-50 tie, the results had been Senator Sanders of Secretary Clinton winning by 10%.   Or back in 2008, Joe Biden won about 1% of the county convention delegates and Bill Richardson won about 2%.  If you again assume that translates to around 10% of the vote, who did that vote go to on the second round.  If it mostly went to Barrack Obama, think about how a three-way tie between Secretary Clinton, President Obama, and John Edwards would have impacted the future primaries.

The other big change is the one that has gotten the most attention — the loss of the vote on the first ballot for automatic delegates.   The impact of this change may depend on how these delegates act (and how the losing candidates act).  The last two competitive cycles have seen the battle for pledged delegates continue through the last primary.  In 2016, there were no other candidates who won any delegates.  In 2008, however, John Edwards won 32.  In 2004, the early “dropouts” won over 200 delegates.  If we have another close battle that goes to the last primary and no candidate wins an absolute majority (the situation in 2008), then the dropout candidates and the automatic delegates could have an impact on whether the convention goes to a second ballot.  If the dropout candidates release their delegates and request them to vote for the “winner” of the primaries, then things should work as normal (particularly if the automatic delegates make clear what will happen on the second ballot).  On the other hand, if the dropout candidates obstruct the process, there will be a second ballot on which anything could happen.  (My preference would have been for a solution that would have reduced the impact of the automatic delegates, perhaps a half-vote or quarter-vote similar to how some of the territories increase the size of their delegations.   However, that was not an option under the resolution creating this cycle’s commission.)

The change that I, for one, will wait and see what guidance is coming from the RBC is the change to gender balance to reflect the possibility of non-binary genders.  Depending on the guidance, I can see practical issues related to implementation.  For example, in most states, the delegate election process has a separate ballot for men and women.  With non-binary genders in the mix, it seems like the logical process will now be a uniform ballot — at least if a candidate self-identifies as non-binary.  (And in states that elect delegates on the primary ballot, will the Secretaries of State modify the ballot in accordance with the party’s directives — probably since the Republicans do not have separate elections for male and female delegates.)  Given the number of different scenarios for potential finishes, how do those scenarios work in practice.  (Easy if the non-binary candidate finishes in the mix for delegates or clearly finishes outside the mix.  On a uniform ballot, however, it is possible that you will have to skip over male candidates because the male slots are filled to get to female candidates to fill the female slots or vice versa.  What if the non-binary gender candidate is somewhere between the last male slot and the last female slot.)  I also know that, in my state, we have traditionally pre-assigned the “odd” district delegate slot to assure state-wide gender balance after the election of district delegates.  With the potential for non-binary gender candidates competing, I do not know if we will be able to do that (as such candidates might take the “odd” slot in some districts but not others throwing the attempt at balance off when all districts are combined.)

In short, a lot is staying the same, but the changes could make things interesting in another 18 months.

Also posted in Democratic Party, DNC, Primary Elections, Superdelegates | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules for 2020

2020 Democratic Convention — Unity and Reform Commission — Part 2

By tmess2 | Published February 12, 2018

One of the issues in the last several primary cycles — for both parties — have been the role of unpledged delegates.  There are several reasons why both parties designate certain party officials (and on the Democratic side, elected officials) as automatic delegates.  First, it removes these individuals from the competition for the “regular” delegate slots making it easier for grassroots activists to compete for a delegate slot.   Second, these individuals have a slightly different perspective than the voters.  While everyone wants the party to win the White House, state party officials are also responsible for winning as many down ballot races as possible.  Elected officials want to win their own races.  As such, in theory, if the leading candidate seems too extreme or flawed, the unpledged delegates could swing the nomination to the second-placed candidate.   Before 2016, the Republicans decided to bind their automatic delegates based on primary results in their state.  After 2016, some Republicans might regret that their automatic delegates no longer had that power given the continuing fiasco that is Donald Trump.  However, in neither party, the automatic delegates have ultimately supported the candidate that won the most delegates; so this theoretical power has never been used.

Even though this power has never been used to change the result, many Democrats have wanted to reduce the power of the automatic delegates.  The resolution that created the Unity and Reform Commission mandated that, while elected officials (Senators, Representatives, Governors) and distinguished party leaders (e.g., former presidents, former DNC chairs, former speakers/caucus leaders) would remain unpledged, DNC members would be pledged in accordance with the primary results.  The task for the Unity and Reform Commission was to make recommendations as to how to handle this process.  First, the recommendations distinguish between DNC members who represent the states (state party chairs and the DNC members elected by the state parties) and other DNC members (at-large members and those who represent groups of elected officials).  The “state” members will be bound based on the state results; and the “national” DNC members will be bound based on the national results.

On the issue of exactly how to bind these automatic delegates, the Commission did not reach a final recommendation but, instead, suggested two alternatives.   The first would just pool the delegate votes with no individual votes on the first ballot.  The second would create a mechanism for assigning the automatic delegates to specific candidates based on the delegates personal wishes with some random mechanism if the personal preferences do not line up with the required allocation.   Unlike regular delegates, however, the automatic delegates would be absolutely bound to these allocations.

