It has been since 1982 that major, sweeping change has been proposed in the Democratic party to equal the Unity Reform Commission. The proposal offers significant changes in the way the party works and operates. While most of the attention is paid to unpledged delegates, some of the most significant changes come elsewhere — reform in the way we discuss party offices and construct our primaries and caucus.
While the sign of support for Unity is significant, there are detractors. All said and done though, I am a YES vote in our vote next Saturday, and, in the same way I update my state committee, fellow DNC members, and other voters, I want to share my reasoning with the Daily Kos community.
If you are unfamiliar with the Unity proposal at hand, a few weeks ago. You can read about the changes here, or feel free to watch the video explainer here:
This explains what it, but why should we vote for a proposal that makes changes?
Restoring trust in our party.
Ken Martin, chair of the Minnesota Democratic Party, sums it up this way:
As Democrats, we are tasked with an immense amount of responsibility to ensure that we are the party that stands up for and promotes values such as equity, fairness, inclusion, transparency, and justice. At some point over the last few years, and culminating in 2016, many of those who identify with those values lost faith and trust in our party. They felt that we were not living up to those values, and that we were not doing enough to ensure our actions lined up with our words.
In December of 2017 the State Central Committee of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party unanimously adopted a resolution to reduce the influence of super-delegates in the Presidential nominating process. This resolution was a bold step forward in rebuilding the trust that was lost during the 2016 Presidential Primary, and in Minnesota, we have already seen the positive impacts as a result of this action. And in the DNC, next week we have the same opportunity to rebuild that trust and confidence on a national level by passing these meaningful reforms.
No matter who you voted for in the 2016 election, we have to move past it and begin thinking about 2020. To make 2020 the most successful we can, we have to be willing to acknowledge that many voters, especially those who are our best volunteers and workers — the people who make the party work — do not easily understand the system as it is currently configured. Several states have already moved forward with their own resolutions adopting these provisions. Rebuilding trust in the way our national party leadership will operate toward presidential candidates — whether people see it as real or perceived — is important in the enthusiasm we need to generate from our voters.
Building a more diverse party
Under the current configuration, unpledged delegates, which include federal elected, governors, DNC members, former presidents, etc. are provided their vote. This has become a sticking point with some who proclaim the resolution will harm the diversity in the party. The truth is exactly the reverse.
Pledged delegates to the convention are far more diverse. Meanwhile, federal elected and governors, etc. the one thing they have in common? They are overwhelmingly white men. Yes, we do have a congressional black caucus. With a total of 1 black woman as a senator (Kamala Harris) vs. numerous white men.
Other elements of diversity are unbelievably underrepresented within the current configuration, especially those who are Asian American, persons with disability, LGBT and others. Pledged delegates, those who go to the convention as state-level activists, are far more diverse, and by making them — and our voting communities — the final word we empower the diversity within our party.
The proposal makes major changes in the way in which the caucus states that remain work, which will help allow persons to participate who have never had the option before. This is especially beneficial for communities of color, persons with disabilities, and people who do not have a work schedule that allows them long participation.
By enacting these changes, we help diminish party-led voter disenfranchisement by letting more average voters participate.
I am certainly aware of the claim this disenfranchises DNC voters — but true disenfranchisement is not having a voice at any level in our process; by doing this we give far more people, and far more diversity of communities, an option to participate. DNC members can, and certainly will, vote and participate in their primaries and caucus. In other words: all of our voters will be recognized, their voices heard.
Our elected deserve to talk about issues, not controversies.
Jen McClellan, a Virginia legislator, summed it up this way:
The perception of influence by unpledged delegates hurts all of us. It divides our party, hampers grassroots enthusiasm, and hinders our ability to win elections. We can’t let these issues linger over us any longer. There’s too much at stake and too many people counting on us.
I have spent my year traveling to state and county meetings all over the country. From indivisible to Swing Left, Netroots and State Democratic Party Committee meetings. At every one, when I talk to state legislators, the issue comes up — because local activists push it, and they want change.
I have heard the claim, by some, that this should be dismissed because it comes from Senator Sanders. I want to make this point VERY clear. The changes put into place DID NOT come from Senator Sanders. It came from a UNANIMOUS vote of the 2016 convention. UNANIMOUS. The committees themselves were divided to provide Hillary Clinton’s campaign more voices, and through the process, compromises by both sides were made.
Some issues were tabled, some issues were edited, debates over Shall vs May went out for long periods of time. Through all of it, though, numerous alternative proposals were discussed, weighed, and debated. Problems were found, corrections were made, revisions to the main document took place in order to make sure that everyone had a voice and could claim some ownership of the process.
I attended every URC meeting, and all but one of the RBC meetings (conflict with a Daily Kos staff event). These are people who have put a lot of time into the party and have just one goal: what is it going to take to win in 2018, and 2020.
This is our chance
I am excited about the future of the party. While so many are focused on unpledged delegates, for me, the changes that are meaningful, that will make a significant impact revolve around a new commitment to a path to leadership within our party; a commitment toward greater transparency in party operations; and the goal of involving more people in our process.
We will have 50% fewer caucus in 2020 than 2016. That’s a benefit to every voter in those states in my mind. We will have a more fair caucus system that doesn’t disenfranchise or harm voters in more states.
We will provide better access for those who cannot afford to stay, who has a disability that prevents their participation, or who find that a mostly English only system shuts them out. In 2020, under the new system, they will all be welcomed and can participate easier, giving us the most diverse voting base we have ever had.
As I go around the country, I’m keenly aware of how often our party leadership in county after county, state after state grows older, and younger people struggle to fit in. A new path to leadership and a more open process that can build a part of the future.
Disagree? Want to talk about it?
Outside of the comments, the vast majority of the DNC meetings are open to the public. Yes, there are private meetings, too, but not only can you comment here, but if you are in Chicago and want to stop by and watch the process, feel free to drop in at the Hyatt Regency Chicago.
If you can’t stop by and want to discuss, feel free to post a question below.
If my video explainer isn’t enough, and prior diaries still leave you wondering, Frank Leone, a member of the Rules Committee, posted his overview here.