by: Grebner
Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:52:09 PM EST
This is a condensed, updated, version of the plan I submitted to Mark Brewer in 2003, which served as the basis for the MDP’s 2004 Caucus. As I envision it, this proposal has a number of pluses:
1) It would invite very wide participation.
2) It would provide a high level of security.
3) It would strongly discourage Republican cross-overs.
4) It would cost the MDP nothing. In fact, the State Party should expect to net about $250,000.
5) It could be implemented, executed, and completed in 75 days.
Unfortunately, there’s no chance whatever that it will be implemented in any recognizable form.
This is only a summary. I’ll be happy to answer questions about details and suggestions. I probably won’t have any response to questions about how to convince the Powers-That-Be to pay attention – they already have, and they aren’t interested.
The basic idea is to conduct the caucus as if it were a privately-financed vote-by-mail election, open to any registered voter who meets the standards established by the MDP.
The first step would be to mail approximately 1.5 million First Class postcard “invitations”, which would include a pre-printed application for a ballot. To apply, a person would merely confirm the printed information, and sign below a statement they wish to “participate as a Democrat in the caucus”, or whatever phrase the MDP selects. (“I intend to vote for the Democratic candidate for President this November.” would be another option. I have no preference.)
These postcards would be mailed to everyone who appears on ANY Democratic list we could obtain. People who voted in the January 15 Democratic primary, for example. Party members, contributors, candidates – any list the MDP provides. The lists would be de-duped and matched to the State’s QVF before mailing.
Anyone who wants to add names could “sponsor” the mailing of invitations to anyone whose name wasn’t on the original MDP list, upon payment of 50 cents per name, to cover postage and printing. Again, the invitations would be mailed only to the voters’ QVF addresses, not addresses furnished by the sponsor.
I would suggest the return card be printed with Business Reply Mail postage, to encourage response. Alternatively, they could be printed without postage, requiring the voter to find and affix a stamp. The cost of BRM postage is included in my budget.
Anyone who does not receive (or does not return) the mailed invitation could download a form from the MDP website, or could use a form obtained from other sources. Because I expect over 95% of all requests for ballots to be made on the standard mailed invitations which we know were mailed individually to voters’ home addresses, these random-source applications will be carefully examined for such conditions as similar hand-writing or non-residential addresses.
Doubtful applications would be taken to a 5-member MDP panel that would meet daily to oversee the process and resolve controversies as they arise.
A person could apply using directly on a website set up for that purpose, or could fax a completed form, rather than mailing it. Again, these applications would be subjected to special security scrutiny.
On the thirtieth day before the end of the caucus, all the ballots requested up to that time would be mailed. These ballots would be mailed First Class to the address listed for each voter on a fresh copy of the QVF. For a small number of voters, such as 17-year-olds, if the MDP decides to allow them to vote, the 5-member panel would review and approve mailing to a non-QVF address. This screening would also apply to individuals who asked their ballot be mailed to a different address because they do not expect to return to their domicile in time to receive and vote the ballot. (Military, for example, or Florida retirees.)
After the initial wave of outgoing ballots, smaller batches will be mailed as applications are received, checked, and approved.
Each ballot mailed would include a PIN which could be used to cast a ballot using the secure website. (This provision was actually implemented in 2004, although the details left room for improvement.) The ballots would be printed onto 11″x17″ 90# index stock, folded down to letter size – that is to a sixth. To vote it would require opening, marking the chosen candidate, signing a Democratic declaration, re-folding so the return address is exposed, and dropping it in the mail — each ballot would be printed with Business Reply Postage. Alternatively, blank ballots could be mailed in envelopes with a return envelope enclosed, but I would prefer to avoid the cost of assembling and handling so many pieces.
Each ballot would be coded with the voter’s name and address, Congressional District, bar-coded QVF file number, and certain other control information. When refolded to be returned, the control information would be on the outside, but the candidate choice and voter’s name would be concealed.
Unlike the MDP’s 2004 implementation, voting at physical sites should be downplayed and offered only as a subordinated alternative method of voting. I would allow any organization (say, a county party, or a labor union) to sponsor a site as a sort of “voter fair”, which would be run under uniform rules established by the MDP. No site would serve a specific geographic region, but would be open to any Michigan voter. A voter would be allowed to complete any or all phases of voting at a site: obtaining an application, returning a completed application, obtaining a ballot, or returning it. Sites would be used mainly for people who needed personal intervention in order to be able to vote – for example, people who have recently moved, but are not yet listed at their new address on the QVF. Each site would include a representative of each campaign as well as a representative of the MDP overseeing compliance.
These “voter fairs” would take place approximately ten days before the end of voting, which would have the effect of discounting their importance, and reducing the danger of large, last-minute crushes. Last-minute voters should be directed toward using the mail or Internet, which are much better able to handle surges.
(I note rumors the MDP may attempt to hold site-based caucuses, as they did in 2004. I believe this might prove disastrous, because of the huge numbers of potential voters and the very limited resources likely to be available. In 2004, we had only about 100,000 in-person voters. If we face five times as many, at a caucus thrown together in a few weeks, people may remember the January 15 primary with fondness.)
When the ballot arrives at the counting center, it would be partially opened, to allow confirmation that it was signed and filled out properly, but the design would allow the candidate choice to remain concealed. Any challenge to the legitimacy of a ballot would be required BEFORE the candidate choice is revealed, so representatives of the campaigns would be permitted to inspect the partially opened ballots, under secure conditions, of course.
Regardless of the number of applications received, each voter should be mailed only a single ballot, unless they complain that they have spoiled or mislaid it, of course. In any event, if more than one ballot is received from a specific voter, only the final one received would be counted.
Counting a huge number of ballots at a single location would pose a difficult problem – the number of people and space required would make security impossible. The answer is that as ballots are received and partially opened, in the days before the end of the process, they would be bundled into sets of exactly 100 ballots. Once the voting ends, and the counting begins, blocks would be chosen at random, using rigorous statistical methods, and the count released will reflect those chosen. Unlike a normal ballot-counting process, where results are likely to swing as different geographic regions are heard from, this process will quickly settle down to a narrow statistical range. By the time 10,000 ballots are counted – perhaps 2% of the total – the overall pattern of the results will have been established within a safe margin of only a few percentage points. By the time 100,000 ballots have been counted, the uncertainty will have been reduced to a few tenths of a percentage point, and perhaps one or two delegates. The final process of counting the last of the ballots might extend to five or ten days, with only minimal interest from the media or campaigns.
Finally, I should explain how it will all be paid for. I would maintain a database of who has requested a ballot, who has been mailed a ballot, and who has returned their ballot. The candidates (and interest groups) would be allowed to “subscribe” to this database, so they could follow the process in real-time, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and other relevant information. If each campaign is charged $1 per name – which seems minimal, in view of the money they are currently burning – the whole process would be paid for. Their rights would – by signed contract – expire on the date of the caucus.
In addition, as I envision the ballots, one of the folds would include an MDP membership application, saying “You don’t need to be a member to vote in this caucus, but if you support the mission of the Michigan Democratic Party, please attach your check for $25….”. If 500,000 people vote, and 2% of them join the Party, the MDP would net $250,000.
I have never assumed my firm would be given any access – preferential or otherwise – to the list generated. It would remain the exclusive property of the MDP. My earnings would be the difference between the total expenses and the fees received from the candidates and interest groups.
Leave a Reply