U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 13, 2010 07:50 PM UTC
50 Comments
.
I can get that at the Precinct level. Not so much at the House District level, or even half of that.
If I understand the “Tea Party” vibe, there are other folks who also want to be heard, even if they know they won’t be listened to.
.
Barron what are your thoughts on the cluster caucuses the Republicans are doing? My understanding is that Republicans put lots of precincts together so candidates can stop by and talk to them before they decide who to support. Please correct me if I misunderstood my Republican friend who was explaining it.
The idea of being clustered is interesting to me for that reason — better access to candidates so people can hear from them directly.
In my house district, the Republicans have all 54 precincts meeting at one school. I have visions of mass chaos if the Dems tried to pull that off. And the GOP has more contested races to consider than we do!
Though maybe not to the extent Republicans are in some places. Dora Moore Elementary in Denver, for instance, has 17 precincts meeting there. It’s similar at other schools in other counties.
We tried to break those up a bit but were unable to get additional sites. This was the same case at East High and Samuels Elementary where we have a lot of pcts in one place.
Some of the locations like Montbello, the locals captains requested everything be in one location. I had reservations, but I gave the captains a pretty free reign in picking their own own sites.
(For those who do not know I am a Captain-at-large in the Denver Dems and my primary responsibility is to organize caucuses and the county assembly with the help of a planning committee)
Although I have lived in Colorado for over 25 years, I plan on attending my first caucus this Tue., if nothing else to see what happens.
My native state Pennsylvania has no such system, you petition onto the ballot, as I did when I ran as a McGovern delegate to the DNC in 1972.
has 47 precincts at one school.
It’s outlandish.
It’s exclusionary.
It’s difficult.
It’s redundant.
In reverse order.
2010 we’re having a caucus where we will preference poll and do all the other things that happen at caucus. Then we’ll assemble at county and do it again. And then again at state.
Then, after that we’ll have a voting primary. So all the preference polling- redundant. Sure, there will be primary voters who will attend one or more levels of caucus/assembly and change their preference (not me- not you- but some). But that cannot possibly be the point.
So- the only point is all the other stuff that could go aon at caucus/assembly that could possibly have meaning. Except for most party members it has no meaning. How can I tell? Caucus attendance.
Caucus is a little confusing. I read the 2010 DSP (I read the CDP 2008 DSP as well) and it’s not rocket surgery, but it’s not close the curtain pull the lever or sit at the kitchen table and mark the mail in. It’s not really intuitive. And there’s gasp math.
Then there’s all the people who cannot caucus.
Forget for a minute the registered U’s and registered with other parties, cause your solution wouldn’t open it up to them either. I’m talking people in jobs where they are required to be “non-partisan” and so they can register and vote but cannot caucus.Not that the party wouldn’t allow them- their emplyer won’t allow it. Judges, and cout employees, DenverPost and all manner of state employees who need to remain “non-partisan”.
The caucus is overtly and explicitly partisan.
I’d much rather have a voting primary, six months prior to the general election.
Requirement to be in the D primary: registered D for at least 180 days prior to the vote, eligible for the office. No petition- or the petition requires some nominal amount of signatures (100) and some nominal fee ($50). No preference at any house party or other party meeting. no assembly. No big petition trouble.
Anyone registered can run. Any party member can vote.
The caucus is one of the better outreach efforts that the party has. Some counties do it better than others, but giving people an opportunity to exert direct (if limited) power on their party in a manageably small setting is a real draw. It’s one of the few times when the party focuses on promoting itself rather than relying on candidates or county clerks to do the heavy lifting.
As a tool for democracy, it sucks pretty hard as the caucus is dominated by old guard party members that can promote an agenda quite easily in low turnout years. Even as a way to keep people connected with their party, the caucus needs reform. I would hazard a guess that the average age for a caucus-goer is around 65, so outreach to new voters it ain’t.
Using a straight primary vote seems like an unpleasant alternative as it becomes just another money contest at that point. Underfunded candidates have a chance to springboard from a strong caucus showing and that would certainly go away in a statewide race and probably a congressional race.
But when I was, I loved caucus. It was a chance to get together and talk politics with my neighbors.
Is caucus exclusionary? Not at all. All you have to do is show up. Can’t complain about the results of democracy if you don’t participate.
