Change the Rules at the California Democratic Party, the DNC and across the Nation…
Recently, I got this question on a discussion group. here it is with my reply ::
Dante wrote:Brad, just so I know…what Central Committee rules are you specifically interested in changing? Do you mean the DSCC, or County Committees?
Here you go Dante…
Three Important CDP By-Law Changes
As Progressive Democrats we are as interested in getting more
Democrats elected to office, at every level of government, as anyone
in our Party. However, I believe that the processes for crafting
policy, endorsement and democratic representation within the central
committees needs reform.
1 - Replace the appointed members of the DSCC and Executive
board of the DSCC with twice as many delegates elected from the
ADs to both. Selected members with a vote equal to elected
members is undemocratic and amounts to continual rigging of the
votes in favor of the status quo. (We all remember Bush v. Gore)
Elected officials can still vote their 1/3 of the votes and the members
will have 2/3 of the vote. The best idea will carry the vote and this will
create new enthusiasm, involvement and investment of time and
energy from every AD. Also, the composition of the new AD elections
would be: 24 delegates (12 women, 12 men) and 2 E. Bd. Reps. (1
women, 1 man) creating balance and diversity within both the DSCC
and the E. Bd. The current system is undemocratic and non-
representational. It is fostering mistrust and apathy.
2 - Eliminate the pre-primary endorsement system by the CDP. This
system has created huge animosity in every large and most small
districts. It is counter-intuitive to encourage factions within the Party
to fight it out for the endorsement within the Party in the primary and
then expect them to come together in the general - they don’t. This is
fostering deep divisions in every AD. This is not about the
Progressives - it is Party-wide. Let every candidate win on his or her
merit in the primary. Let the voters decide. I would apply this to every
County Central Committee as well.
As proof of the efficacy of this proposal I submit the following:Attorney General Brown and Mayor Newsom have since responded. Both of them have agreed in writing that they will not pursue the Party’s pre-primary endorsement so long as other Democratic gubernatorial candidates play by the same rules. From Chair John Burton to DSCC delegates onBurton Sep. 10th, 2009.
3 - Change the venue for the DNC elections to the DSCC from the
E. Bd. 3000 people would elect and more representative and
balanced board than 300, especially with the first by-law revision.
Again, this change would foster greater interest, participation and
representation on behalf of the entire Party membership. The current
system is stagnant. Millions of Democrats deserve change not the
status quo of the same faces every four years. Even more Democratic and Representational would be to elect DNC members by AD or CD throughout the state.
As for the DNC :: ban any member of the DNC from work as a Campaign Consultant or Lobbyist during their term. There are far too many of these activites by DNC members. To Them, every GOTV effort is a “Profit Center.” To the Party members it is about Policy not Profit. This is a clear conflict of interest.
There are other changes that would of equal value in getting more
Democrats elected, like a minimum contribution from the CDP in
every state level race in the 58 counties but we can save that for
Valley Democrats United, President
Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, Steering Committee
CDP-DSCC, Delegate, 42nd AD
Progressive Democrats of America, Board of Trustees
A.F. of M. Local 47