You said it. I woke up at 5 a.m. ranting to myself about how archaic and flawed the caucus process is. (I am in 7-3, this was maybe my 40th caucus?) I encouraged many people to attend, writing in the Hill and Lake Press and also on Nextdoor about how important this is. Several people told me last night that is why they were there. And I now feel responsible for putting them through this time-sucking cluster f***! (I suspect that none of them will be back!)
Yes, kudos to the volunteers who find locations and show up to be trained to run a caucus and to sign folks in and set up chairs, etc. In some ways it's the best of community, but it excludes most of the people the DFL claims to be all about. If you have kids, a job, a disability, or lack transportation, you are not going to find a way to sit (or stand due to lack of chairs) through a 2-3 hour process, much of which make little sense to you. Or, as was the case last night, much of which was spent standing in lines and not in debate of issues or candidates.
Most people, if not all, show up to support a certain candidate. So candidates (or causes) who have access to lists of likely voters, or are members of an ideological group, can pack the house and win the most delegates. In effect they choose who is on the ballot in the fall.
This is NOT what democracy looks like! Minnesota should face reality and get rid of the caucus system and go with a primary.
As the NYT noted back in 2019, "Caucuses tend to be dominated by the most motivated, engaged and informed voters, who also tend to be more ideologically consistent. The opportunity to participate is limited; voting usually occurs at a single time, rather than at any point during a day. The format also can burden voters in ways that deter participation: Caucuses can last for hours, and can require voters to publicly disclose their vote. "
I was about to send you an email Terry. It was a train wreck at my caucus. Admittedly, I'm one of the 98% who typically does not go. I now understand how the DSA was able to hijack our city council. Not difficult for a small, motivated group to organize and basically steal the nominations.
The caucus went 2 hours and I'm not really even sure what happened. Disorganized and chaotic.
It wasn't clear at all that the delegates we picked would vote for the candidates we wanted. I almost can't imagine a more undemocratic process. Without even thinking about it, I can sketch out at least 3 ways to dramatically improve the transparency and democracy.
The caucus process is a relic. At our caucus, we were told there would be NO resolutions, so I'm interested to hear others did it differently. Our convenor and chair, well intentioned and had experience with the political process, seemed mystified by some of the arcane and inane rules and procedures. And no one else knew any better. None of the candidate names were listed anywhere in the room. There was no access to internet at that location. This is no way to run an election in the 21 century. We should just have a primary process.
Went to my first caucus last night and was underwhelmed by the process. I understand that there was a heavier than expected turnout, but the process itself seemed to be one that is a bit chaotic. Why have sub-caucuses that are not for a particular candidate (unless it is an uncommitted sub-caucus). It feels like there are games being played within games and that insiders know the rules that we non-insiders don't. It would be much cleaner, more efficient, and take a lot less time to simply have a primary.
This was the second time I've gone to a precinct caucus. In my ward, there were very few people, so I'm surprised to read the turnout elsewhere was so good. I was struck by how the process was commandeered by party activists with fringe agendas. We literally did not talk about which candidates any of the proposed delegates supported for even a minute. On the other hand we talked about the proposal by "Our Streets" to turn I-94 into a boulevard or land bridge several times. Whatever role the mayor or CC would play in that is minimal and I found it silly that we devoted so much time to it.
Once again Terry you nailed your topic. This is exactly what I observed and experienced as a first time volunteer/attendee to a Minneapolis Caucus event. I will say it was incredibly encouraging to see the number of individuals show up, stand for hours and figure out how to maneuver an incredibly chaotic series of steps to get to the end of the night. We have to do better, this is not what democracy should look like in 2025.
The current system that favors DFL-endorsed candidates has been "gamed": figured-out, exploited by the far-left. But this time around the centrists realized they had to play the game too, by getting a maximum number of people out to caucus. As a result, the system was overloaded. Despite the chaos, I have to say it looked grossly like democracy in action. Nevertheless, there has got to be a better way.
In my 11-3 caucus meeting an individual was elected to delegate and committee posts. It was only when they were asked to say a few words that we and they discovered they were in the wrong room (they do not live in the precinct)
Thank you Terry for clearly articulating the dysfunction at last evenings caucus. Although I'm ecstatic about the favorable preliminary results for wards 7 and 10, the circus atmosphere didn't meet expectations and was disappointing.
