The Orange County Democratic Party has redesigned its web site and launched it today. While the content is still a little sparce, it will ultimately be driven by our precincts, who will each have their own page, blog and calendar. It is Drupal based, and much more flexible than our earlier page. Much of the heavy lifting was done by Dave Tillery, and Jason Baker, our 3rd vice chair, will serve as webmaster.
Issues:
OrangePolitics is a not-for-profit website for discussing progressive perspectives on politics, planning, and public policy in Orange County, NC. Opinions are those of their authors. Learn more.
By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.
By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Comments
Good job
It looks like a great improvement. Congrats to Jason & co.
So much better
at a cursory glance it appears to look a lot better, I’ll have to browse it some more later, but the old site had the feeling of an old site where you looked at it once & thought this probably won’t have whatever I’m looking for since it feels out of date
Like it, but...
Jim, I really like the feel of the new site. I hope it works well for you. But I just can't get over the irony of the first article. Don't know if others might have had the same feeling, but your irony really struck me.Mark Klienschmidt proclaimed on Twitter and Facebook that: Rtwt @mkleinschmidt: Orange Co. Dems get involved in municipal elections! http://tiny.cc/Y8fmt . You acknowledge: "The fall local elections are nonpartisan, and so no party affiliation will be listed next to any candidate's names. Here is a list of those Democrats who will be on the ballot in the November municipal elections."Some might see this as endorsement of certain candidates whose number just happen to equal the seats available, no? But the ultimate is point 9 on VOE:
Who raises billions to keep or place candidates in office? Here in NC, why are the parties fighting like they are over more VOE in NC? Who does the safe money say will loose and win if we do have more VOE? What are NC Dems really worried about?So for a party that champions "really special" interest money, why align your party with VOE in CH where we have no where close the financial conflicts that your and other dollars create in our State and National elections? Is our enormously small $250 contributions a threat to democracy when compared to your billions raised to advance your agenda. I just now got a call from a Party-related group to give in order to help pass health care because the "special interests" are mobilizing against it. Creative use of labeling, don't you think?Anyone who really believes that public financing creates a "level playing field," it's because of how they define it compared to how others of us might define it. You have already put the weight of an entire well-funded party behind two VOE candidates in a nonpartisan election; how does a candidate report that on the SBOE forms?And it's not really voter owned --- if anything it's taxpayer owned; every voter doesn't pay the bill! I think we need some old fashion truth telling.
every voter doesn't pay the bill!
And it's not really voter owned --- if anything it's taxpayer owned; every voter doesn't pay the bill! I think we need some old fashion truth telling. Can you elaborate on this statement Fred?
What I don't understand...
What I don't understand are the references "tax payers" as if it's some separate entity from the general public. Who, exactly, are those who use this term hoping to exclude? I don't know anyone who votes in Chapel Hill who doesn't pay some sort of taxes here - whether it's a property tax directly, or indirectly as a part of their rent; a vehicle registration tax; sales tax; or any number of other taxes. Is there some implication that only people who pay a certain kind of tax should be considered owners of the public financing system? What kind of sense does that make?Taxes, and for that matter government in general, exist because there are some tasks that are better done collectively. Government, and its money, belong to the people, not just those who pay the most for it. Hopefully that is a notion which voter owned elections can help reinforce.
Just today
I had a conversation with an acquaintance who now is in NYC, owns no property here, but claims CH as his legal residence, hence he votes here. Is he one of the "bill payers?" Is he the only one?But a more important question: we as citizens can contribute up to $250 to a candidate, have no history in CH of outside money influencing our elections and have plenty of evidence that money is one of the less influential variables in electoral outcomes, YET your party can want to "clean up OUR elections while raising billions in individual and special interest contributions. Do you not see anything at all hypocritical about this?
Again
Fred, you didn't address my question, so I'll ask it again. Do you mean to imply that only those who pay ad valorum property taxes directly through property ownership are the owners of publicly financed elections?To answer your question directly, no, I don't find it hypocritical. I'd venture a guess that it's a majority opinion of Orange County Democrats that clean, fair elections are important at every level of government. Support of aggressive campaign finance laws has been a Democratic position for years; just look at the history behind the "Bipartisan" Campaign Reform Act of 2002. While I might personally groan when a candidate I support takes money from less than reputable sources (and I often show it with my votes in the primaries), I also don't expect my party to roll over and play dead just because the playing field is uneven. The current system at the national level is broken; as we begin to construct a working system at the local level with meaningful reforms, I readily applaud my party for supporting it.