An issue that was not addressed in the recommendation but will need to be addressed by the rules and by-laws committee is what happens when candidates drop out and release their delegates.  Particularly in the early states, the third or fourth placed candidates might do well enough to be entitled to an automatic delegate vote.  For “regular” delegates, the delegate effectively becomes uncommitted when his/her candidate drops out.  If you go with the pooled process, that would cause problems with those votes being locked into candidates no longer running (making a deadlock slightly more likely).  On the other hand, if you pledge the automatic delegates, the automatic delegates will tend to volunteer to be pledged to the candidates who dropped out (retaining their independence).

One other recommendation may be problematic.  The commission recommended that automatic delegates who have a role in the election process should have to maintain the appearance of neutrality.  It’s unclear if this applies to anybody beyond the state chairs who have tended to stay neutral in the primary process.  To the extent that it applies to others, DNC members tend to be experienced activists — exactly the type of people whom a presidential candidate would want to be helping the campaign get organized in a state.  Excluding these people from getting on board early may hinder the candidate who actually wins the nomination.    However, the recommendation is somewhat vague and we will need to see what the RBC does with it.

Aside from the Trump cautionary note, one other caution.  Unlike the Republicans, the system that the Democratic party uses to allocate delegates makes it very difficult for a candidate to win a majority of the delegates.  In the past two cycles, two candidates have fought it out until the end.  If a third candidate stays in for a lengthy period and does not release delegates, the reduction in the number of unpledged delegates may result in no candidate getting to a majority on the first ballot.

The RBC will be spending the first half of the year re-writing the national rules to take into account these recommendations (and any other changes that the RBC members may want to change).  It will be interesting to see the final result.

Also posted in Democratic Party, Superdelegates | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 2020 Democratic Convention — Unity and Reform Commission — Part 2

2020 Democratic Convention — Unity and Reform Commission — Part 1

By tmess2 | Published January 7, 2018

While, in one sense, it is very early to talk about who will be President of the United States on January 21, 2021, there are many people who think that process has a lot to do with results.  And the drafting of the rules for 2020 have already started.

On the Republican side, there is no public effort to re-write the rules.  Unlike the Democratic Party, the Republican party has the basic rules (which are less detailed than the Democratic Party rules) for allocating delegates to the national convention within the actual Rules of the Republican Party and require a supermajority of the Republican National Committee to change those Rules.

The Democrats, however, keep the rules for delegate selection separate from the party by-laws.  So every cycle, the rules and by-laws committee drafts those rules and submits them to the full Democratic National Committee for approval.  The starting point for these rules is the rules from the previous cycle.  However, because no rules are perfect, most contested campaigns lead to complaints about the rules.  These complaints in turn have, in most of these cycles, caused the party to appoint a commission to study whatever rules were seen as being a problem in the last cycle and make recommendations.

In response to complaints about the 2016 cycle, the party appointed a “Unity Reform Commission.”   This  Commission has now issued its report.   In the normal course of business, this report goes to the rules and by-laws committee to consider the recommendations contained in the report.  However, the resolution creating the Commission allows the Commission to bring its recommendations directly to the full Democratic National Committee if it is not satisfied with the decisions of the rules and by-laws committee.

Before going into the key concepts in the recommendations, there is one key fact about the delegate selection plan that needs to be mentioned.  The delegate selection plan represents the preferences of the national party.  However, particularly in those states that use a primary, there are parts of the process that are governed by state law.  Typically, the rules require the state parties to take “provable” steps to change the state law to bring it into compliance with the delegate selection rules.  However, even when both parties want the state laws changed or Democrats control the legislature (i.e. both houses and the governor), those running the legislature may not put the same priority on changing state law that the state parties have.  In other words, even if the final delegate selection plan includes all of the recommendations contained in the rules, the state parties may be unable to comply.  Usually, the rules and by-laws committee has approved waiver requests by the state parties when they are unable to comply with the plan due to state law, but those waivers are not automatic.

In this first part,  I want to focus on the participation aspects of the report and its recommendations.  Over the last fifty years, the Democratic Party’s rules have generally pushed for two things on the participation front.  On the one hand, the Democratic Party has required the state parties to take steps to allow all Democrats to participate in the delegate selection process.  On the other hand, the Democratic Party has required the state parties to take steps to limit participation in the process to Democrats.

This second feature of the rules got some resistance this last cycle.  The traditional rule reflects the belief of many in the party that a party should have a core set of beliefs and that the candidates chosen should reflect those core positions.  In most countries with “strong” parties, this concept that a party should pick its own candidates is not controversial.  In the U.S., however, candidates are seen as somewhat separate from the party.  As the rules make it extraordinarily difficult for candidates to run as independents, many who do not strongly identify with a political party think that it is unfair that they are excluded from the process of narrowing down the field to the two main candidates.

The recommendations of the Commission to some degree address both of the participation issues.  On the issue of making it easier for Democrats to participate in the process, the recommendations represent a continuation of the efforts of the past.  On the issue of making it easier for non-Democrats to participate, the rules reflect something of a change.