It was written that Omar Fateh, Senate District 5, is the front runner for Mayor against Incumbent Frey. I cannot imagine a worse scenario. Fateh is rarely in the room in the Senate. In the current session, he's showing up for a Democratic -chaired committee, and when asked to discuss his amendment, he cannot. I believe the reporting of Fateh's success as a mayoral candidate is due to his own constituency of Somalis who are wholly behind him. That, of course, doesn't mean he's a good candidate or qualified to be Mayor. It just means that there's a large contingent of Somalis who turn up for their candidate. As we move through this process, the most qualified candidate will be reveals. May the best candidate win...
Nah, Fateh isn’t only doing well with the Somali community. Most of his supporters at my precinct looked white. I’ve also been warned to not think of the community as a monolith.
My wife and I went to 13 (Palmisano), precinct 9. Our room was pretty quiet, only about 12 attendees not counting the facilitator(s). The low number of participants likely reflect the fact that Palmisano is running unopposed (as far as I know), but still I was surprised that more attendees didn't show up to (eventually) have a say in the mayoral endorsement at the City convention. The facilitator was the same young lady we had several years ago. Very nice, but seemed somewhat out of her depth. The meeting had the feel of signing up volunteers for something non-controversial like Earth Day! I don't blame the facilitator though; the party should provide more clear, written instructions and documentation, including something like an example flowchart to show how the process works, along a list of FAQs. Everything seemed to be proceeding on a word of mouth "oral tradition" basis and the facilitator had to interrupt at least once to re-focus the group from their side conversations. Given that 90% of the DFL-endorsed candidates win in Mpls (so I hear), this process must be either significantly improved or scrapped for a primary in my opinion! On a positive note, I did meet some nice and well-meaning neighbors.
I showed up for an hour but had to leave for health reasons. Ward 12 was packed and they more than enough volunteers to get their 45 delegates and alternates, rules committee, etc. I left shortly after that. I agree that the caucus process is not worth the trouble and should be abolished. I always consider the candidates based on their merits, regardless of who the DFL recommends and many times their choices are either not qualified or have an extremely liberal agenda.
Attended 11-1. Forty-two in attendance. Near the beginning, the convener told us that the DSA issue was not up for discussion because it's been decided that they're part of the DFL. All who wanted to be Ward delegate became one. Only three females wanted to be city delegates, so they were automatically "elected" because of the gender parity rule. (Why no gender parity rule for Ward-level delegates?)
Much confusion about how to select the four male delegates. Ended up starting with the walking caucus(?). First round results were Davis-4; Fatah-9; Frey-10; Hampton-0; Koski-5; Short-0; Dotson-0; Uncommitted-14. As the description of how the next round would work, someone proposed to switch to the other method and it was passed. It ended with Frey having one delegate, Fateh had one with one uncommitted leaning towards him, and one delegate uncommitted. Seems bizarre that the method of selecting delegates could be changed after the first round.
Is there anyone left in the Strib’s newsroom? The paper has entirely given up any responsibility for being a watchdog of democracy, and is almost entirely sports and human-interest stories.
I do think they have spread out their resources. They have even started their own nonprofit to solicit donations to pay for local reporting around the state.
In 12-4 we had 43 attendees, but 3 or 4 wandered in 20 to 30 minutes late. Our convener was great, I think it was his first time, but mentioned that he had not been trained on some of the processes that were occurring; some experienced attendees (this is only my second caucus) helped him out. It appeared most of the group were DSA-oriented. Mayoral delegates were all anti-Frey - 2 or 3 were supporting DeWayne Davis, 5 for Omar Fateh, and 2 uncommitted. Chowdhury spoke and was very polished, while Thompson seemed nervous and not as articulate, but I was impressed with her vision for the ward / city. Brenda Short spoke and was very straightforward and succinct; Fateh spoke, and again very polished. Too polished. The room was crowded, and not enough chairs. No method of verifying whether a person lived in the precinct.
You said it. I woke up at 5 a.m. ranting to myself about how archaic and flawed the caucus process is. (I am in 7-3, this was maybe my 40th caucus?) I encouraged many people to attend, writing in the Hill and Lake Press and also on Nextdoor about how important this is. Several people told me last night that is why they were there. And I now feel responsible for putting them through this time-sucking cluster f***! (I suspect that none of them will be back!)