Yes, Fred - money has no influence
We are blessed & alone in the universe here in Chapel Hill. Political contributions are made totally out of the spiritual wellspring of those who wish for the highest aspirations of democracy to flower in our community. It's a New Age and all those who contribute toward individual candidates are leading the way, out of the depths of their altruism. It is so nice to live in such a special place.
Influence of money
"We as citizens can contribute up to
$250 to a candidate, have no history in CH of outside money influencing
our elections and have plenty of evidence that money is one of the less
influential variables in electoral outcomes."I can think of two campaigns that have been highly criticized for taking outside money over the past 10 years: Dianne Bachmann in Chapel Hill and Mike Nelson in Carrboro/Orange County. Other criticisms about campaign spending have been levied on Matt C, Will Raymond, and Ed Harrison. During the last election money in the form of robocalls by the coalition of incumbents was a significant issue (IMHO). If you prefer that we call this publicly financed campaigns rather than voter-owned elections, I can understand your position. But I support any attempt to remove the influence of money from local elections with the hope that it will trickle up to state and national elections. I agree with you that the Democrats are hypocritical on this issue.
My imagination gets stretch marks
everytime somebody proclaims with the innocence of a kitten that political contributions don't affect candidates' policies. And "creative use of labeling" to say that "special interests" are against health care reform? Please tell us what planet you are reporting from. Big Insurance & Big Pharma are spending a reported $1 million dollars a day to protect their current status as profit-makers off of people's health misfortunes. All that money spent because they are afraid of competition from the government? The same government that they say is incompetent? Seems like a capitalist's dream to compete against a lame opponent.
Point was
that what "they" are is a "special interest" but me giving the group who called some money is somehow not also a "special interest." I think it is creative to convince potential doners that they will help fight the evil "special interests." Are they not one in the same?
Absolutely not the same
One group is a political organization representing citizens & the other is corporation dedicated to maximizing profit for a select few, even if it comes at the expense of ordinary people.
So,
you are a masterful practioneer of creative labeling. The essence of the organization is not the issue, rather it is the use of money to influence policy. Call them parties, corporations, special interest groups, or whatever, they all are trying to achieve groals and it tskes money to do so. The group that called me was a party PAC - legally doing what they do. So any other groups are evil?
You lost me there, Fred
You wrote, "The essence of the organization is not the issue, rather it is the use of money to influence policy."Of course, the essence of the organization is the issue. When a group that has a stated purpose, i.e. health care reform, raises money and spends it, we know what they are doing. And it's citizen-based.When Progress Energy lines the campaign coffers of elected officials, it is a little murkier. Although you don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots. And, to repeat, these corporations hold profitability for a select few (whose names hardly anyone in the general public even knows) as their number one priority.
Not quite
Sorry, I'm a lurker and EXTREMELY infrequent (i.e. maybe once in the past) contributor, but I don't understand Mark and feel like his statement warrants a response. You've almost got it, but the global conspiracy theories get in the way. Do "these" (or any for-profit corporation/company/partnership) hold profitability as a number one priority? Really? Let me check here . . . . If I've got goods to sell, and I've got someone who invests in my product, then, yeah, my number one job is to sell that product and return value to my investor. In a university town, we would refer to this as Economics 101.You see, generating a good or service, making a profit, and returning value to your shareholders (be they investors, members, partners, employees, or others) is actually to be applauded, rather than demonized as you seem to do fairly frequently. So the "select few" that, in your example, reap the profitability of Progess Energy probably include the CEO, COO, CFO, and other highly paid executives. But where you miss the boat would be by failing to include the employees and their beneficiaries, who reap the benefit of wages, insurance, and company retirement contributions, and the shareholders of over $8.7B in Progress stock, which would include average moms & pops, as well as pension funds, and mutual funds in which people have invested their IRAs / 401ks / 403bs / 529s / etc., for which they're rewarded with a great quarterly dividend (as an aside, I had no idea how well Progress paid! $2.48/shr? Wow!) So the message is that when a company, be it a bank, energy company, pharmaceutical firm, corner drug store, or independent farm, turns a profit, it economically benefits people up and down the economic food chain.If you want to attack a company based upon it's corporate values or mission, or for the manner in which it chooses to generate a profit (for instance, I have issues with monoline financial institutions such as Capital One), or, more importantly, in failing to provide for the financial safety and welfare of it's employees and shareholders (i.e Enron, Worldcomm), then have at it. Frankly, I'll probably join in. I don't know you, or your background, but for the life of me I don't understand the seeming disgust for anything "profit" related. Again, if you want to attack an organization for it's values or mission, by all means, lead on. But to denigrate a company because it would dare to make a profit is, to me, insulting and causes me to dismiss the rest of your message as rambling and irrelevant ideology.Back to my lurker hole now, sorry to intrude.