As far as “cluster” caucuses, they started happening here in Mesa County after ADA was passed–not for political reasons. I loved caucusing in people’s homes, but few of them were handicapped-accessible. Since there is a limited universe of ADA-compliant buildings, it was natural to hold several caucuses in the same place.
Where are you going to caucus this year?
On it’s face it’s exclusive- only Registered D’s need show up.
Worse- at least 11% of the registered D”s in my precinct in 2008 could not caucus because their terms of employment prevent doing public, overtly partisan things. I know, that sounds crazy to people who see the caucus as casual get together and to those who see it as a necessary and vital part of a energized democracy. Did you know if you work for the Colorado Legislature- you cannot caucus? Judicial staff, Denver Post and many other state positions- cannot caucus. I know lawyers who won’t caucus because their firm frowns on it. I know two lawyers who are prevented from caucusing.
Then there are all the absentees who cannot show up.
College kids registered and resident here, but away at a school. Military. People with jobs who have to work that night- or be out of town.
It is exclusionary and the “just show up” is not an option for all party members.
With registered Ds picking their own standard-bearer.
Why wouldn’t registered D’s be able to pick their candidates as opposed to anyone else. If I’s want a candidate, start an I caucus, but why should you/they be able to tell Ds who they should run. makes no sense to me.
On its very surface, it violates a person’s constitutional right to peacably assemble.
A ban on running for delegate may be acceptable from a comnstitutional standpoint, but not a ban on attending caucus.
Seems like I would have a right to wear black t-shirts and pierce my eyebrows. But that doesn’t mean my employer can’t tell me I’m gone for doing so.
The problem for some employers is the overtly partisan nature of caucus. Register with a party, vote in the primary and general- no problem.
But if the Denver Post wants their writers to not be overtly partisan, or if any other employer (State of Colorado, courts, and others) seems to be a harder argument that employers cannot do that.
and trying to address the challenges involved. Admittedly, caucuses are expensive and cumbersome. But I prefer to keep precinct caucuses, because we need more, not less, opportunity (and encouragement) to come together as local communities. This is one of those occasions when neighbors come together for common purpose, and talk about things affecting our shared existence.
Great- then call it a community forum and seperate it out from the actual primary voting. Or make it the binding vote.
But the two step caucus/assembly then voting primary is redundant.
It was the consolidation of caucuses into larger units that I didn’t think was the best way to go, all things considered.
I am not sure what the GOP’s rules are, but in the Dems, we always preference poll on the highest contested race. I think it would be appropriate for caucuses to focus on the lower offices.
For example:
In Denver, we have 3 constested state house races, 1 state senate, and then nothing up to the US Senate. It would help those candidates at the local level much more than the US Senate candidates to judge their support at caucus. Each of the HD races has a min. of 4 candidates. That means there are going to be some who do not get on by assembly. If delegates to the county assembly was based on their race, they could better judge whether they need to petition, or maybe drop out of the race.
The same is true for other counties who are more likely to have contested county commissioner races. Let the local handle the local. When we are at county assembly we can preference on the top of ticket then for selecting delegates to the State which is where that nomination takes place anyway.
n/t
a week and a half ago, somewhat related to this topic. It’s more about how the two major parties are getting ready for the caucus, but it discusses some of the broader issues Dan Willis brought up.
http://www.coloradostatesman.c…
but hundreds of people trying to elect delegates would be disaster. How would people remember who is who and supports who? Some precincts get 50-100 people, what happens when we combine all those. You’d have dozens running for delegate positions, people would probably vote for the funny names. The only known delegates would be insiders of the party, that doesn’t help bringing in new people to the party
That’s exactly what would happen! Just like in real elections! How else did Hickenlooper get elected?!
Hey, Dan. Out here in the boonies we divide our county into districts and have joint precinct caucus locations of 4 to 8 precincts — we start with a joint meeting to get common items out of the way and then break out into individual precinct caucuses for preference polls, delegate election, precinct committee-person election, and platform. Not complicated, easy! We wouldn’t have a County Party if it weren’t for the caucuses.
But the planning for that for 43 of those combined sites to accommodate 429 pcts is terribly cumbersome and expensive for the party to organize.
As I said in my initial post, if the current system works (and it usually does well for the less populated counties) then they should be able to keep it. I am looking for a mechanism that works at least okay for all.