Yes, kudos to the volunteers who find locations and show up to be trained to run a caucus and to sign folks in and set up chairs, etc. In some ways it's the best of community, but it excludes most of the people the DFL claims to be all about. If you have kids, a job, a disability, or lack transportation, you are not going to find a way to sit (or stand due to lack of chairs) through a 2-3 hour process, much of which make little sense to you. Or, as was the case last night, much of which was spent standing in lines and not in debate of issues or candidates.
Most people, if not all, show up to support a certain candidate. So candidates (or causes) who have access to lists of likely voters, or are members of an ideological group, can pack the house and win the most delegates. In effect they choose who is on the ballot in the fall.
This is NOT what democracy looks like! Minnesota should face reality and get rid of the caucus system and go with a primary.
As the NYT noted back in 2019, "Caucuses tend to be dominated by the most motivated, engaged and informed voters, who also tend to be more ideologically consistent. The opportunity to participate is limited; voting usually occurs at a single time, rather than at any point during a day. The format also can burden voters in ways that deter participation: Caucuses can last for hours, and can require voters to publicly disclose their vote. "
I was about to send you an email Terry. It was a train wreck at my caucus. Admittedly, I'm one of the 98% who typically does not go. I now understand how the DSA was able to hijack our city council. Not difficult for a small, motivated group to organize and basically steal the nominations.
The caucus went 2 hours and I'm not really even sure what happened. Disorganized and chaotic.
It wasn't clear at all that the delegates we picked would vote for the candidates we wanted. I almost can't imagine a more undemocratic process. Without even thinking about it, I can sketch out at least 3 ways to dramatically improve the transparency and democracy.
It's unfortunate that your experience was shared by quite a few people.
The caucus process is a relic. At our caucus, we were told there would be NO resolutions, so I'm interested to hear others did it differently. Our convenor and chair, well intentioned and had experience with the political process, seemed mystified by some of the arcane and inane rules and procedures. And no one else knew any better. None of the candidate names were listed anywhere in the room. There was no access to internet at that location. This is no way to run an election in the 21 century. We should just have a primary process.
Went to my first caucus last night and was underwhelmed by the process. I understand that there was a heavier than expected turnout, but the process itself seemed to be one that is a bit chaotic. Why have sub-caucuses that are not for a particular candidate (unless it is an uncommitted sub-caucus). It feels like there are games being played within games and that insiders know the rules that we non-insiders don't. It would be much cleaner, more efficient, and take a lot less time to simply have a primary.
This was the second time I've gone to a precinct caucus. In my ward, there were very few people, so I'm surprised to read the turnout elsewhere was so good. I was struck by how the process was commandeered by party activists with fringe agendas. We literally did not talk about which candidates any of the proposed delegates supported for even a minute. On the other hand we talked about the proposal by "Our Streets" to turn I-94 into a boulevard or land bridge several times. Whatever role the mayor or CC would play in that is minimal and I found it silly that we devoted so much time to it.
Once again Terry you nailed your topic. This is exactly what I observed and experienced as a first time volunteer/attendee to a Minneapolis Caucus event. I will say it was incredibly encouraging to see the number of individuals show up, stand for hours and figure out how to maneuver an incredibly chaotic series of steps to get to the end of the night. We have to do better, this is not what democracy should look like in 2025.
The current system that favors DFL-endorsed candidates has been "gamed": figured-out, exploited by the far-left. But this time around the centrists realized they had to play the game too, by getting a maximum number of people out to caucus. As a result, the system was overloaded. Despite the chaos, I have to say it looked grossly like democracy in action. Nevertheless, there has got to be a better way.
In my 11-3 caucus meeting an individual was elected to delegate and committee posts. It was only when they were asked to say a few words that we and they discovered they were in the wrong room (they do not live in the precinct)
Lots of confusion. There are ways to improve it or scrap it for a primary system.
Is there an active genuine effort to scrap the caucus? Where do I sign up?
I would absolutely devote time and energy to moving to a primary system. The caucus seems really anti-democratic (small d).
Thank you Terry for clearly articulating the dysfunction at last evenings caucus. Although I'm ecstatic about the favorable preliminary results for wards 7 and 10, the circus atmosphere didn't meet expectations and was disappointing.
