Dear fellow party chairs:
Thank you! I’m writing to offer both my gratitude (and, where appropriate, my sympathy!) for your work on last night’s caucuses. That experience gives new meaning to the phrase “embarrassment of riches.”
We not only broke all prior records, we shattered them. The all-time caucus-turnout record, in 1968, was under 80,000. Turnout topped 75,000 only one other time, in 1972. Last night we topped 200,000; Secretary of State Mark Ritchie estimates that, when all the precincts report, more than 230,000 DFLers attended a precinct caucus — triple the old record.
This historic participation testifies to Minnesotans’ frustration with the status quo, and their hunger for change. They are eager to replace George Bush, and the filibuster-loving Norm Coleman, and the veto-loving Republicans in the Minnesota House, and they’re willing to brave a cold February evening and traffic and long lines in order to do it.
But as we know, last night’s turnout was not without a downside, in the form of strain on the system. The caucus system is staffed entirely by volunteers, funded entirely by voluntary contributions, and limited by the available meeting rooms and parking spaces. There is a physical limit to how many people can participate in that system within a 90-minute window. Last night, despite everyone’s best efforts, we may have reached that limit. Switching to a presidential primary — while keeping the caucuses for other races and for party governance — is worth talking about. (emphasis mine)
Meanwhile, we must all welcome, include, and encourage the hundreds of thousands of newcomers who caucused with us. Whether those newcomers remember last night as a wonderful welcome into the chaotic world of politics, or as a frustrating and unpleasant experience, depends critically on how you and I reach out to them in the coming days. We at the State Party will do our part. But we need your help: as Tip O’Neill reminded us, “all politics is local.” Please enter your data into the Voter File as efficiently as you can. Please reach out to your newcomers, and welcome them — including, where appropriate, by acknowledging their frustration — so that they will help us rebuild our Party from the ground up, as we do after every precinct caucus.
Thank you again for all your hard work, and congratulations on the biggest Caucus Night in history!
Loading ...
Exactly.
Newsflash from MDE to Brian Melendez: It was the Republican Party Leadership alone that switched the caucus night to Super-Duper Tsunami Tuesday. Just thought you should know.
A well-written and humble letter. While yesterday was exciting, there was some damage done.
I hope this gets in the local media and draws some attention to how huge the DFL caucus turnout was, especially when compared to that of the MN GOP.
We had more than three times as many caucus goers as we’ve ever had at any other time ever, and the caucus system endured it. Sure there were some overcrowded rooms and a lot of people unsure of the procedural rules, but by and large it still worked.
If anything, last night was an argument FOR the current caucus system. Any system that can sustain double and even triple the expected volume and still achieve its major purposes does not need a retuning.
Sure, the huge turnout had a lot to do with the past 7 years, but what I’m amazed to not hear is that it had more to do with Obama. I can understand why Melendez isn’t saying that, not wanting to appear to endorse a candidate. But really, the only way, I think, anything close to this large of a turnout will happen again is if a man named Barack Obama runs for president after 7 years of a failed and incompetent presidency.
The people in my caucus last night were fired up and downright giddy to be there, and it wasn’t because of Bush, it was because of Obama.
Switching to a presidential primary because of last night, I think, misses a pretty big point.
The caucus system endured it? In a lot of places, there was no discussion whatsoever of the Senate race. Not that people would even know because they couldn’t get in the door. To say that that this caucus is an argument for maintaining the current system is like saying that that the 2000 election was a good argument for continuing to use the Butterfly ballot in Florida.
The caucus system is a joke. If you can’t get off work, or if you have young kids, or if you are serving in the military or otherwise overseas, your are disenfranchised. A lot of these new participants who weathered the long lines and the confusion probably won’t be coming back.
I agree that the system did not endure. I don’t have an answer but a separate Prez. primary is good to consider. One friend was told her vote would be “thrown out” because it was not for either Obama or Clinton. Another friend (different precinct) said the way they chose delegates was suspicious and clearly not according to set rules (probably more due to confusion/being overwhelmed/incompetence?) and the whole Senate choice was compromised, another friend couln’t make it because he had to work…our caucus had a convener that was, well, uh…I’ll stop here…
…either way,…. yipes………
The Democrats are starting to get it right and allow people to simply ballot and leave while the Republicans ballot at the end of a two hour process. The caucus system is useless and we very much need to go to a primary. The caucus system simply cannot be trusted to provide results that are a reflection of what the people want. There are too many steps in which mistakes can be made or people can have undue influence on the process whether through incompetence or by plan.
The Democratic experience for Senate is particularly pointless. The Democratic candidate will likely have nothing to do with democracy. It will be the person who was best at schmoozing the delegates. Delegates who in no way represent the populace in general. The views of the vast majority of Democrats will be meaningless.
The ability to raise money is a limiting factor for entry into the electoral system.