It is somewhat good fortune that I am not working at the moment as it has allowed me to put in 50-60 hours per week the past 2 weeks to Denver’s caucuses relatively organized. I am not sure we had anyone else with that kind of free time to handle the job had I not been able to.
And with all of that, I know we still get complaints about disorganization and “chaos” just as we do after every major event, regardless of smoothly they run.
I like the caucus system, for reasons pointed out by others above. It is participatory, it let’s people feel they have a voice, and there’s something to letting people who care enough to give a couple hours to the effort some role in thinning a crowded field.
But as Dan points out it’s also a hell of a lot of work. So I think it’s stupid to go to all the effort if most the time it doesn’t make a whit of difference. All you have to do is get 10% and it’s pretty easy to petition on. If we’re going to go to all the effort we have to make it count more (various ways to do that, but the easiest would be to increase the minimum precentage you need to petition on, or do away with petitioning on and lower the percentage you need to pass through to the primary).
The second is to streamline it. 429 precincts in Denver is excessive, and then following it up with both count and district meetings, is just silly. Making each precinct twice as large would stil keep each caucus small enough to allow people a voice, but cut in half the number of caucuses. Then at least combine county and district assemblies.
Seems to me if you do those, the cost-benefit tips in favor of keeping the system. The way it is now, it’s harder to argue for.
That’s already done. When districts boundaries are within a single county, district assemblies are held at the same time as county assemblies. When they straddle counties, they’re held at the same time as the state assembly.
It’s been a couple cycles since I’ve done this, and maybe there’s been a positive change here. It used to be that we would have a Denver county assembly, and then a couple weeks later have a U.S. House District 1 assembly, even though it was largely the same group of people. Just a waste.
The Denco, Jeffco, and Arapco assemblies are all happening at the same time. On the same day they will be followed by the HD and SD assemblies that are in those counties. Den and Arap share 4 HDs and the folks from Arap ar coming to join us in Denver for those districts. (The same is true for the 1 lone Democrat who lives in the jeffco portion of HD1, if he chooses to participate)
In theory we could have the CD1 assembly that day too, but we never do as a certain amount of prep goes into that one (and it would be impossible in presential years due to the national delegate elections). Also the Chair of CD1 is the current Speaker of the House and it is difficult for him to do the assembly while in session, so it is usually in early May, right after the end of the session.
I wasn’t aware of the practical problems in combining CD with county. It’s my first year in a new district (HD7) so I doubt I’ll do more than the caucuses, but who konws.
I view the caucuses as a very odd game dominated by insiders. Much about the caucuses is alienating rather than inclusive. And the tension between organization by precinct but voting by highest race makes no sense at all to me.
Caucuses are organized by house district precincts, and yet this year, the delegates and alternates will be selected based upon preference for US Senate. I just don’t see any logic to that.
Think about HD4, HD5, and HD7. Perhaps caucus attendees in those House Districts are excited about getting their candidate onto the primary ballot so that she or he can be elected to the General Assembly. If they have not been thoroughly schooled on the process in advance, then they may show up at their caucus thinking that they will be able to vote for their candidates in the House races.
Instead, they will discover that at best there will be an unrecorded straw poll for the House seat, but the selection of delegates and alternates will be based on the Senate race and therefore largely organized by Sen. Bennet and Spkr. Romanoff’s respective campaigns. Placement of the House District candidates on the primary ballot by the Assembly delegates is based on the views of a bunch of delegates selected because of which US Senate candidate they support.
This means that between the caucus and the assembly, the House District candidate’s chore is to convince the Romanoff/Bennet delegates & alternates to pick her or him for the House race. (During this period of time, ignoring all persons who are not delegates or alternates is the rational move.) The campaign to get on the primary ballot for the General Assembly race, at that point, is narrowed down to a couple of hundred people who likely care most about the US Senate race. The structural effect is to trivialize the state legislature races.
(Obviously, the same problem exists for caucuses in which there is a state senate race.)
I just don’t perceive wisdom in organizing an electoral contest in this fashion. If I were to reform the whole thing, I think I would have ordinary primaries where one gets on the ballot via petition for the highest level races and use the caucuses, if they are to be preserved, for lower level races such as the General Assembly.