The encouraging greater participation element of the recommendations are most relevant to the caucus states.  Because each state does things differently, the recommendations will not impact all of the caucuses in the same manner.  First, a caucus-based plan must include a provision for absentee voting.  Second, the first round of voting at each location must be in writing, and the results (raw vote total) of that ballot must be reported to the state party.  (In some caucus states, the local party currently only reports the delegates won in a given caucus.)  Third, the allocation of national convention delegates will be based on the results of that first round of voting.  (In some states, the current rules allocate delegates based on the results of later rounds of voting — either at the initial caucus or at later conventions.)  Finally, the rules encourage state parties to use a government-run presidential primary when state law establishes such a primary (i.e. state parties in states like Washington and Nebraska will have to explain why they are opting for a caucus rather than using the results of the primary).

The recommendations also encourage making it easier for people to vote in the Democratic primary.  The United States Supreme Court has upheld state laws setting registration deadlines and deadlines for changing party registration.  In some states, the deadline for changing party registration predates the deadline for registration by new voters and the deadline for candidates to file (basically requiring voters to choose which party they belong to before knowing who is running or which offices will have competitive primaries).  In many states, once a person has voted in one primary, they may not switch parties in the remainder of the cycle (significant if the state holds its presidential primary on a different date than the primaries for other offices).

Because these issues involve state laws, the recommendations only require the state parties to take steps — lobbying for changes and potentially filing legal challenges — to achieve those results (the recommendations would have the rules and by-laws committee insist on state parties filing legal challenges to demonstrate that they have taken adequate steps to change the laws).  First, state parties should try to change state law to permit same-day registration.  Second, even if there is a registration deadline, the state parties should try to change state law to permit same-day changes of party registration.  Third, even if there is a deadline for changing party registration, the state parties should try to change state law so that the deadline for changing party registration is no earlier than the deadline for registering.  Finally, state parties should take steps to make the public aware of these deadlines as they approach.

Looking at the potential impact of these changes if adopted, the changes to the caucus rules are most significant.  While the report recognizes the usefulness of caucuses in building local parties, the turnout in most caucus states is significantly less than turnouts in party primaries.  (In 2016 in Nebraska, the participation in the binding caucuses was approximately 33,000; the turnout in the non-binding primary was approximately 80,000.)  The reality is that it is much harder for a voter to make (and stay for) a lengthy meeting at a specific time of the day as opposed to being able to vote at whichever time during the day is most convenient.  Rules making it simple for voters to cast an absentee ballot should significantly increase participation.

Additionally, by connecting the ultimate delegate allocation to the first round of voting, the rules changes will alter the delegate allocation in states like Iowa.  Currently, in states like Iowa, there are two big distortions in the results.  First, actual turnout in  a particular precinct is relatively insignificant.  If a precinct has thirty delegates to the county convention, it does not matter if sixty voters show up or six hundred voters are present.  The results are reported as candidate X won 15 delegates, candidate Y won 10 delegates, and candidate Z won 5 delegates.  Second, those delegates are allocated based on the second round of voting.  So in a seven candidate race (likely to occur in early states like Iowa and Nevada), voters who supported the trailing candidate in a given precinct have to switch to a different candidate.  Because a candidate who gets ten percent of the vote in a precinct gets no delegates and her supporters have to switch to one of the other candidates, the reported results overstate the support for the top candidates and understates the support for the other candidates.  Looking at the results in Iowa in 2008, the top three candidates got around 30% of the county convention delegates with the next candidate getting around 3% of the county convention delegates.  It is likely, however, that a candidate who got enough second round votes in some precincts to win county convention delegates probably had a large number of first round votes in precincts in which he fell short of 15%,  The second tier candidates may still fall short of the 15% state-wide or in the individual congressional district to win delegates, but a candidate who gets 12% while the winner is only getting 22% is more likely to last to Super Tuesday than a candidate who got 2% while the winner is getting 30%.

Because the rules on registration require state action, I am dubious on much progress taking place.  I think the caucus states can probably choose to allow same day registration/change of party affiliation at mass meetings.  A state party could probably win a case seeking an open (everybody) or a semi-closed (party members and independents)  or a closed (party members only) primary as the cases uphold the rights of parties to define who can participate in their processes.  On the other hand, state parties would probably lose a case on the registration process in light of cases finding that states have the right to protect election integrity.

Even if state parties can obtain changes to the registration rules, it is less easy to predict the impact of such a change.  It is pretty clear that the current caucus system brings in a more activist group of voters — tending more liberal on the Democratic side and more conservative on the Republican side — than a primary election would.  So the changes to the caucus system should benefit the better known establishment candidates.  Additionally, for the reasons noted above, some candidates may last longer under these rules and win more national convention delegates than they would have under the current rules.  The changes to the registration system, however, will be very election specific (as the example of New Hampshire, a state that does allow party switching demonstrates).   In some elections, moderate independents will opt to take a Republican ballot while in other cycles moderate independents will opt to take a Democratic ballot — depending on a variety of factors.

Participation is generally a good thing.  But as we saw this past year with the various special election, the level of turnout has an impact on the results.  And in the nomination process, there is always the question of whether voters loosely affiliated with the party share the ideals of the party.  As the Republicans saw in 2016, it is possible for outside candidates to use the primary process to engage in a hostile takeover.  In the Democratic Party, one check on such a hostile takeover has been the role of the unpledged delegate a/k/a superdelegates.  The suggested changes to those rules will be the focus of the next part.