No problem with profits re Adam Smith
Big problem with profits re AIG, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Duke Energy, etc, that is derived - not from Main St. Economics 101 - but from bribery and political chicanery. FYI - I am a small independent businessman. I am truly in the free market. I am not too big too fail. No-one in the higher echelons of government gives a rat's ass how I do, even though I pay employees & create jobs. I operate in the realm of real capitalism yet I witness the so-called champions of business expending their energy protecting the large corporate entities. I can honestly say that they don't care about me, authentic capitalism & profits, or other small businesses. If you don't see that, then you are blinded by the everyday propanda.
It's voluntary, Fred
Fred, you're obviously supporting Matt C, based on your posts above and your letter in today's CH News. That's OK, we can each support whom we want.Based on Matt's financial performance in the 2007 election, he will likely spend a large amount of personal funds on his mayoral campaign, far more than the VOE, even with its "rescue funds" clause, will contribute to Mark Kleinschmidt for mayor or Penny Rich for town council, the only two CH candidates who have signed on to the VOE. Facing some criticism for his spending last time, at a council meeting on TV, Matt replied "I'm blessed".All this is OK. Matt is not handicapped by the VOE; it is voluntary and he has chosen not to sign up. Thus he is free to contribute as much as he wants to his mayoral campaign, and if he can afford to do so without raising the mortage on his house, then he is indeed blessed.The VOE gives Penny a chance. She can spend some taxpayers' money, not a lot, but enough to buy some advertising to become competitive. She still faces the handicap of not being an incumbent with the name recognition and the consequential access to lots of small contributions that I could count on during my 1995 re-election bid.Mark Kleinschmidt's election-funding situation will be extremely interesting, for he will likely have to compete against a high-dollar campaign with his more limited resources. I hope and trust that he will keep the election local, both in funding and in personnel. When facing a need for advertising money and effort, I hope he will not accept funds, advertising or staff from state-wide or national gay-rights' groups.
Mark's situation
As I understand it, since Mark has signed up for public financing he is promising not to take outside money. Here's the details of voter-owned or publicly financed campaigs for those who aren't familiar with the nuances being discussed: http://www.voterowned.org/As for how we evaluate the success of this program, it's very clear. Did the public funds help entice anyone who would not have run otherwise. For this first election, I'm afraid we will have to say no, it did not achieve it's goal.
Looking at the First Election only is
a little short sighted. I believe in Portland when they started with
this program it too only had two participants to begin with, and now it
is the prefered method for campaigns. I think success on either the mayoral or town council level will go a long ways towards conviencing potential candidates into taking that last step into becoming actual candidates. There is no need to be in a rush to credit or discredit this program, when it will be judged in the months & years & election cycles to come, not a few weeks & in a filing period that has already passed.
Matt C
has nothing to do with my objection to VOE, the local Dems position on our non-partisan election, or who has how much election. There is a vast audit trail of my position going back several years.But what really bugs me is that people who speak one story out of one side of their mouths can speak another out the other with no difficulty. I can understand 3d VP Jason not seeing any hypocrisy, but I guess that I can be happy that many whom I have heard from seem to agree that we have a classic case of political double-talk Clean up those "dirty" little low cost elections in Chapel Hill and maybe folks won't notice what's happening on the county, state or federal levels. How much money did the party just pay the BOE? Pure hypocrisy! PS: do you know how we plan to evaluate VOE after the election? Should be interesting! Our process needs fixing but this is not the fix. I'm betting that the evaluation might not come to that conclusion.