I also don’t think that the Democratic Party makes that much of an effort to get new people–that is, non-insiders–to the caucus. (For counties other than Denver, it’s fair to say that I am nearly completely ignorant as to what they do.) Whenever I hear Denver party insiders complain about how much work the caucus is, then I believe that the flip side is welcome relief if the numbers attending the caucus are not too large. I expect to receive protests in response to this claim.
Platform suggestions are fun, too, but last year when I worked on health care, I was a bit disappointed to see, for example, that the state party platform plank about single payer did not mean squat to Spkr. Carroll or Reps. Riesberg, Middleton, Scanlan, McKinley, and then-D Curry. I’m the sort of Democrat who likes a little party discipline.
Finally, I guess one of the things that I dislike about caucus and subsequent assemblies is that the rules seem not to be followed. (As a law professor and lawyer, I confess to a certain orientation to the rules of law.) Here’s one pedantic example: our state statutes (CRS 1-3-101) make clear that a caucus attendee must have been affiliated with the party for two months; resided in the precinct for 30 days; and have been registered to vote for 29 days before the caucus. (There are exceptions for new citizens and 18-year-olds.) I calculate two months before the March 16 caucus as January 16; 30 days before as February 14; and 29 days before as February 15.
When I printed out the Denver Democratic Party and also the Secretary of State’s caucus info today, I learned that they think that two months before March 16 is January 19; that the deadline for residency is February 16; and that voters must have registered in their precincts by February 16. I reckon that these dates are close enough for government work, but try as I might, I cannot reconcile them with the statute. At least they are overbroad insofar as they allow more rather than fewer people to participate.
Tom Russell
trussell@law.du.edu
the Dem insiders would much prefer that no one came but the regulars. Those whose preferences can be predicted and manipulated. They’ll take on resolutions that don’t have a shot at getting voted out of County Assembly where it is REALLY all the insiders. Those who are not insiders don’t know the rules and don’t know how to have an impact.
If you show up for yours, you have the same chance of getting your way as anyone else who shows up.
Would you want me, an unaffiliated voter with no ownership in your party, or some Republican with even less ownership, selecting your party’s candidates for office?
Caucuses are the ultimate in partisan activity, which is why people who are forbidden from partaking in partisan activity can’t attend caucuses. And that’s as it should be — picking your party’s slate of candidates, and moving up party platform planks, and electing the party officers who elect all the higher-up party officers, is for committed partisans. If caucuses were abolished, those functions would pass to an even more select group of insiders.
Influence in caucuses, and in the lower eschelons of a party structure, is a function of 1) deciding to participate, and 2) doing so in a way that others find persuasive. That’s democracy at its best. That’s not to say that it doesn’t come with defects and pathologies; it’s a human activity, after all. But it’s the opposite of insider control: It’s outsider access (outsider for the low-threshold requirement that you register with the party in order to come in).
Even so, I think the value of that participation is less that it gives participants an opportunity to influence the process, than that it gives the process an opportunity to influence participants. Too many voters have too tenuous a connection to the relevant considerations that should be informing their vote. Caucuses, and other forms of participation, don’t cure that problem, but they do help to alleviate it a little bit. The more exposure voters and citizens have to the issues and arguments that are at stake in elections, the better informed their votes will be, even “well-enough informed” is an ideal that can never quite be attained.
Great. And here I was thinking it was completely meaningless, and now you suggest it is less than meaningless.
Influence the participants? Inform them of the issues? Not in my precinct.
Until 08 no one attended caucus in my area. I think in my precinct there were several years where no one showed up, and the record high year prior to Obama was eight. In 08 we had 30-something. And of those, most will not attend this year. It’s not that they prefer to be uninformed or that they don’t care who the D nominee is – they’ll vote in the primary, and I predict they’ll feel informed enough.
But they don’t care about the process. They don’t want to be PCP, they don’t want to give up an evening to hang out with their neighbors, at least not to caucus. And they know that primary is how to get on the ballot- so they see it as just a little more useful than pointless. If that useful.
If I told them that it was helpful because the process influenced them- they’d unlist their phone number.
I’m confident that part of the reason is that most of my neighbors have lived and voted in other states. And though they didn’t follow the Colorado model, they felt as informed as they wanted to be and as qualified to vote and as engaged as they needed to be. I’ve had more than one neighbor from Iowa- they don’t get us either, at least in off years like 2010.