 

 

 

Also posted in Democratic Party, DNC, Elections | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on 2020 Democratic Convention — Unity and Reform Commission — Part 1

Early Post-Mortem

By tmess2 | Published November 20, 2016

This election is a bitter pill to swallow because everybody got it wrong.  Apparently even the internal polls of the RNC in the last week of the campaign showed Secretary Clinton ahead.  At the end of the day, President-elect Trump managed to avoid shooting himself in the foot just long enough during the last two weeks for Republicans who were telling pollsters that they were voting for Governor Johnson or were undecided to hold their noses and come back home.  Certainly, the polls with two weeks to go encouraged the Clinton campaign to dream about states that they could go into and help Democrats in down ballot races.  The perception that Clinton would win in some ways gave permission for Republicans to hold their noses and vote for Trump to keep the margin down and for Democrats to cast protest votes for third party candidates.

It’s also a bitter pill because the race got very personal.  Since the election, I have gotten e-mails from local activists about the issues that the party needs to address.  On most of the issues, there was a plan on that issue from the Clinton campaign.  The issues, however, never got aired as the campaign focused on the flaws of the two candidates.    I don’t think that the choice of the Democratic candidate mattered on this aspect of the campaign.  In the primary, Trump also ran a very personality based campaign, slandering his opponents and coming up with labels to characterize the rest of the Republican candidates.   Certain issues that were mentioned in the DNC WikiLeaks memos were not good issues for a Democratic primary but would have proven useful tools for the Trump campaign in the general election.  Trump was such a big personality and so uniquely “not ready” to be President, it is hard to see how any Democratic campaign could have avoided the temptation to focus on Trump’s flaws and gotten the media to focus on the issues rather than the personalities.

Given the closeness of this election what needs to change between now and 2020.

Also posted in Democratic Party, Elections, Electoral College | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Meet the Delegates: Joe Smallhoover – Democrats Abroad

By DocJess | Published August 4, 2016

Joe SmallhooverJoe Smallhoover is the Chair of Democrats Abroad France. We tried unsuccessfully to find some time together during the convention, but finally a mutually workable time a few days afterwards.

While he lives in Paris now, Joe was born in Pittsburgh and raised in Upper St. Clair, PA. He attended Washington and Jefferson College and Duke University. He holds an MA in Germanic languages from the University of Virginia and did advanced studies in Europe on a Fullbright, as an exchange teacher before returning to the US to obtain a law degree from the University of Pittsburgh. He has lived in Paris since 1985, and has practiced law in France, Belgium and Germany.

DocJess: Where did you get your interest in politics?

Joe Smallhoover: I have been involved since I was in diapers. My grandfather was the Chair of the Allegheny County Commissioners from 1934 until the late 1950’s and active in the Democratic Party all his life. I grew up in that household and was treated to seeing state and local dignitaries on a regular basis and learned the ins and outs of politics.

DJ: Democrats Abroad is a group of ex-pats…

JS: Let me stop you. Often people say “ex-patriots” instead of “expatriates” as if we are not patriotic Americans. We certainly are patriotic, and one of the ways we show that is by voting. We just happen to be living outside the country and prefer to be called Overseas Americans or Americans Abroad.

DJ: Sorry, I meant no disrespect.

JS: I know. It’s a common theme we deal with.

DJ: So. If I lived outside the country, how would I join Democrats Abroad? What exactly do you do?

JS: Democrats Abroad (DA) is recognized as a state party by the Democratic National Committee and we even have our own primary. The French and English groups are the oldest within the umbrella of DA, both chapters having been formed in 1964. We have committees in 41 countries, active but less organized committees in another 20 countries, and members from 160 countries. If you are an American abroad, you can vote in the state primary of the state you lived in just prior to moving overseas, or you can participate in the Democratic primary as a part of DA.  Democrats Abroad, by the way, also participates directly in the DNC, with seats on various committees.

DJ: Is that true for the general election?

JS: Overall yes, in most cases. Federal law says that Americans living abroad can participate in Federal elections. There is a Federal ballot that can be used, or in some states, Americans abroad can file an absentee ballot for that state which would include all the offices on all the other ballots for that state. However, some states will make you pay state income taxes if you vote on the state ballot because it establishes part of a residency requirement. Some states won’t charge taxes. It’s a fluid situation as states do change their rules over time. I lived in California just before I moved to France, and it used to be that you had to pay state taxes to vote absentee in state and local elections, but that was changed a few years ago. Many states have an overseas ballot that is a Federal ballot. These ballots are both for civilians overseas as well as uniformed (military) voters. The rule is you can file one ballot or the other, not both.

DJ: What do you do to encourage voting?

JS: In France, we have an event every week across the land. We have multiple talks on issues that affect people. We also have caucuses, such as the Minority, Women, LGBT, and Youth. We have programs to discuss topics like the environment, economy, etc. We hold dinner debates, as well as social events. We are active and embedded in the American community overseas. I started an internet site close to 30 years ago, before it was popular, after someone complained he couldn’t find Democrats Abroad. It was a nascent, flat site, but it was a start and I saw the benefit of early adoption. Now, we’re active on our websites, and we leverage social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to do as much outreach as possible so people can find us easily.

