russ ([info]goulo) wrote,
@ 2004-03-09 22:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
my first precinct convention, and becoming a county delegate
I went to my first-ever precinct convention, which occurred at the polling place after the voting ended at 7:00. Here's a summary of what it was like.

I don't identify particularly as a Democrat: if forced to round myself off to the nearest of the 2 major parties, I'm certainly Democrat, but I dislike the two-party hegemony we have in this country... but I don't want this post to go off on that tangent ... this post is about what the precinct convention was like. Anyway, I voted in the Democratic primary and thus I went to the Democratic precinct convention. It was an interesting process to participate in, and I'm glad I finally did this.

The convention got started around 7:15 or so. There were 11 of us, many of us first-timers, and some long-time veterans who were quite familiar with the process, one of whom we elected chairperson to run the meeting. One thing you do is sign in and indicate your presidential candidate choice. That information is then used for the delegates who go to the county convention, who will theoretically vote proportionally to reflect the choices of those of us who participated in the precinct convention. (The distribution was, if I recall correctly, Kerry=5, Dean=2, Edwards=2, Lieberman=1, Kucinich=1. I was the Kucinich supporter.)

I hadn't planned on doing more than this one event, but I ended up deciding to be a delegate to the county convention, which takes place in a couple weeks (Saturday 03-27 in Palmer Auditorium). Anyone who voted in a primary can be a delegate, even if you didn't go to a precinct convention this evening. E.g. one woman was unable to be a delegate (due to a job commitment) but her husband (who wasn't able to be there tonight) wants to, so she was able to get him on the list. Due to participation in previous elections, our precinct was allocated 14 delegates, and there were only 11 of us at this precinct convention, so more need to be found. So people are encouraged to find interested neighbors, and the guy in charge will have to contact people on the list of people who voted to try find other interested people randomly. There are also "alternate delegates" who are basically there as backups in case any of the delegates don't show up or have to leave (one person tonight mentioned that she had an unpredictable health issue which might cause her to have to leave early). The county convention will be an all-day event which will involve listening to lots of resolutions being proposed and debated and voting on them, and meeting fellow delegates/activists, and meeting some candidates and elected officials. It should be interesting to see.

The other thing we did this evening besides delegate stuff was process a big stack of resolutions which people had previously submitted. Dozens of them. These are typically rather verbose lists of "whereas... whereas... whereas..." so we usually cut to the chase and had our chairperson simply read the resolution, and then people asked for further info if they needed. In most cases a voice vote clearly decided it (in favor). Sometimes we didn't pass them, and sometimes we debated and eventually tabled them. A resolution against the proposed anti-gay amendment was what motivated me to attend this convention in the first place, and I had brought along the text for one, but one already existed in the big pile of resolutions. (The resolution passed, though one person seemed opposed. I was pleased and encouraged that everyone else was clearly in favor; I'd had no idea if I was going to have to debate and argue about it or not.) The dozens of resolutions covered all kinds of issues: medical, insurance, labor, environmental, social security, civil rights, space exploration, Middle East, etc. After we processed the big stack, one of the people presented another resolution (concerning the oft-publicized issue of racism in Austin police treatment of civilians; her resolution simply affirmed that all citizens should receive equal treatment and services regardless of race, etc., which we all agreed with.) The entire event lasted about 1.5 hours.

I am now rather excited about going to the county convention - I have more free time now due to my job situation, so it's good timing, and I am curious to see first-hand what a big political convention is like, as well as actively participate in the process. And some of the folks seemed like they'd be interesting to spend some more time with. If nothing else, it will be an eye-opening experience, and I'm sure I will get some interesting stories from it. I now wonder why I haven't already done this!


(Post a new comment)


[info]bigdauntless
2004-03-09 08:48 pm UTC (link)
You are well on your way to being a public servant. I'd vote for you for just about any position. I'd convince all of my friends to vote for you too.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]goulo
2004-03-09 09:00 pm UTC (link)
Thanks, you are too kind! I appreciate it.

I will run on a platform of free go and Esperanto for everyone!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]decibel45
2004-03-10 07:38 pm UTC (link)
Man, I never thought about how the electorial college system still percolates all the way down to the precinct level. It's interesting how a system that was created for efficiency now gives exactly the opposite effect.

I've always waved off the electorial college as being a fairly minor inefficiency in the grand scheme of the federal government, but think about it... thousands of precincts across the country, many(? most? all?) of them sending a small group of people to the county level... that's a huge number of people! Even if there's no actual cash expenditure, imagine the opportunity cost. Surely we could find a better use for everyone's time.

Unfortunately, it's going to be a long time before this can be changed (if ever) due to the 2000 election, since it's very hard to seperate how you wanted the vote to go with whether we should abolish the electorial college.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]goulo
2004-03-10 11:12 pm UTC (link)
Indeed, it all seems kind of quaint and archaic. Perhaps we should be wearing robes and white wigs! And yeah, I am sure it would be quite hard to significantly modify the system. Social inertia is a strong thing, and trying to do something meta like make proposals and enact changes to the very process by which people make proposals and enact changes is probably way harder still!

One of the particularly odd things is the murkiness of delegates being assigned a specific candidate they're supposed to vote for, in proportion to how many popular votes each candidate got in the election, yet also being allowed to vote their conscience and ignore who they're supposed to vote, and apparently the latter is fairly common. One explanation I heard is that you're supposed to vote for your assigned candidate in the first round of votes, but then (assuming a runoff is needed) you can then vote for whoever you think best, based on the results of the first round. E.g. if I preferred A to B (and they were the 2 front runners after the first round) and I had been assigned to vote for C (who got an insignificant number of votes in the first round) then I might change from C and vote for A in the 2nd round. Also there can be some delegates who aren't assigned a particular candidate and are free to vote for whomever they like. (E.g. we had 11 votes for candidates in our precinct's convention, and we get 14 delegates, so we will have 11 assigned delegates to cover the distribution of votes among the 11 of us, and 3 more free delegates who can vote for whoever they want.) The fact that nothing guarantees any correlation between the votes cast by voters in the primary and the actual candidate chosen by the delegates seems a bizarre consequence of electoral colleges to me. At least that was my understanding... I guess it will all become clearer in a couple weeks!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]austingoddess
2004-03-11 08:08 pm UTC (link)
I think we've way outgrown the need for an electoral college, and popular vote is the way to go. Electoral colleges basically write off all votes that weren't for the majority, and that's just flatass wrong.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]goulo
2004-03-11 08:51 pm UTC (link)
But a popular vote also basically writes off all votes that weren't for the majority!

My biggest gripe is the 2 party domination. If I could wave a magic wand to improve the election system, I would put Single Transferable Vote aka Austalian style elections into place, so voters could rank their candidates by preference and thus vote for their preferred candidate first, then their "lesser of 2 evils" second, instead of having to agonize between choosing just one of those approaches (e.g. in my case I might rank a Green candidate first, then Libertarian, then Democrat). That would eventually break up the oligarchy of the 2 major parties, I think. A lot more people would vote for 3rd party candidates if they knew it wasn't throwing away their vote. (A separate topic is the question of whether parties make any sense in the first place - why don't candidates just run and state their positions and goals, instead of pigeonholing themselves into a party, many of whose positions they don't actually agree with, e.g. the amusing sad paradox of gay Republicans.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]austingoddess
2004-03-11 08:53 pm UTC (link)
Yes, but not in such unbalanced chunks. :) But I'd be good with the Australian system as well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…