Dan asked if our method was outdated. I don’t know when it would have made more sense but it’s worse than useless- it discourages particpation.
I’m not sure how caucuses discourage participation; their absence is zero partipation via caucuses, and their presence is a very low level of participation.
Sure, people get involved to talk rather than to listen, but, given that others are talking as well, being present increases exposure, if not openness, to new information.
My point was that, given the problems, nationwide really, with low investment in being well-informed, and with civic involvement, every tiny thread that weaves a few more people into some aspect of the process that is more robust that just voting is a tiny, marginal contribution toward reducing that political cultural deficit. It ain’t much, and much is needed, but the choice is either to give up or to keep on trying.
As far as I’m concerned, there’s really no choice at all (not necessarily to preserve caucuses, but to maintain and proliferate even marginal ways in which popular political and civic participation is cultivated).
Tom, there is a statute at the beginning of title one (too lazy to look it up just now) which states, unless specifically overridden, whenever an election related deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the following business day is used as the deadline. The Jan. deadline fell on MLK weekend and the Feb deadline fell on President’s Day weekend.
Hope that helps a little
Dan,
Thanks.
For the “affiliated with” and “registered to vote” dates, CRS 1-1-106 does indeed push the dates forward past the holidays, which I did not notice on my new computer’s calendar. That’s my bad.
As for residing in the precinct, CRS 1-1-106 does not shift that date because the “completion of such act” does not “involved a filing or other action during business hours.” I think the deadline that the SOS has computed is an error, but it’s at least an error that lets more rather than fewer people participate.
Whatta ya tring to do- get all factish and informativey?
This would be true between caucus and assembly if the assembly was th eonly way to get ont he ballot. Or the most meaningful way.
Except it’s not.
The petition is just as meaningful- and perhaps more effective based on recent winners.
We mailed or delivered a card to every registered Dem to let them know when and where their caucuses will be held. The more the merrier, if for no other reason than that’s where we find precinct leaders and volunteers.
And I don’t mean powerful. I am sick and tired of being an “insider-” it’s too much work, nothing changes, and all I hear is a bunch of griping. I plan to run my caucus, according to the rules, and resign as Committeeperson after decades in the trenches. And here’s the deal: a real insider goes to a bunch of boring – sometimes faintly enlightening – meetings, runs dinners, knocks on doors, calls people, (trying to get them to actually attend or discuss something), and it remains a very few – (often privileged enough to have the time to expend)- who DO anything. The caucus process takes an immense amount of time, when you take into account going on to County/District/ State. To be a delegate, one does not have to be an INSIDER, one only needs to have the interest and ability to get up and spend an entire day off w/ a bunch of people who enjoy listening to themselves talk. There are moments that are actually fun, but it is NOT WORTH IT.
To Dr. Russell: TAKE my position, PLEASE!!! I am resigning so that someone as knowledgeable and willing as yourself can volunteer in my stead.
As to the original question: the caucus system is completely outmoded and a waste of resources in a time when we can communicate ideas and opinions via the internet.
Welcome to the club.
factor, no one mentions all those who are left out because of age and/or disability. Or those who, especially these days, are working at the time the caucus is held (second jobs, you know).
I took a call in ’08 from an 80+ year-old woman in an assisted living facility who cried when saying how much she wanted to go and stand for Obama. But she, literally, couldn’t stand, wasn’t physically able to travel out at night, get from the parking lot into the big school where her caucus was held, then get back to a vehicle to go home.
Working, single parents, abesentee voters (college, military, peace corps, astronauts, and others whose jobs requrie travel, etc)
And the disabled for whom caucus is unrealistic and even impossible.
Exclusionary.
Caucuses are a party function. There is no doubt that by its very nature it is exclusionary. And as long as the party has to pay every last dime of the cost, it will remain that way.
I have noticed that some people seem to have an expectation that caucuses are an open-to-all process like voting, but that is simply not the case and was never intended to be.
Caucuses are a PARTY (not public) procedure to begin the nomination process for those who will represent their party in November.
I am not arguing in favor or against this process. But we all need to discuss it for what it is.
Primary voting isn’t “open” either.
And it’s not jsut partisan affiliation that makes caucuses exclusive.