Examples?
Fred, since you keep using the word "hypocrisy," could you kindly cite some of the examples you must have of the Orange County Democratic Party taking large amounts of special interest money?Here, I'll even do you a favor and link to our Board of Elections filings. It might take you some time to go through them all - our last quarter that the SBOE has online has over 800 small contributions from individuals. The average donation size was about $25. There were no donations from PACs or other committees. There are some committee donations further back in time, but they're from candidates or the state party, not special interests. We are, fundamentally, a grassroots party.If your concern is that some Democratic candidates or some Democratic committees take large amounts of special interest money, well, that's fine. We share that concern. But what on Earth does it have to do with the OCDP or Voter Owned Elections? The list of reasons why local elections matter, which you originally cited, was suggested by a local precinct, and then shared and passed by the OCDP Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is made up primarily of the chair and vice chair of each precinct in the county, elected by the Democrats in those precincts. It's about as grassroots of a decision making group as you can get. You're essentially saying that the over a hundred members of the county executive committee conspired to support voter owned elections in Chapel Hill so that, in your words, "maybe folks won't notice what's happening on the county, state or federal levels."
Jason,
Let's just agree to disagree because it appears that you refuse to conduct honest debate. I said DEMOCRATIC PARTY; show me where I made that statement about the OCDP. And please don't tell us that "the wall of separation" is impenetrable between the various levels of yous or the other party.What the OCDP has to do with VOE is expressed in my initial post - you say you want a level playing field and then put the weight of the party behind your members in a non-partisan election. Some level playing field!
Apples vs. Oranges
Fred, if you aren't talking about the OCDP, then the dishonest conduct here is comparing a statement made by the OCDP to actions taken by an entity other than the OCDP, and calling it hypocrisy. I don't recall the DNC taking a position on the Chapel Hill VOEs. When they do, I'll be sure to let you know.Similarly, claiming the "weight of the party" is behind the Democratic candidates is disingenious. The party hasn't endorsed anyone; in both Chapel Hill and Carrboro, there are more Democrats than available seats on both municipal boards. Identifying Democrats who are running for office is a far cry from activating a party machine.I agree that you and I personally aren't going to get anywhere with this topic. But that's not going to keep me from presenting facts when you use misleading language and spin the discussion.
Innuendo, not hypocrisy
I agree with Fred that there is a strong sense of innuendo in the lead article Jason. It implies that the party will be supporting those individuals that are affiliated with the Dems even if it doesn't say it directly "Learn which Democrats are running in Orange County Municipal Elections." In a non-partisan election, we shouldn't know which candidates are Dems and which aren't. That's the point of non-partisan, isn't it? In fact, when my precinct held a forum a couple of years ago, we were specifically told not to invite those candidates who weren't affiliated with the Dems. I objected then, and I still object to making that kind of judgment in a NON-PARTISAN election.
Okay
Well, we can agree about part of that. I personally don't like the idea that your precinct was told not to invite unaffiliated candidates; in my view it's not the county party's place to assert that level of control over a precinct activity.Ultimately, this debate about what role parties should have in non-partisan elections probably isn't going to be resolved here. As strongly as some feel we should have no role, I also know people who feel just as strongly that we should play a very active role. I'm inclined to take the middle road, because I feel there are merits to both sides.
There's still a role
I feel strongly that the party, and especially the precincts, should have a role in local elections. I just feel that our support should be for democracy rather than party interest. We can invite all the candidates to every event, and we can encourage everyone to vote. We shouldn't be pointing out who is a Dem and who isn't. Toward that end, since you are our webmaster, perhaps you could have the website changed?"Because of the importance of local elections, the Orange County Democratic Party will not sit on the sidelines, but encourage all county residents to be active. We will have a get out the vote effort
to get all county residents to the polls; we will have a series of forums to get
the word out, and this web site will feature an interactive voter
guide, which will offer some insight into where each of the candidates stand.
Learn which candidates are running in Orange County Municipal Elections."
what a non-partisan election is not
A non partisan election means that the party affiliation of the candidate does not appear on the ballot, It does not affect the first amendment right of a political party to be involved in a campaign. In Wake County, both political parties are directly and publicly involved in the "nonpartisan" Raleigh and couny school board elections, endorsing candidates and doing "party endorsed" mailings. The Wake County Republican party executive commitee ha already met and endorsed candidates in this October's Wake County School Board election.
