2020 Delegate Selection Plan

Comments (5)

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.

Leave a comment