Thanks, Steve, but they're not on the website version of the article - not even in the little box.

Time to walk down to the website department and knock some heads.

For those of us outside the SSJ distribution area, care to share what the names are?

It appears as though the GOP operates under different rules than the Oregon Democrats. Under the rules of the DPO, the precinct people from Linn County would have cast a total number of votes equal to the registered Democrats in that portion of the district, and the precinct people from Marion County would cast a total number of votes equal to theirs, no matter how many precinct people were present from each county. That way, the only way Linn County would have been outvoted would have been if there were no precinct people from Linn County at all.

even though it's a trible off-topic, i'd like to thank Wayne Kinney again for the great work he did shepherding the Benton Co. Dems thru the process of selecting a replacement for HD16. it turned out to be a bit frustrating (democracy seems to have that annoying characteristic) but Wayne's preperation and patience got us through and got us the person everyone knew was the right choice, Sara Gelser.

thanks again, Wayne. i'm glad the GOP appears to lack anyone of your quality.

In related news, professor Tonia St. Germain just officially got the nod to replace Nancy Wolfe as the Democratic nominee in HD 57.

Go Tonia!

josie, at least i identify myself.

Sara Gelser was the only announced candidate at the nomination meeting; she had already gathered endorsements in preparation of a second primary challenge. many of those who endorsed had done so in 2004 but there were some "defectors" from the incumbent's side. the nomination meeting came long after the Gelser campaign had gotten underway. so of course her selection had all the markings of a done-deal.

that did not stop a great group of people from stepping forward and making their pitch. one was a city councilor, another a former city councilor who was one of Sara's endorser's (and continues to be), a third was a Philomath mayoral candidate. Sara was selected by the PCPs as the first nominee, and then we spent almost 2 hours picking the next two. throughout the entire evening, people were able to speak freely, no one said one word about "unfair" or "undemocratic". it wasn't. it was an unfortunate necessity (the unfortunate part being Kelley Wirth's personal tragedy) but all it did was underscore the strength of Sara's support in the community.

but fixed? ha. if you think that, you don't know the Benton County Dems. no amount of respect for Sara would have allowed any such games. and Wayne can vouch for this, as he oversaw the whole shebang. sorry; you're going have to go looking elsewhere for conspiracies.

Josie,

I sympathize with your worldview. The one drawback to the idea that you go into the room and sell yourself based on your ideas, is that the system doesn't work that way.

When my wife wanted to go to the convention in Boston we showed up with 25 votes in hand and made sure that everyone else knew it. The horsetrading began immediately with us promising to vote for slate "X" in return for which the supporters of slate "X" agreed to support us.

Is this the best way to advance good ideas? Only accidentally, as in the case where someone with the right solution to a problem also has the chops to command a voting block.

Like you, I find this system pretty sucky, but we are definitely in the minority. Those among us that have political aspirations of any kind learn this lesson first, and most don't even understand your revulsion.

Of course anyone who does get elected will have to play this game at state if they want to get anything done at all, so think of it as the initial shakedown for a trip to the real world.

Pat, i forgot to add with others: welcome back!

the people who stood for the nomination here in Benton County were known to most of the people present. there were a lot of new PCPs, people who became PCPs in order to participate in this meeting. i think we filled almost every HD16 PCP position prior to the nomination meeting, and we worked really hard to do so. no one was questioned about previous participation; those who said they wanted to be a PCP only had to attend a Central Ctte meeting, and they were voted in.

one of the nominees was unknown to most of us, but people really liked what he said and how he said it. he present himself so well, he was selected in the 2nd round. the third nominee, Tina Empol, won her spot because people know her, know what she stands for, know the kind of person she is; her selection was like a vote of confidence for her. we had an open process, people got to speak for themselves, and we picked three great nominees. any of the three would have been a good choice -- we were fortunate (as i hope the HD17 Rs are not) to have a great front-runner who will keep this seat in D hands.

Josie and Pat complain about the process, and for good reason: It's very complicated and no matter how much I and others try to explain, there's just too much of it for many to get their arms around. That's not their fault. Before I finish my time as Rules Committee chair for the DPO, I'm going to need to start drinking or get lots of therapy. Or both. But the problems Josie and Pat described were to do with people, not the process. The rules for replacing state legislators don't keep people from running against a near-consensus candidate, and the rules for electing people to a national convention have nothing to do with the horse trading that goes on in a very Democratic district. No rule can dictate the standards someone chooses to apply when he/she votes. If either of you have ideas on how to improve the process itself, I'd love to hear them.

Wayne,

I'm not complaining about the rules, and I think that I understand as much about the process as I want to understand. When you say:

the rules for electing people to a national convention have nothing to do with the horse trading that goes on in a very Democratic district You are absolutely correct. Again, it is not The Rules that I find irritating.

Accepting that all parts of the democratic system purposely and correctly lead to discussion, debate, and efforts to influence others, there is still the unavoidable fact that people quickly begin to look for trade offs to accomplish their own goals. This dynamic applies to all democratic process, and I see no way to improve on it.

If I want to get anything passed or anyone elected, I will be required to horse trade with other voters and will finally have to decide whether the watered down result or the compromise candidate is something or someone that I can still support.

I dislike conceding the best outcome to compromise and negotiation, but I'm clear that the concept is at the center of healthy democracy.

Well written, Pat. I'm taking a peek now at the proposed rules for the 2008 national convention. It's enough to make my head spin, and I've been through this before. It struck me as I read your earlier post, that while the DNC, and the DPO partly because of its relationship to the DNC, is very nanny-like in its rules, the politics itself are very libertarian. Everything is scripted in the rules, but outside of that, damn near anything goes. I wonder if there's a correlation. My take is this: Barbara Roberts once said that making things fair makes them complicated (I'm paraphrasing), and I believe that. The Rules Committee has been going through a revision of the DPO Bylaws. It's been very long and tiring, and the committee has been meeting once a month since December, but it seems like forever. Some of the committee have been pushing for simplification, others have been trying to cover every possible thing that anyone could ever think of. We've had to drop some things that we started out with, because we couldn't revolve some potential complications. I hope we've ended up with something that works, but the fact is, there will always be something that we didn't think to include, and a situation that we didn't think of covering. People will complain about how complicated the rules are, until something comes up that isn't covered. Then of course, we will be vilified for not having enough foresight. We will fix that, and complicate the rules further. That's the way it works. No good deed goes unpunished.

Pat Ryan wrote, The one drawback to the idea that you go into the room and sell yourself based on your ideas, is that the system doesn't work that way. When my wife wanted to go to the convention in Boston we showed up with 25 votes in hand and made sure that everyone else knew it.

I'm curious about Josie's notion that the discussion, debate, and support-seeking should wait until the precise moment when the doors open. That would mean that all the exploration of ideas, questioning of proposals, etc. would have to occur within the 60-120 minutes of the meeting itself.

It is perfectly appropriate -- actually, quite a positive for democracy -- for the debate, discussion, and seeking-of-support to take place over the days and weeks prior to the actual vote.

The vote ought to be a formality, but that doesn't mean it's "fixed". That means that the winning candidate(s) spent substantial time organizing their friends and neighbors, discussing the issues, and bringing them into the decision-making process.

That's exactly what democracy is.