2020 Delegate Selection Plan

Comments (9)

This looks great

I see a typo on A.2.b: I believe that should be the 2016 presidential election, not the 2020 election, which would not have yet occurred.

otherwise it looks good.

Brenda Breidinger

Thanks for your emails and information but I’m having a huge problem with the current way we Democrats are going to handle the 2020 election. I understand that there are many very competent, talented, and popular individuals that want to ‘run’ for the office of President of the United States. But, if we Democrats spend the next 10 months or so focusing on who we should put forward as our best chance of beating Trump or Pence if they aren’t impeached before hand instead of focusing on our current horrible situation we might totally miss our chance to stop what is happening right now!!!!!!

Plus, the media is playing such a huge role in influencing the public and the person ‘running’ who is the most controversial or prettiest or most out spoken…… will get the most media coverage just like Trump got in the 2016 election. Which was totally ‘free’ and brought a lot of attention to Trump that many people wouldn’t have even known about.

Is there a way that these people who wish to ‘run’ could get together with the most influential Democrats and come up with the most viable person to ‘run’ against any Republican candidate. If we Democrats could save the money that we would have spent on all of the ‘candidates’ that are currently in the ‘race’ and instead put it towards ONE VERY STRONG CANDIDATE in the actual election in Nov 2020 that would be a much better option.

Please try to explain to me if there is a way that we as Democrats can potentially have what I’m suggesting happen. Thanks, Brenda

This plan still may be a huge organizational effort for Counties that have large numbers of Democrats, but the caucus numbers should be reduced to those interested in selecting delegates and not every average voter. The actual statewide vote on Presidential primary allows more people to participate which is GREAT.

Re: Gini Ballou comment. I agree unless it should be 2020 “primary” election, not general.

Other comments:
Section I, C1 should insert “by the date of the general election” after 18 years of age .

Section II, A Question: How will voters at the primary election be informed that if they want to vote “uncommitted” , they are to ask for the ballot and then leave the presidential candidate blank, thus selecting no candidate?

Section III, A2b2, Table 1-1: In the Nov 2018 election over 60% of the registered Democrats in Ada County lived in CD2, but the plan shows 108 delegates allocated to CD1 and 68 to CD 2. I can’t believe that the number of Dems actually voting could change that much. Also, the total of delegates allocated in the table equals 431 not 424 as stated in paragraph A2b1.

Section III, A2b6(c) Line 10: “advance of the (no later than 5:30 pm., March 31, 2020 and therefore become eligible for” There is something wrong with this line. Please correct.

Section III, A3a Line 1: What is “formula 1” referring to?
Line 2: Insert primary between 2020 and presidential;
Line 4: 2020 Presidential should be 2016 Presidential

Section III, A3c The table allocates more delegates to CD1. I believe this is an error based on the error I identified above in Table 1-1.

Section III, A4a2 Line 5: “state chair in advance of the (no later than June 5, 2020 8 pm MT and therefore become eligible for” There is something wrong with this line. Please correct.

Section III, A4 In the declaration statement insert 2020 after November 10.

Section III, A5b This paragraph does not explain what the presidential candidate must file.

Section III, B1 states that Idaho does not have any automatic delegates. That is incorrect. Idaho has 5 automatic delegates based on 5 DNC members who reside in Idaho.

Section III, C3b gives the presidential candidates only 1 hour to approve the PLEOs pledged to that candidate.

Section VIII. A2a The initial affirmative action committee is listed. Section c states “shall consist of members who are regionally diverse and represent the constituency groups in the Affirmative Action Plan. All 8 members live in Ada or Canyon county. The remaining 42 counties are left out. 2 members of the same household are listed. No Native Americans, no LGBT men, no people with disabilities, no veterans. I don’t know if the latter categories are included in the AAP, but they should be included on the committee, as well as economic diversity. The Exec Comt should definitely discuss this.

In reference to the Idaho Democratic Party Delegate Selection Plan,
Section III, Selection of Delegates and Alternates.

Section III does not pass ‘muster’ under the one-man-one-vote Supreme Court rulings of the 1960s. We should not be organizing our convention delegate selections based upon archaic affectations to bygone halcyon days of county party rule. How many counties do we ‘own,’ or even have any elected official, and how many counties are totally Dark – those lacking any party organization?

The 1960 census showed Camas County with a population of around 4,000 people while Ada County showed more than 10 times that number, both were represented in State Legislature with the same number of representatives. This imbalance was endemic throughout the country and the Supreme Court ruled that states had to change and make provisions for equal representation in their legislatures. This is where our “Legislative Districts” and consequently, our Legislative District Central Committees come from.

But the IDP continues to do statewide business on a county committee basis when we should be utilizing the LD s instead. This is a prime example of where we are maintaining inappropriate methods and structures. Section III should be revisited and rewritten using Legislative Districts as the base for our caucuses, after all, our primaries will be conducted on Legislative District basis. If we don’t start using the LD s for what they are intended, we will continue to violate the intent of the one-man-one-vote rules we are supposed to be following.

For example, I live in Bonneville County, which includes (in-whole or in-part) four Legislative Districts. While next door, Legislative District 32 encompasses 6 different counties in-whole or in-part. What I am trying to demonstrate is that counties do not form an appropriate representative sample of the voters in Idaho. Legislative Districts do. The diversity and variety we experience here can best be reflected if we look to Legislative Districts as our base unit instead of relying upon the old traditional county committee basis.

Until we start acknowledging and utilizing our LD s in functional ways we will never develop the unity and cohesiveness needed in the distant communities to create an effective party base to support candidates here in the wilderness. And in the metropolitan environs of Ada County, this approach would convert an ‘unwieldily’ caucus into manageable and useful processes. This should be a first step in empowering and supporting our Legislative District committees. It needs to start here. It needs to start now.

I am,
Dennis Sutton
Legislative District 33 Chair

Page 7- “and including concise, educational statements” – YES!! That will be awesome to see!!! Thank you so much!

Page 35- it says “(Select One)” at the top of the page – seems like something is missing there. 🙂

The county caucus for statewide convention makes logical sense. District caucus replacing county caucus would not be feasible in rural districts. District 8 that Valley County is part of is at least 5-6 hour travel by car end to end. Plan looks good.

Leave a comment