Orange Co is not Wake Co
Just because Wake Co uses a partisan approach doesn't mean Orange County has to. We have a lot of independents in this county, and we should encourage them to be politically active rather than ostracizing them.The Orange Co Dems have welcomed me, even though they know I am independent in spirit. They've also endorsed Republican candidates when the Democrat was weak. I respect them for taking that stance.
True
Good point, Gerry. Also, it is tiresome to hear that local elected officials should for some reason be non-partisan. It is the race that is non-partisan, not necessarily the office-holder. That subject came up a year or so back when the media reported on the fact that Bill Strom wore an Obama pin at a Council meeting or some such utterly unremarkable thing. Others periodically have advanced such arguments when local elected boards occassionally weigh-in on national issues.
Agree with Jason
I'm not a member of the OCDP nor a registered Democrat, but I find Fred's attacking them for wading into local issues is a straw man. Just say what you mean: you don't support public financing! Maybe you think it's fine for candidates to raise and spend as much as they can on campaigns. Some people think that. OK.You're entitled to disagree with other people's opinions, Fred. Just say it.
Please read what I said
How many times have I said that I don't support THIS program as it currently exists. No strawman at all. If you think that the OCDP endorsing VOE to create a level playing field in CH is no way affected by them "endorsing" their members, then we see "level" differently. I welcome their interest in local elections; just not being hypocritical.The Dems in the GA allowed CH to create VOE. Are they willing to do it for top state offices? I guess they think it's fine for candidates to raise and spend as much as they can on campaigns there but not in CH.
Please stop
Fred, please stop mischaraterizating the Democratic position on campaign finance. Democrats in the General Assembly have been working to expand voter owned elections to top state offices. Currently all of the statewide nonpartisan races: the state Appellate Court and state Supreme Court. The vote on the legislation enabling public finace was along straight party lines. Every Republican in the General Assembly voted against the bill, except
Rep. Monroe Buchanan, and every Democrat voted for it. If I recall correctly, it had only two Republican votes in the Senate. The program now includes three elected Council of State positions, and there was (is?) legislation pending in the GA to expand this to more statewide elected offices.
OK Jason
There is no issue at all, and especially with money. Note how these get funded and how CH does. Let's just end it here and we will see later what the leaders in the GA end up doing.
OK Jason,
there are no problems, and especially with money. Interesting how thes other races get funded versus how CH does.Let's just end it here. I'll just wait to see how the GA leadership works this out.
Seems sort of perverse
to say that a political party shouldn't express themselves & to liken that activity to the shadowy world of business interests supporting candidates.
Edith Wiggins in 1997
refused to disclose the names of her donors. Fred - why did she do that?
Why
do you think I know?
Political Parties ought to take sides
"you say you want a level playing field and then put the weight of the party behind your members in a non-partisan election. Some level playing field!" Why are you suprised that a political party is showcasing its members in an election? What does this election being non-partisan have anything to do with the County Democratic Party making their members aware of who is running as a Democrat? Regardless of the VOE issue...a political party on either side has a right to point out who is running as a member of that respective organization. The idea behind the VOE is to provide those who may not have the personal/community capital to run for political office. The system, as it has been layed out above, is not fair and the playing field has certaintly NOT been leveled in my opinion. In fact, because this new program is voluntary a candidate with more personal/community capital could significantly out spend the VOE candidates. However, voting is a complex process and I imagine that for some, specifically OC Dems, the VOE system is important (either in principle or in actuality) and therefore they may choose to support candidates who chose to enroll in the VOE. Given the incredibly low turn out rate (15% historically) in municipal elections I think it is a good thing that OC Democrats are getting engaged in local elections. They have the organization in place to get people out to vote, to discuss issues with candidates, and to encourage more folks to actually participate in our participatory democracy. So if engagement, involvement, and activity is what you mean by "weight of the party" than it sounds like a positive thing to me. Organization and participation has always been good for democracy. What's the problem?
