CogDis: The Democratic Party of Wisconsin By the Numbers

Over at Cognitive Dissidence, DFL: DATA, FACTS, LOGIC has an interesting piece up outlining just how easy it may end up being for political consultant Jason Rae to end up as the next Chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, thanks almost entirely to Milwaukee County’s convention delegates.

As noted by DFL, based on the DPW’s rules a majority is not required to elect the party’s Chair; a simple plurality is all that’s needed. That means that with a field of five candidates, a candidate can win the election with just 21% of the total votes cast. That means that fully 79% of the convention’s delegates can vote for someone other than the winning candidate.

Let that soak in for a second, then ponder this:

Milwaukee County will have 375 delegates to the DPW Convention, and it’s widely known those Milwaukee County delegates are being handpicked by the leaders of the Milwaukee County Democratic Party based on their support for Jason Rae. Those 375 delegates from Milwaukee County represent fully 19% of the total statewide delegates, meaning that even if Jason Rae garners just 2% of the votes from the delegates representing the other 71 counties in Wisconsin, he’ll be elected as the next Chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.

If Jason Rae does in fact win the Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairmanship in such a manner, it will be fully within the rules and bylaws of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, but it certainly won’t do much to engender warm fuzzy feelings towards the Democratic Party of Wisconsin by large numbers of the very grassroots folks that the party needs to win over if it’s going to accomplish anything meaningful in the next few years.

Share:

Related Articles

18 thoughts on “CogDis: The Democratic Party of Wisconsin By the Numbers

  1. This is sad, almost tantamount to Gerrymandering, if I understand the rules.

    Let’s have a majority elect the DPW Chair.

  2. How long until the Democratic Party rank and file figures out that the party is not democratic. One member, one vote, no delegates filtered by opinion. Democracy is a process of open discourse.

  3. All of the candidates know the rules. They could have all played the game within the confines of those rules. If they choose to complain about the rules instead of working to be successful within the boundaries of those rules, how can we trust them to administer the rules of the party?

    It is certainly an imperfect system, but it’s the system we have and better than many alternatives.

    1. Jim, that’s a valid point, but wouldn’t it make more sense to require that the DPW Chair be elected by a majority? I know a process requiring a majority vote would bring its own problems, but it seems to me to be the most appropriate way to choose a Chair, considering that’s the standard we set for elected officials.

  4. The 21% number isn’t really a thing. It is true that under these rules a candidate COULD win with 21%, but that simply won’t happen. It assumes that there are five equally strong candidates that will receive about the same amount of support, and one will eek out a victory on the edges. That simply won’t happen here. Only three of these five (isn’t it four now?) candidates have any chance of winning. I base that on the fact that as a delegate, I’ve received mail from three candidates.

    My best guess is that the winner will get between 35 and 55 percent (and maybe more) of the vote. Would a runoff or an instant runoff system be better? Maybe, but then I’m not sure it would make a difference, either. I then refer back to Jim M.’s comments – the candidates had every opportunity to impress their feelings on the matter to the committees involved, and now have to work the system that is presented.

    1. Andrew, thanks for adding that. You’re absolutely right that it’s possible for a candidate to win with just 21% of the vote, and I think the point in that was to note that the DPW’s bylaws don’t require a majority but just a simply plurality.

      In the end I think you’re right that the winner will probably end up with a bigger margin than 21%, but I don’t think we’ll see any candidate end up with a majority. I’m predicting the winner will get no more than 40% of the votes.

      1. Mathematically that makes sense. I’m always amazed when people ask to be appointed to these delegate positions and then never show up for the convention. Much of what happens will be the result of who has the best GOTV effort and who actually sticks around until voting on the last day.

        1. Yeah, I can’t understand why anyone would agree to be a delegate and then not show up for the convention, barring extenuating circumstances.

          You’re right though; just like any election for elected office, the DPW Chair race will likely boil down to how well each candidate can turn out their delegates.

  5. If the rumors about stacking the deck in Milwaukee are even a tinsy bit true, for shame. Dems acting like Republicans. I am supporting Martha Laning who is, in addition to having her act together, great on messaging and keeping it clean.

  6. If the rumors about stacking the deck in Milwaukee are even a tinsy bit true, for shame. Dems acting like Republicans. I am supporting Martha Laning who is, in addition to having her act together, great on messaging and keeping it clean.
    Oh, some folks signed up to be a delegate in Outagamie County so they could go to the 8th CD 1 day in April. The convention is way too expensive for some folks. The Casino is not an ok place in my book what with 250,000 problem gamblers in WI. The room is $185 a night.

    1. “If the rumors about”… stacking the deck at the convention are even “a teensy bit true, for shame”.

      I could care less about who wins (except for the former chair who nearly bankrupt the party), but I think it’s pretty low-brow to even suggest that one candidate or the other is stacking a deck. If you’re going to make an accusation, have the balls to say what you mean; don’t couch your comment behind an alleged rumor that may or may not have happened. Rumormongering is something the republicans are great at. If you aren’t willing to own a statement, then it’s only a rumor for small minded people.

      And no, I haven’t heard any rumors about her stacking the deck — my point is that it’s ridiculous to make an accusation without knowledge of an incident.

      1. The “dack stecking rumors” which have been blogged about and discussed are in reference to Jason Rae, not Martha Laning.

      2. Jim, if there’s no stacking of the decks going on, then how did Thad Nation’s two teenage kids end up as delegates for Milwaukee County while civil rights icon Vel Phillips is an alternate? I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around that.

        1. Did you ever think that maybe Nation went to a delegate electing meeting with a group of people who went as a voting block? Should Nation’s kids be ashamed of being organizers? I can’t even believe you are suggesting that organizing is a bad thing, where being a past contributor entitles you to a delegate-for-life position.

          Nobody approached me and told me that as a former elected official who actually got many good people elected, that I was entitled to a delegate-for-life position.

          Or perhaps there’s a litmus test you’re suggesting that should allow someone to be in this elite group of people who has no responsibilities? And if we are going to create a big group of elitists who make all the decisions, will there be ramifications if they don’t show up for this annual event?

          1. Jim, I never said anyone should be a “delegate-for-life,” so please don’t put words in my mouth. I was simply asking a question, one that you could have provided an answer to without the abundance of snark.

            It’s a situation that just seemed odd to me, especially given the fact that Vel publicly supports Martha, but there’s certainly some merit to the possibility you suggested about Thad forming a voting block and attending a delegate electing meeting.

            1. Sorry but the whole discussion seems rather snark-worthy. It was not meant to be personal so please take it in the light hearted care-free way in which I meant it.

              I’m having a tough time taking seriously a discussion about whether someone did some underhanded tricks when this happens to be a race that has attracted a fair amount of interest and of course that means that a plurality will win.

              Can I step back and offer a serious note though? Bill Clinton was elected by a plurality.

Comments are closed.