It was written that Omar Fateh, Senate District 5, is the front runner for Mayor against Incumbent Frey. I cannot imagine a worse scenario. Fateh is rarely in the room in the Senate. In the current session, he's showing up for a Democratic -chaired committee, and when asked to discuss his amendment, he cannot. I believe the reporting of Fateh's success as a mayoral candidate is due to his own constituency of Somalis who are wholly behind him. That, of course, doesn't mean he's a good candidate or qualified to be Mayor. It just means that there's a large contingent of Somalis who turn up for their candidate. As we move through this process, the most qualified candidate will be reveals. May the best candidate win...
Nah, Fateh isn’t only doing well with the Somali community. Most of his supporters at my precinct looked white. I’ve also been warned to not think of the community as a monolith.
My wife and I went to 13 (Palmisano), precinct 9. Our room was pretty quiet, only about 12 attendees not counting the facilitator(s). The low number of participants likely reflect the fact that Palmisano is running unopposed (as far as I know), but still I was surprised that more attendees didn't show up to (eventually) have a say in the mayoral endorsement at the City convention. The facilitator was the same young lady we had several years ago. Very nice, but seemed somewhat out of her depth. The meeting had the feel of signing up volunteers for something non-controversial like Earth Day! I don't blame the facilitator though; the party should provide more clear, written instructions and documentation, including something like an example flowchart to show how the process works, along a list of FAQs. Everything seemed to be proceeding on a word of mouth "oral tradition" basis and the facilitator had to interrupt at least once to re-focus the group from their side conversations. Given that 90% of the DFL-endorsed candidates win in Mpls (so I hear), this process must be either significantly improved or scrapped for a primary in my opinion! On a positive note, I did meet some nice and well-meaning neighbors.
Thanks, Doug. Your experience was similar to many. I like the idea of a flowchart and FAQ. A primary makes sense to me.
I showed up for an hour but had to leave for health reasons. Ward 12 was packed and they more than enough volunteers to get their 45 delegates and alternates, rules committee, etc. I left shortly after that. I agree that the caucus process is not worth the trouble and should be abolished. I always consider the candidates based on their merits, regardless of who the DFL recommends and many times their choices are either not qualified or have an extremely liberal agenda.
Thank you so much for your very thoughtful and insightful articles.
Attended 11-1. Forty-two in attendance. Near the beginning, the convener told us that the DSA issue was not up for discussion because it's been decided that they're part of the DFL. All who wanted to be Ward delegate became one. Only three females wanted to be city delegates, so they were automatically "elected" because of the gender parity rule. (Why no gender parity rule for Ward-level delegates?)
Much confusion about how to select the four male delegates. Ended up starting with the walking caucus(?). First round results were Davis-4; Fatah-9; Frey-10; Hampton-0; Koski-5; Short-0; Dotson-0; Uncommitted-14. As the description of how the next round would work, someone proposed to switch to the other method and it was passed. It ended with Frey having one delegate, Fateh had one with one uncommitted leaning towards him, and one delegate uncommitted. Seems bizarre that the method of selecting delegates could be changed after the first round.
Open primary... please!
Just to be clear, 42 people just in 11-1?!
My experience was so different. There were six people in my precinct!
Yes, 42. Judging by the number of people entering and exiting, I'd say Ward 11 had a good turnout.
Could you say more about who decided and when that the DSA are part of the DFL? Thanks.
Sorry, I can't. I understood the convener to say that the DSA was part of the DFL and it wasn't open to discussion.
Is there anyone left in the Strib’s newsroom? The paper has entirely given up any responsibility for being a watchdog of democracy, and is almost entirely sports and human-interest stories.
I do think they have spread out their resources. They have even started their own nonprofit to solicit donations to pay for local reporting around the state.
In 12-4 we had 43 attendees, but 3 or 4 wandered in 20 to 30 minutes late. Our convener was great, I think it was his first time, but mentioned that he had not been trained on some of the processes that were occurring; some experienced attendees (this is only my second caucus) helped him out. It appeared most of the group were DSA-oriented. Mayoral delegates were all anti-Frey - 2 or 3 were supporting DeWayne Davis, 5 for Omar Fateh, and 2 uncommitted. Chowdhury spoke and was very polished, while Thompson seemed nervous and not as articulate, but I was impressed with her vision for the ward / city. Brenda Short spoke and was very straightforward and succinct; Fateh spoke, and again very polished. Too polished. The room was crowded, and not enough chairs. No method of verifying whether a person lived in the precinct.
Francie, thanks for this report.