Non-partisan elections
My problem with the Orange Dems, as well as Chapel Hill News, etc., specifying who is Democrat and who isn't is that it defeats the purpose of having a non-partisan election. Unfortunately, too many voters take the short cut of identifying the candidates from their party and then vote for those individuals even if they don't know the issues. Since Orange County is so strongly Democratic that means Democratic candidates will always win, furthering the divide between committed voters and those who either vote out of habit rather than engagement or who don't vote because they don't feel their vote will matter. If we value democracy, then we should want citizens to engage and to feel like their vote will count, as much in local elections as they did in the last presidential election. If partisanship is a barrier to achieving that goal, then we should do everything we can to remove partisanship from our local elections. Let the candidates stand on their own. The political parties can facilitate dialogue across all candidates and serve the public good. Call me idealistic.
Party affiliation is one of many items that can inform voters
It's really that simple: registering with a party is one indicator of the general political inclinations of a candidate.For example, in 2007, voters knowing that I was a registerd Dem might have inferred a likelihood for many of the positions I have taken as an alderman, for example supporting campaign finance reform for Carrboro.By contrast, knowing that Sharon Cook was a registered Republican in 2002 and 2004 (changed to unaffiliated in 2006), they might have inferred that she would oppose many of those same items.It's one piece of information just like my board service at Weaver Street Market. Voters who think coops are a commie plot might have concluded not to vote for me. Voters who think Democrats are closet socialists (and that socialism is a bad) might have concluded not to vote for me.
Registering isn't the issue
I'm not arguing against an individual's right to register with a political party. I'm arguing against the Party's use of their power to tacitly endorse individuals in a non-partisan election. Political parties may be necessary as vehicles for coalescing groups with shared interests at the state and national level, but at the local level, voters have direct access to the candidates. We don't have to participate in a lottery for a ticket that gives us the opportunity to stand with thousands of others to hear a candidate talk AT us; we can go to any forum and speak directly to the candidates. Any interested voter can learn that Dan Coleman is a registered Democrat, if it matters to the individual, by asking Dan face to face. They don't need a group that accounts for over 1/2 the registered voters in the county telling them that fact. While I support the concept of voter-owned elections, aka publicly
financed campaigns, I don't see outside money as the problem for our local elections. My concerns, as I've tried to express here, are more centered on the influence of incumbency and, for want of a better term, the clique-ishness of local politics. I see any tacit endorsement by the local political parties as contributing to the 'clique' syndrome. My respect goes out to those candidates who choose to maintain their independent affiliation.
Parties are partisan.
1. While I certainly get Terri's point, I think it is unrealistic to expect that the Democratic Party Executive Committee would be something other than partisan. Of course they are partisan. That's what the word partisan means (per dictionary.com: adj. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause).2. I think most folks feel (correctly) that their vote counts a lot more in local elections than it does in national ones. It's not unusual for local elections to be decided by a handful of votes. I can think of a couple of local eletions that were decided by less than 50 votes and at least one that was decided by 3 votes!3. I highly doubt that very many people decide who to vote for based on party affiliation, because: a. Usually almost all municipal election candidates are Democrats in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, although there seem to be more unaffiliated candidates this year. b. Some unaffiliated candidates have been elected in recent years. c. Orange County voters are quite savvy. Thinking that many voters will vote along party lines in a non-partisan race because they read about it on the OCDP website gives the Orange County Democratic Party website too much credit and gives Orange County voters too little.All that said, I don't think the Chapel Hill Town Council has had a Republican member since it was truly the Party of Lincoln - ie since the 1800's. I am not sure if the Carrboro BOA has ever had a Republican member.
party voting in Orange
Party affiliation does impact how people vote -- In Orange County there have been precisely two Republicans who have carried any race countywide at any level (county commissioner to President) since 1919 -- Herbert Hoover carried Orange in 1928 for President and Jim Gardner for Congress in 1966. (sorry, I never researched pre WWI). I know there have been Republican member(s) of the Chapel Hill Carrboro School Board.The lack of party affiliation on the ballot for town and school board offices moderates the affect of party affiliation in what is the most partisan county in the state. It has nothing to do with whether the voters or the candidates are themselves partisan or not. The nonpartisan election system was one of the progressive reforms to get away from the machine system, and happened about the same time as the town manager movement (1900?). Orange County school board elections were partisan until about 1970.