DJ: Do the Republicans have something similar?

JS: They tried, but they were more about fundraising. They’ve dissipated. They’re smaller than DA by at least a factor of 10, and they are not active in as many places. We have precincts and wards and a “county/state” structure while the Republicans have some elections but they’re relatively small, and most of their folks are involved by appointment and not election.

DJ: Was this your first convention?

JS: No. A member of my family has been present at every convention since 1928. I have attended all the conventions since 1996.

DJ: What did you think of Philadelphia?

JS: Each convention is a little different because of the dynamics of delegates, candidates and the city itself. Philadelphia was very welcoming. It was a wonderful feeling, being a native Pennsylvanian. The convention was smoothly organized. There were very few glitches that make being and attending difficult. Except meals were difficult. The lines were long and once you were in the arena there weren’t any other nearby options. But that’s to be expected and taken in stride.

The convention itself was absolutely spectacular. The speakers were tremendous and there were a number of surprises like Khizr Khan. When he held up a copy of the Constitution, it was one of the most powerful things I’d ever seen at a convention. I also appreciated Gabby Giffords. I’d met her in Paris before she’d regained the power of speech, and to see her take the podium, and speak, well, all I could think was if she could do this with her limitations, imagine how much brilliance must be locked inside of her.

DJ: And Larry Sanders?

JS: We had all seen him tear up in private, and were overwhelmed by the pride he had for his brother. It was very powerful, and then, we got to see his brother react. It was a moment that won’t soon be repeated.

DJ: One last thing. Some of my readers either live overseas or have kids who live overseas. How do they connect with you?

JS: Our site is http://www.democratsabroad.org and if they need to register, they can go directly to https://www.votefromabroad.org/vote/home.htm. As long as someone makes the deadline, which differs in the various states, a ballot should be automatically sent, although one can download a Federal write-in absentee ballot as a substitute. All the instructions are available on the website.

Also posted in DemsinPhilly | Comments Off on Meet the Delegates: Joe Smallhoover – Democrats Abroad

DNCC Announces Opening Night Program for Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia

By Oreo | Published July 25, 2016

PHILADELPHIA – The Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) announced the program for the opening day of the Democratic National Convention being held in Philadelphia from July 25 to July 28. Additional speakers will continue to be announced throughout the convention. In Philadelphia, Democrats are preparing to lay out the clear stakes in this election – a choice between building walls and tearing people down or an optimistic unifying vision where everyone has a role to play in building our future.

Monday will focus on putting the future of American families front and center and how we’re stronger together when we build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top and when everyone has a chance to live up to their God-given potential.

The program is listed below:

4:00 PM – 8:00 PM (EDT)

Call to Order

The Honorable Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
Secretary, Democratic National Committee
Mayor of Baltimore

Invocation

Rev. Dr. Cynthia Hale
Founding and Senior Pastor, Ray of Hope Christian Church — Decatur, Georgia

Presentation of Colors
Members of Delaware County American Legions and Veterans of Foreign Wars

Pledge of Allegiance

Ruby Gilliam
Ohio Democratic National Delegate. At 93 years old, she is the oldest member of the Ohio delegation.

Clarissa Rodriguez
Texas Democratic National Delegate. At just 17 years of age, she is the Youngest DNC national delegate.

National Anthem

Bobby Hill
14 years old, Veteran member of Keystone State Boychoir (KSB)

Roll Call

The Honorable Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
Secretary, Democratic National Committee
Mayor of Baltimore

Performance

Boyz II Men
Nathan Morris, Wanya Morris, Shawn Stockman, House Band

Introduction of and Report by the Credentials Committee

Lorraine Miller
Co-Chair, Credentials Committee
35th Clerk of the United States House of Representatives

James Roosevelt
Co-Chair, Credentials Committee
Grandson of President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Introduction of and Report by the Rules Committee

The Honorable Barney Frank
Co-Chair, Rules Committee
Former Member of the US House of Representatives, Massachusetts

The Honorable Leticia Van de Putte
Co-Chair, Rules Committee
Former State Senator, Texas District 26

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
House Democratic Leader
Member of the US House of Representatives, California

The Honorable Marcia Fudge
Member of the US House of Representatives, Ohio

The Honorable Maxine Waters
Member of the US House of Representatives, California

The Honorable Gina Raimondo
Governor of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

The Honorable Hilda Solis
Former United States Secretary of Labor

The Honorable Norman Mineta
Former United States Secretary of Transportation

The Honorable Gary Peters
United States Senator, Michigan

The Honorable Wellington Webb
Former Mayor of Denver

The Honorable Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
Secretary, Democratic National Committee
Mayor of Baltimore

Turning Over the Gavel

The Honorable Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Secretary of the Democratic National Committee, turns over the gavel to The Honorable Marcia Fudge, Permanent Chair of the 2016 Democratic Convention.

