DNC-imposed consequences of disproportionate allocations

Hillary Clinton won the 2008 Texas primary popular vote, but Barack Obama won
more Texas delegates. This was due to disproportionate delegate allocation.

Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe explains this in his own book "Audacity to
Win":

... "The delegates in the Texas primary were also distributed a bit unusually:
they were awarded by state senate district, and districts with very high
Democratic turnout in past statewide elections were awarded proportionally more
delegates. This benefited us [the Obama campaign] tremendously, because some of
our stronger areas – progressive cities like Austin and African American areas
like Houston – were advantaged under this allocation formula. For example, a
state senate district in West Texas where Clinton was strong might offer only
three delegates total, while a district in the middle of Austin would offer
nine, even though both had the same population." ... The Audacity to Win, 2009,
Viking Press, page 190.

The Texas rules, under Article VII, National Delegate Selection Rules, 8 to 12,
can be read at:

http://www.txdemocrats.org/resources/tdp-rules/
http://www.txdemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/TDPRules-2010-2012.pdf

Texas was not kicked-out in 2008 despite its disproportionate allocation of
delegates.

But, Florida and Michigan nearly were, since they violated the primary vote time
line.

I know this reference is only anecdotal, but it is evidence that Democrats
Abroad are not alone with a disproportionate allocation formula.

There are two points that need to be made to all our members.

-         There is no DNC tenet that Democrats Abroad is breaking.

-         Texas was indeed accused of violating the 2008 delegate selection rules and as a matter of fact a challenge was submitted to the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee before the 2008 convention.

Understanding how Texas allegedly broke the rules will help you correctly understand the DNC's delegate selection plan and why there would be no basis for a credentials challenge for DA as it currently sits.

On July 1^st Christine forwarded to us a memo from Patrice Taylor. Patrice, who was invited to Florence, commended Christine for her leadership, informed us that proportional representation is a fundamental component at the DNC, and hinted (though never stated) that if we do not allocate more voting power to larger country committees we would be flagged for "review" based on the fact that we could be out of compliance with the Delegate Selection Rules.

So far, this memo has been the only evidence brought forward to justify the whole "somewhere-somehow-something-terrible-is-going-to-happen-to-DA-if-we-do-not-change-the-bylaws" theme that dominated Florence.

Nothing in the aforementioned memo is incorrect when the sentences are isolated. However, when read as a whole it is my humble opinion that the message it tries to convey is incorrect.

First of all, the term "proportional representation" is thrown around as if it was related to the geographical allocation of votes in any given state and, by extension, to the geographical distribution of votes within all the countries where DA has a presence. This is not so. Proportional representation, as it relates to the 2008 DNC Delegate Selection Plan, is used to deal exclusively with one issue: Fair Reflection of Presidential Preferences(Rule 13).  The plan can be found at this URL:

http://tiny.cc/shkam 

What is important here is to understand what the spirit of the rule is: A state party cannot send to the convention delegates that do not reflect the popular will. That is: if a candidate won the primaries by a known majority he or she should have an equally proportionally (higher) number of delegates.

That is the end of it. That is the rule. That is all there is to proportional representation as it refers to the DNC and the delegate selection plan.

When Texas sent more delegates for Obama than a proportional distribution of the primary results would have granted him, a credentials challenge was issued by a Clinton supporter:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2008/06/24/720783/clinton-backer-challenges-texas.html

The case was eventually brought forward to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and resolved internally. Eight states had challenges related to proportional representation, and they were all resolved before the convention. The RBC is a party organ, not a judicial body, so it can rule whatever it feels is in the best interest of the party. I am sure Patrice can provide some insight as to how each one of these challenges was resolved.

That political nature of the RBC is an important one to keep in mind. The DNC is not a court of law; we are not bound by an irremediable set of statutes. There is no judge that will sit in front of us and say "geez guys, I sure wished I didn't have to rule against you, but you broke the law and there is nothing I can do".

What we have, what we are all bound by (politically) is a set of rules and guidelines that are meant to protect the interests of the party and the fairness of the process. Nothing will ever prevent our delegates from being challenged. That is anyone's prerogative, but as long as we follow the spirit of the rules and make a best faith effort to adhere to them we cannot honestly be found out of compliance.