Questions
Mark, can you tell us what the OCDP did in prior elections? What happened if more Dem candidates were running than there were seats? Why have they decided to get "energized" in this election, because of the number of non-Democrats? (note: all non-Dems are not Republicans!) I hope none of this is in the category of party secrets.I have to disagree with you on the point of what matters. In a low turn-out election like we usually have, everything matters. Plus, if the party sends out literature in support of candidates - at no costs to the candidate - that matters too. Are you saying that the OCDP will not campaign for their members?
This is not new.
I think they have been doing this since 2005 or perhaps earlier, so it is not all that new and it is definitely not inspired by any particular candidate or race on the ballot this year. I believe the Republican party has done some similar things in non-partisan races where one of the candidates was a Rep. In the past, the OCDP has listed all of the Dem registered candidates - even when there were more Dems than there were seats. I assume they are still doing that now.I have no idea what the OCDP is planning regarding campaigning. In the past they have simply published questionaire responses from candidates who are affiliated with the Democratic Party. That is obviously somewhat beneficial to the Dem affiliated candidates, but personally I consider it to have been a small factor in the races I have run in. Obviously it could have more impact in a race (Mayor of Chapel Hill) in which there is only one registered Democrat (Mark Kleinschmidt) and there is no incumbent.
Question and comment
Question first, in the context of this thread and I guess the DP website what is meant by "member of the Democratic Party"? Does it just mean a registered democrat or does it imply some other type of party membership?Comment 1 As a nonpartisan election, they are not running as a Democrat. Comment 2 Having grown up in the Bronx, the idea of a political machine makes me very uncomfortable. It reminds me of politicians not responsible to their constituents but to the machine that will get them elected and provide patronage. I know this comment doesn't belong right here but I think someone in this thread used the word and it brought back some ugly old memories. Jim Rabinowitz
Fascinating thread
Much to consider.
My own view of money is bidirectional. Special interests on all sides give money to candidates they think will listen to them with, shall we say, special interest. And often they do. It's an insidious, self-reinforcing cycle that can't help but do damage.
That damage seems most immediate when the special interest is business (and the motive is profit), but there are softer special interests, too, on both sides of the divide.
I don't know if VOE is the correct response or not, but it is the only thing I see on the table that might interrupt the downward spiral. I'm not sure how much of a problem it is in Chapel Hill, though I recognize I'm not
paying close attention. The miserable state of the state in this department has caught my undivided interest. Locally, that makes me a typical disengaged citizen. Which is very scary.
It's a rhetorical question
Obviously, she didn't want citizens to know who contributed to her campaign.
OCDP Involvement
I appreciate the give and take that has gone on on this site regarding the OCDP’s decision to become more involved in local elections. For me, the decision was driven by the traditionally low turnout in local elections. Turnout in the last Chapel Hill municipal election was 15.6%. That is unacceptable. The County Democratic Party has demonstrated an ability to get people to the polls in even years, and one of my goals as chair is to use that ability to get people engaged in their community and voting in odd years. We have not recruited or endorsed any candidates, so there is no “machine” at work here. Nor are we pushing any particular local issues; but we do intend to do what we can to educate voters and increase voter turnout. We will be having forums and publishing a voter guide both online and in print (it will ultimately be up to the County Party Executive Committee which candidates will be listed in the guide). If voters were fully engaged in local elections and we had 50% or 60% turnout, then this would be a non-issue and I would feel comfortable about sitting this election out. It strikes me as irresponsible, though, to advocate civic involvement, and then not work to get people to the polls. Yes, we have identified the Democrats who are running in the election on our web site; this is public information, and the fact that no party affiliation is listed next to a candidate’s name on the ballot should not mean that voters may not factor that information into their decision.The role we intend to play in this election is solely getting out the vote. It will ultimately be up to the candidates to get their message to the voters; our goal is to help get those voters to the polls.A quick note on the phrase “members of the Democratic Party.” The first draft of my posting on the OCDP website talked about “members” of the party, but I quickly edited that out because I thought it was confusing. While I consider any registered Democrat a “member” of the party, I realize that, as has been mentioned here, the word has connotations of some kind of club with particular membership requirements and I changed the phrase to “county Democrats” for clarity. Jim White Chair, Orange County Democratic Party orangedems.com
Thanks Jim
Very helpful.
Pages