Remarks

The Honorable Marcia Fudge
Member of the US House of Representatives, Ohio

Presentation of Rules Report
The Honorable Wellington Webb
Former Mayor of Denver

Remarks

The Honorable Steny Hoyer
Parliamentarian, Democratic National Convention
House Democratic Whip
Member of the US House of Representatives, Maryland

Introduction of and Report by the Platform Committee
The Honorable Elijah Cummings
Member of the US House of Representatives, Maryland

The Honorable Shirley Franklin
Former Mayor of Atlanta

The Honorable Dannel Malloy
Governor of Connecticut

Presentation of Platform

Paul Booth
Member, Platform drafting committee

Voice Vote On Platform Committee Report

The Honorable Marcia Fudge
Member of the US House of Representatives, Ohio

The Honorable Shirley Franklin
Former Mayor of Atlanta

The Honorable Dannel Malloy
Governor of Connecticut

Remarks and Moment of Silence

The Honorable Robert Brady
Member of the US House of Representatives, Pennsylvania

Remarks

The Honorable Brendan Boyle
Member of the US House of Representatives, Pennsylvania

Remarks

The Honorable Raúl Grijalva
Member of the US House of Representatives, Arizona

Remarks

The Honorable Nita Lowey
Member of the US House of Representatives, New York

Introduction of New York Electeds and Leaders

The Honorable Nita Lowey
Member of the US House of Representatives, New York

The Honorable Adriano Espaillat
New York State Senator

Remarks by Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

The Honorable Tina Kotek
Member, Oregon House of Representatives

The Honorable Kevin de León
California State Senator

The Honorable Stacey Abrams
House Minority Leader, Georgia General Assembly
Member, Georgia House of Representatives

Remarks

The Honorable Keith Ellison
Member of the US House of Representatives, Minnesota

Remarks by Democratic Governors Association

The Honorable Dannel Malloy
Governor of Connecticut

Remarks

Rev. Leah Daughtry
CEO of the 2016 Democratic National Convention

Remarks

John Podesta
Clinton Campaign Chair

Congressional Hispanic Caucus

Remarks

The Honorable Linda Sánchez
Member of the US House of Representatives, California

Remarks

The Honorable Marty Walsh
Mayor of Boston, Massachusetts

Remarks by Labor Leaders

Lee Saunders
President, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

Lily Eskelsen Garcia
President, National Education Association

Mary Kay Henry
International President, Service Employees International Union

Richard Trumka
President, AFL-CIO

Sean McGarvey
President, North America’s Building Trades Unions

Randi Weingarten
President, American Federation of Teachers

COMBATING SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Remarks

Pam Livengood
Keene, NH. Pam and her family have been personally affected by the growing substance abuse epidemic and are guardians for their grandson because of their daughter’s struggle with addiction.

The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen
United States Senator, New Hampshire

Performance

Demi Lovato
Singer-songwriter

Band
Steven Rodriguez, Charity Davis, Ayana Williams, House Band

Remarks

The Honorable Jeff Merkley
United States Senator, Oregon

8:00pm – 10:00pm

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

Remarks

Karla Ortiz (11-yr old) and Francisca Ortiz (mother)
Karla is an American citizen but her parents, including her mother, Francisca, are undocumented and live in fear of deportation.

Astrid Silva
DREAMer sharing her story and her fight to keep families together

The Honorable Luis Gutiérrez
Member of the US House of Representatives, Illinois

ENSURING EQUALITY

Remarks

Jason and Jarron Collins
Twin brothers and former professional basketball players

Jesse Lipson
Founder, ShareFile

The Honorable Pat Spearman
Nevada State Senator

AN ECONOMY THAT WORKS FOR ALL

Remarks

The Honorable Bob Casey
United States Senator, Pennsylvania

The Honorable Luke Feeney
Mayor of Chillicothe, Ohio

The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand
United States Senator, New York

The Honorable Al Franken
United States Senator, Minnesota

Remarks

The Honorable Bernie Sanders
United States Senator, Vermont

Introduction

Sarah Silverman
Comedian, Actress and two-time Emmy Award winner

The Honorable Al Franken
United States Senator, Minnesota

Performance

Paul Simon
American musician, singer-songwriter and actor.

Band

Mick Rossi, Carmen “CJ” Camerieri, Joel Guzman, Jim Oblon, Bakithi Kumalo, Vincent Nguini

Remarks

Anastasia Somoza
International Disability Rights Advocate, Speaker And Consultant

10:00 PM – 11:00 PM

Introduction

Eva Longoria
Actress
Founder, The Eva Longoria Foundation

Remarks

The Honorable Cory Booker
United States Senator, New Jersey

Video Introduction of Michelle Obama

Remarks

Michelle Obama
First Lady of the United States

Remarks

Cheryl Lankford
San Antonio, TX

Introduction

The Honorable Joseph P. Kennedy, III
Member of the US House of Representatives, Massachusetts

Keynote Remarks

The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
United States Senator, Massachusetts

Benediction

Rabbi Julie Schonfeld
Executive Vice President of the Rabbinical Assembly, first female rabbi to hold a chief executive position in an American rabbinical association

Also posted in Bernie Sanders, DNC, Hillary Clinton, Music, Philadelphia, PHLDNC2016 | Tagged , | Comments Off on DNCC Announces Opening Night Program for Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia

Meet the #DNC Delegates: Jordyn Tannenbaum

By DocJess | Published July 18, 2016

Jordyn Tannenbaum2Jordyn Tannenbaum is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in economics. Jordyn is an elected delegate from CD 8 who lives on campus with roommates and hails from Bucks County.