Going from a caucus system to a primary makes that bad situation much, Much, MUCH worse.
Go to a primary, and you’ll never again see a Paul Wellstone emerge from the people.
The inability of the state party to raise money is the only reason to switch to primary system. Then its up the election arms of the counties and Secretary of State to make sure that everything is in order and working.
The caucus system endured and worked well, the party could prepare with more support (more materials and bigger venues). Each district had to come out of their own pocket and work it the best we could.
The voter file is great but, beyond that, maybe we should be discussing the role of the state party or the leadership. This was grassroots all the way from beginning to end.
The fact that Franken, the money candidate, did well in the caucus shows that you are wrong TPT.
Seems to me the best answer is a hybrid system (like I understand they have in Texas) — a primary for the Presidential race, and then a caucus that same evening, wherein those who can/wish to attend discuss platform, party governance, and delegate selections (with the Presidential delegates having been decided by the primary). Best of both worlds? I was very uncomfortable with something as important as the Presidential nomination being decided in a system which was far more chaotic than a typical high school student council election. In my precinct we never even mentioned the Senate race…
We registered people aofr our precinct 15 in Edina. the registration process took from 6:30 til 8:15 for two of us. I sure several people we registered belonged in a different precinct. The prior caucus list slowe the process because we had to look for their names and when it wasn’t there we had to explain it was not the voters registration list (which would have helped). We ran out registration forms and then reverted to yellow sheets of paper for registering. Because all Edina precincts caucused in the same location (middle school) the 62 crosstown was completely stalled, the parking was used up, so many parked seveal blocks away in Church lots or any where they could find. We normally would have about 60 -80 attendees and had over 250 in our pprecinct. I can’t help but wonder how mant never got there because of traffic and parking issues and how many ended up in the wrong precinct because the maps suppied didn’t have enough detail. And how many, because of the long wait in line or inability to get into the room which was overheated beacause of the number of folks in the room, will ever participate again. While it was exciting it was a mess!!!
The DFL endorsement produced Wellstone, but it also produced Hatch and Moe, leaving better (and more electable) DFL candidates behind. In 2000, it gave us Jerry Janesich, which was just so stupid everyone just ignored the endorsement.
I totally agree with this well-written letter. I was thrilled to see such a high turnout, but deeply disappointed (again) with the lack of any kind of organization. I spoke to several new caucus-goers who said it was extremely confusing when they were trying to find which precinct they were in, and it was just as confusing trying to find the room… Many said they would never do it again which made sad. We must do something to improve this chaotic, unorganized system.
I also spoke with a first-time caucus woman who was leaving the caucus within 30 minutes of being there. She told me that she came but did not cast her vote because when she FINALLY figured out her precinct, then FINALLY found the room, it was too crowded in the room and there was no where to stand or sit. She made the drive there with every intention to participate, but left flustered and aggravated.
This is a disaster. Again- I was thrilled at the turn out, but even caucus day in previous years was just as awfully disorganized. How can we expect new caucus-goers to EVER want to come back when seasoned caucus-goers also leave infuriated? I spoke to a man who had attended several caucuses in the past. He said that that after searching for his precinct room for several minutes through the “maze,” he honestly considered leaving.
Every year I attend the caucus, I can’t help but wonder if SOME of the “king makers” and party bosses want the caucus system to drive away newcomers so that it can continue to be an “insider’s game.”
A few things…many of the conveners of caucus’ are volunteers that would rather be doing something else - so many people want to see ‘organization’ but they don’t show up to help. All the conveners I know, ended up being the only volunteer to show up and run these things on Tuesday night - many cases they couldn’t find someone in a precinct to volunteer, so they missed their own caucus to run one for where they couldn’t find a volunteer.
You and your neighbors could volunteer today to help run an ‘organized’ caucus next time around - good luck.
Secondly - they only reason it was this big this time around was because everything wasn’t already decided after Iowa and New Hampshire like every other year…most years caucus in Minnesota is irrelevant for the presidential….why change the process now for some anomoly that might not happen again for 40 or 50 years?
change it and next caucus I will be sitting there in a huge room with same old 9 neighbors who are always there no matter what…
Secretary of State Ritchie talked on MPR about the Precinct Caucus process.
Today, Senator Dan Larson was on MPR with Gary Eichten.
Both gave good interviews, but I was not comfortable with the way Senator Larson answered one question. It was from a listener that called in and asked about paying for the cost of the precinct caucuses.
I felt Larson’s answer implied the State pays for it, when in fact I believe that the Parties pay the costs associated with the Precinct Caucuses, as they print up the materials, and also rent the locations where the events are held.
Schools are expensive to rent because they operate on tight budgets and want additional revenue.
Churches may be cheaper to rent, particularly those that have a community service commitment. This is sort of amusing because of our separation of church and state style of government.