Lessons Learned from Texas Two Step

The Texas Two Step election system for the Democratic Presidential Nomination has provided us with a very interesting experiment, whereby, we can actually compare and contrast results between primaries and caucuses from the same election in a staunchly republican voting state.

I have been puzzled by the dramatic difference between Texas’ primary and caucus results. To this day, I cannot find anybody who has gone on to talk about this dramatic discrepancy in much detail (if you find one let me know). Perhaps since Texas is still counting the caucus results.

The question I have:

Is how is it that Hillary Clinton could win the Texas primary by more than 100,000 votes (winning by 4 points overall) and yet lose in the Texas caucuses by what is currently a 12 point lead)?

After trying to reconcile these differences (and there are a number of explanations which I would encourage feedback on) you are left wondering if caucuses over represent Obama’s strengths.

In my mind this is a legitimate question for two reasons. Firstly, because in the general election we will not be utilizing caucuses and instead we will use a secret ballot system, (where one vote per person decides the election in each state - instead of the diluted caucus system where one vote is supposed to be representative of many people)

Secondly, if it is true that caucuses are not representative of the will of the people (which I suppose it is true) than this also undercuts the argument that whosoever has the higher pledged delegate lead should automatically be supported by the party establishment (i.e. supers). This is especially relevant question considering that Obama has amassed his pledged delegate lead by taking staunchly core republican voting states (WY, ID, NE, KS, ND) via caucuses.

So, while his pledged delegate leads may be impressive its relative importance is diminished if it turns out that the caucus systems over represent his strength amongst democrats in these conservative states - similar to what happened in Texas.

This is an excellent point that doesn’t get enough press. I hope the superdelegates recognize the discrepancy.

Once again, this post shows the pioneer of the youth in America is smart and responsible. They think hard and get right answer. Not all them just a follower

I totally agree. In regard to Texas, the primary votes were in so way null-void. Many who voted in the primary were unable to attend the caucus. I for one went to caucus and was told to be there by 715pm…got there had trouble parking, finally arrived (740pm) at a line that was at least 200 strong outside the building, waiting for a line 100 strong still voting in the primary. It was cold and I knew it would be another hour or more before we would even get to caucus. So as I left, so did others and it was mostly the young adults who stayed in line. This is definitely not fair to voters and distorts the true candidate the majority wants for their nominee.

Michael,

i liked this so much, I’m posting it to the NY Times blogs here in New York. Hope that’s OK! I do cite my source!

Michael,
Most people were not educated about the process. I know this because I asked other teachers at my school. Also, the caucus system is not very democratic because it can’t include everyone. Many people can’t show up at a particular time. Some people had activities with their children (soccer, karate…). As parents we were told to put our kids to bed early for the TAKS test. People also work nightshifts and have other responsibilities. Where an election is concerned we have a chance to early vote, mail in ballots, and more flexible hours at voting sites.
The voting process should include everyone.

Here is somebody elses story. Please read.
http://williamwalker.blogspot.com/2008/03/texas-two-step.html

I voted Hillary in a primary, and I know that I would have trouble with voting Hillary in a caucus system. First, I have a very demanding job, and I would not be able to spare 2-3 hours (especially in the cold). Second, Obama supporters I know are so strong will and aggressive, so, as someone who doesn’t like conflict, I would give up my vote in public. It is scary sometimes to mention Hillary in front of Obama supporters. Third, most of core supporter of Hillary are those who work many hours and get paid very little. We all need to keep our jobs and need to feed our kids. Attending caucus and lose my job? No brainer, I would keep my job, feed my kids, and not attend caucus. Sorry to Hillary supporters, but we are facing tough life-and-death choices here.

If anything, get rid of the caucus systems. It works against a true democratic system, inefficient and waste a lot of time, and not represent the best winning candidate in the General Election.

I am a doc in WA state. My daughter lives in Houston and is a teacher with two small kids. She only voted in the primary. In WA, we voted to change from a primary to a caucus several years ago but it violated the party’s rights as per our state constitution. Since then they have the caucus AND a priimary but only the caucus counts! This year, 200K voted in caucuses which were overcapacity and disorganized. Obama won 2:1. 600K dems voted in the primary which added 0 delegates and it was nearly 1:1.

Washington state also held a caucus and a primary. All delegates were awarded based on the caucus results and none were alloted based on the primary results (which is why most people haven’t heard of the results). Caucus results were Obama 68% and Hillary 31%. As a result, he picked up about 25 extra delegates, which is a huge amount. In contrast, the primary vote was Obama 51% to Hillary 46%. If the primary results allocated delegates, they probably would’ve split evenly. So that state too offers a very real example of how warped the caucus system can be.

Great point, and all the hanky panky in those caucuses are more than a bit troubling. No doubt Clinton is getting a raw deal. I hope to god that the commen good will prevail and the people will win, not crooked caucus organizers and republican sabators. I truley believe that Clinton is our best choice to go up against the republicans and to win in November. I’m praying that despite all the hate and fraud she will prevail. Evil has reigned too long. Hillary represents a new beginning of commen good for us all. GO HILLARY!!!!!!

WA isn’t nearly as good a comparison since the caucus and primary were on different days and since no delegates were attached to the WA primary.

They are having a forum tonight at the Harvard School …
James Roosevelt was there and I don’t know the name of one of three that answered a question about the viability of the caucuses. The speker said that they were good because they get the acivistsout! He also said that the Texas two-step as