DocJess: How did you decide to become a delegate?

Jordyn Tannenbaum: I became involved with Bernie Sanders’ campaign shortly after it launched. This will be my first time voting in a presidential election, and I wanted to do everything I could to get him on the ballot in November. While working with the campaign, I came across an invitation to apply to become a delegate. Although I didn’t know much about what that meant, I thought it might be an exciting thing to do. It turned out to be a great idea.

DJ: What was the process like?

JT: It was actually quite hectic because you can only be a delegate of the district in which you’re registered vote. So although I live on campus, my legal address is back home in Bucks County. It was a struggle because I was commuting every day to get all of my petitions signed in such a short window, in addition to all the campaign work I was doing at school. On top of all that, I had to keep my grades up. I made the Dean’s List for the first time this year.

It was definitely a lot of work, but also fun. I spoke to people I know about issues I care about and met new people who taught me a lot about how the process works. One of my favorite parts about campaigning at home was gathering signatures from students at Bucks County Community College. Many were eager to ask questions and share their opinions, and some were looking for ways to get involved. It was definitely worth it, and I’d do it again in a heartbeat.

DJ: How did you campaign?

JT: At home, I could only campaign through social media. I received a lot of support from friends and family and tried to get as many people excited about the campaign as I could. Back in Philly, I helped organize and run “Penn for Bernie”, so I had the opportunity to mobilize students and faculty as well as residents of West Philly in order to bring as much attention to the campaign as possible. We hosted phone-banking and canvassing events in addition to voter registration and get out the vote drives. We also hosted social events like debate watch parties and BYOs. My biggest role in the campaign was having one-on-one conversations with people in both the city and the suburbs, letting them know what Bernie stands for and why I support him.

DJ: Which issues are most important to you?

JT: The biggest issue for me is income and wealth inequality because I believe that really governs all the other issues. With Citizens United in the mix, we’ve essentially legalized corruption. Further, income inequality leads to a great divide in education which becomes a source of many other problems rather than solutions. If people on the poorer end of the spectrum can’t get a good education simply because of where they live, the system works against them before they even have a chance. It becomes harder for them to get good jobs, a decent income, and the cycle continues.

I’m also very passionate about equal rights, especially for the LGBT community. As a transgender person myself, I am beginning to learn what it’s like to have basic rights threatened. It’s becoming widely apparent that we are the GOP’s latest target. They’re still trying to overturn the marriage equality decision, and now they’re increasing their attack on the LGBT community by attacking trans rights, for example with bathrooms in North Carolina. This is dangerous not only because it threatens the health, safety and wellbeing of trans people, but it also distracts us all from the more important issues.

DJ: What are you looking forward to at the convention?

JT: I’m so excited about everything! Like I said, I’m new to the political process, so I’m excited to see how everything works in real time. I’m looking forward to all the fun events too. Democrats are in the process of coming together, and after a long exhausting primary, I think we’re finally going to have some sense of unity. No doubt about it there’s more work to be done and progressives are still going to put up a fight on the floor, but I think there are more things that bring us together than divide us, so I think the whole week will be more about celebrating that.

I’m also looking forward to getting involved with and meeting other young delegates. It’s exciting to see a generation of future politicians and activists coming together and I look forward to working with them in the future. I’m also excited for the Progressive Caucus events where we’ll plan how to preserve the energy of this campaign beyond the convention.

DJ: Do you know anyone who will be attending the convention?

JT: I know all the delegates from my district: we worked as a team to collect signatures and I’ve kept up with them ever since. I also have a friend who is a delegate from CD 2. We worked on the Penn for Bernie board together, so it should be fun to meet up with her at the actual convention after all the work we’ve done the past couple of semesters.

DJ: So, will you vote for Hillary?

JT: Bernie has endorsed her and I likely will, but she still needs to earn it. A lot of progressives feel that way too. She hasn’t always represented our interests the way she claims she has, but I think her campaign is working hard to reach out to us and I respect that. The platform is the most progressive one we’ve had in a long time. If Hillary continues to push the progressive message along, I don’t see the problem in voting for her.

As I’ve said, this is my first presidential vote and it would be a shame to have to vote against a candidate rather than for one. I’m hoping with the help of the progressive movement that we can make Hillary the type of candidate I’ll want to vote for.

DJ: Do you have any final thoughts?

JT: I’m pleased that the platform is starting to look progressive and I’m excited for these values to invite people into the party who wouldn’t be there otherwise. I’m passionate about getting more young people involved and I think many will be excited with the direction in which this party is heading. I believe the more honestly we speak about the issues, people, especially young people, will see that we are capable of making the changes that we need. I hope people will begin to understand that democracy isn’t easy, and it takes a lot of effort to make it what we want it to be. Participation goes beyond voting. It means speaking up, protesting when necessary, staying open-minded and listening to each other. I’m looking forward to seeing more people involved even after the election. I know I will be.

Also posted in DNC, PHLDNC2016 | Comments Off on Meet the #DNC Delegates: Jordyn Tannenbaum

Meet the #DNCC Protesters: Hugh Brownstone

By DocJess | Published July 13, 2016

Hugh Brownstone2In the interest of full disclosure, I met Hugh when he ran to be a Bernie Sanders delegate earlier this year.

Hugh Brownstone will be attending the protests around the convention. Hugh is a screenwriter and blogger. He lives in Willistown, Chester County, with his fiancé, her son and a dog. He is the father of two grown daughters, one living in Denver, and the other living in Seattle.

DocJess: You ran to be a delegate, what was that like?

Hugh Brownstone: It was eye-opening, hard, arcane, rewarding. I didn’t know that every candidate at every level seeking office has to gather a certain number of signatures to be placed on a ballot, incumbent or not. We went door-to-door, we hosted petition signing events, we made phone calls – all in just three weeks (we needed 250 legitimate signatures and ended up with more than 500). I – we, because we were a small team — learned that each registered voter had to sign his or her name and address exactly as they appear on their voter registration, they had to be registered by a certain date, and each petition had to be properly notarized. With all of that, it was lovely to chat with people living just a block or two away who I’d never met before. It was especially rewarding to meet like-minded people, many through the Bernie campaign itself. In the end, it didn’t feel like it was me running for delegate so much as “we.”

DJ: What made you want to be a Sanders delegate?

HB: I’d never heard of Bernie Sanders before he announced his candidacy. Watching him announce was like hearing the Beatles for the first time: I knew I was witness to something extraordinary. I did my research and realized Bernie is a once-in-a-lifetime politician, precisely who we need at this moment. After that, running for delegate became simply the next step in a series of opportunities to say “yes,” another action I could take so that years from now I wouldn’t turn around and say “I knew what was happening, but didn’t do enough.”

I’d gone door to door for Hillary in 2008, and then phone-banked for Obama that same year. I’d always voted, but that was the sum total of my political involvement. 2016 is different. I wanted to show up and be counted. You know the saying “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?” I didn’t want to be a good man doing nothing. I didn’t want to be part of the problem, so I had to be part of the solution. It wasn’t really about being a delegate. I just wanted to do everything I could to support Bernie

DJ: You say that you supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, what changed?

HB: I changed. The world changed. I’m not sure if she did or didn’t.

Back in ’08, I was convinced she was more qualified than Obama. But now I also know the distance from being a one-percenter to being on Medicaid, having lived both lives. Her apparently evolving positions on LGBQT rights, the TPP, minimum wage, and the waging of war without sufficient planning for peace are examples of being a follower, not a leader. And you can’t look at Hillary and say her husband’s track record is no indication of her own positions – she’s on record about them. Bill’s signing into law NAFTA, CAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and his role in accelerating the privatization of the prison industry by passing the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act have led to demonstrably terrible results. The influence of his politics on hers (she continues to assert, for example that Dodd-Frank is sufficient when she knows better) is not what we need.

What I now believe is that she is the most qualified candidate to operate the levers of establishment power and play the current game. That’s not what we need. I think too many of her decisions and positions are calculations rather than convictions. I don’t think speaking truth to power on behalf of the people she purports to represent is high on her list.

DJ: So how to did you come to support Bernie Sanders?

Bernie Sanders is so clear, so consistent, and so right about so many things: the political process, our current version of capitalism, the current state of our press. His positions on that process, on income inequality, healthcare for all, the cost of education, the quality of our infrastructure, and the impact of the trade agreements on American workers resonated especially for me. I don’t agree with everything he says nor how he says it, but it’s pretty darned close.

DJ: Will you vote for Hillary in the fall if she’s the candidate?

HB: I will. But I want to be precise about this. It’s not about voting for Hillary. With Bernie throwing his support behind her, I no longer have the option of voting for him. I will vote for the Democratic nominee as the alternative to Trump.

I promised my daughters – they were very vocal about this, even as they were both for Bernie — that I’d vote “Clinton” if I had to. What makes it easier for me is the knowledge that if no candidate in the general election receives a majority of the votes – much more likely in a three-way race – the House elects the president. Given who controls the House, I refuse to contribute to that scenario and with it the choice for the next several Supreme Court justices.

DJ: So you’ll be at the protests?

HB: Yes. If Clinton is elected, she and the establishment she represents need to recognize that they don’t have a mandate to continue business as usual. They need to earn the trust of voters irrespective of political party affiliation, and that will be based on what they do, not what they say.

We have an opportunity to hold the largest, most peaceful and considered protest in recent history. We have the opportunity to channel righteous anger into righteous behavior. We don’t need to yell. We just have to show up.

DJ: Do you have political plans past this election?

HB: The 2016 election cycle for candidates down-ballot from the president is already lost (I hadn’t even heard of the term “down ballot” until I got involved because of Bernie). But mid-term elections are only two years away, and every one of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats of the U.S. Senate will be up for grabs. I used to think you had to be a little bit crazy to be a politician; now I think you have to be a little bit crazy to leave politics to the people who are already there. We need to retake the government from those who only serve themselves, those who use the politics of division, obfuscation and fear to keep us down. “Of the people, by the people and for the people,” remember?

There are millions of us who do, and I plan to stay part of the solution.

I owe that to my children.

Also posted in DNC, PHLDNC2016 | Tagged | Comments Off on Meet the #DNCC Protesters: Hugh Brownstone