Some Thoughts On Early Voting

When Iowa Republican legislators shortened the voting window from 40 days to 20, one of the arguments they made was "people shouldn't vote before the debates." 

The one and only Harris-Trump debate was September 10. I emailed the first ballots to overseas voters on September 14. Why not let the rest of us start voting? I

t's clear the shorter window did NOT accomplish the goal of shifting people's voting plans away from the "exceptional" early voting and toward the "normal" Election Day voting. Even the Republicans get that - they stepped up their vote by mail program this year. 

Today at the Coralville Library we had 871 voters- our biggest site ever that did not involve how old you had to be to get into a bar, and our 3rd biggest overall. 

(Long ago I discussed the statistical anomalies of our 2010 general election: https://jdeeth.blogspot.com/.../number-crunching-part-2... ) 

All the shorter voting period has accomplished is cramming the same* amount of work into half the time. All that does is make the line twice as long. 

* MORE than twice the work, really. The ban on pre-filled forms, even for in person early voting, has increased the error rate. We spend an insane amount of time chasing down the nit-pickiest problems. Actual phone call we have to make: "When you voted in the lobby yesterday, what day did you sign the form?" 

It's going to take majorities to fix this.

Iowa Democratic caucus a limited success—but much work remains

 

(Oringinally published at Bleeding Heartland)

While I was never going to be satisfied with the Iowa Democratic Party’s first effort at a party-run primary (“mail-in caucus” in IDP’s language), which wrapped up March 5 with a results announcement, there were at least some successes.

In fairness, with Iowa Republicans still First In The Nation on their side and opposed to any substantive changes to accommodate the new calendar that removed Iowa from the early Democratic states, IDP didn’t have many realistic options other than what they did: a January 15 in-person caucus for party business only to comply with state law, and a later mail-in process to comply with Democratic National Committee rules.

I recommended that plan myself long before IDP implemented it.

For the first time in three cycles, the IDP produced results promptly and without controversy, though the format was sub-optimal and did not include the all-important percentages used to calculate delegate counts. (At this writing it appears non-Biden groups are not viable anywhere, and late arriving ballots in the next few days are unlikely to change that.)

The turnout of 12,193 as of March 6, while low, is in the same general ballpark as the in-person attendance during Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election year caucus. And we got about one hour of media attention at the beginning of Super Tuesday coverage, before polls closed in states that were voting in person.

So as a dry run in a more or less uncontested year, not bad. NASA didn’t land their first rocket on the moon either—they had to get John Glenn into orbit first. But as a critic, and as someone who’s worked on a lot of caucuses and elections, I’m focused on the Room For Improvement side of the ledger. What did we learn and how can we make it better?

First and most importantly:

We should have accepted long ago that our role as an early state is over.

I would have felt better about all this had IDP leadership immediately accepted the reality that Iowa is no longer an early state, and started working toward both a post-First era of party building and a presidential primary run by county auditors.

IDP chair Rita Hart is in a bind between rank and file activists like me who care more about HOW Iowa votes than WHEN we vote, and old guard stalwarts who think Iowa should have defied the Democratic National Committee the way New Hampshire did and held an old fashioned Stand In The Corner To Vote caucus on January 15 anyway.

But a system that required in person attendance at a long meeting was indefensible in the party of voting rights, and the summer 2022 proposal to change to the mail-in system was too little too late for a DNC that was already hostile to Iowa’s demographics and past errors.

Iowa Democrats should have thrown in the towel in December 2022, the moment President Joe Biden named five other states as the early states and said caucuses should no longer be part of the Democratic Party’s nominating process. State Representative Ross Wilburn, then near the end of his term as IDP chair, should have loudly and publicly said “it’s over,” loudly and privately told the Des Moines donor class the same, and introduced a presidential primary bill on Day One of the 2023 session, with every legislative Democrat as a co-sponsor.

Instead, under both Wilburn and Hart, we had ten months of secrecy and denial—almost certainly because of back stage maneuvering to try to squeeze into the early states after Georgia Democrats took themselves out of the running due to lack of cooperation from Georgia Republicans. And once IDP leaders finally accepted being out of the early states for 2024 as a fait accompli, everything about the way they “accepted” it indicated that they still consider it just a temporary setback and that they intend to get early state status back in 2028.

Iowa cannot change its old and white demographics, and that alone may be too much to ever overcome in a party that values diversity. But we can try to change our process and our electoral results. We do not even deserve to be considered as an early state till we have an auditor-run primary and until we win some elections. Those items, rather than a futile fight for First, should be our priorities.

While we eventually complied with the rules, we should have done so much sooner. The Biden campaign suffered as a result.

The DNC has strict rules about campaigning in states that are not in compliance with the nomination calendar. That’s why, when New Hampshire refused to go along with its assigned date, Biden had to run there as a write-in candidate. He made the new rules, and he followed them. Iowa’s “contest date”—the results release on Tuesday—was not in compliance with the DNC rules until October.

Biden was never going to campaign here the way he did as a non-incumbent—but the strict rules mean even surrogates and local volunteers had their hands tied. Last summer, while a score of Republican candidates barnstormed the state, and while rogue Democrats Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips stood on the State Fair Soapbox, local party activists could barely utter the name “Biden.” We had to worry about whether carrying a Biden sign in a parade would get the president in trouble with his own rules.

Biden’s critics had the state to themselves for months, and the president’s campaign can’t get those months back.

New Hampshire needs to be thrown out of the national convention.

For a couple of ridiculous weeks, DNC chair Jaime Harrison insisted on calling his native South Carolina “First In The Nation,” emphasizing their newly assigned slot on the calendar even after New Hampshire had voted. I get that South Carolina was excited about their new role. But they very objectively were not First. New Hampshire was.

New Hampshire was encouraged, even begged, to do more or less what we did—make the state run primary a non-binding “beauty contest” to comply with state law in a Republican controlled state, and hold a party-run process later to allocate national delegates to comply with the DNC calendar.

They refused. They don’t care about a 50 percent reduction in delegates, and they don’t care about Biden staying off the ballot. They care about voting First, and they won the only battle they cared about. The national press played along with countless “Biden is in trouble in New Hampshire” reports (he won with 64 percent as a write-in).

We did it way too late, with way too much reluctance, and we are still in denial, but in the end Iowa did follow the DNC rules. New Hampshire did not. South Carolina leaders were conciliatory after their voting date, arguing that New Hampshire should be seated at the convention. I’m less generous. Our state got punished pretty significantly for the results failure of 2020, which was unintentional (the finger pointing over Who Broke The App will never end). New Hampshire broke the rules on purpose.

The DNC will never be able to set state law, but they need to set an example to discourage other states, and the only way to set that example is to completely bar New Hampshire from the convention. Ooh, but what if it costs us the state in November? Only the 20 party bigwigs who would have been delegates will care, and they’re the exact people who need the lesson.

The IDP still owes us some explanations.

Why did Iowa Democrats stall on setting our contest date from December 2022 until October 2023? I know the answer—we were lobbying for the Georgia slot—but someone needs to be honest about that.

How much was spent on the outside consultants who managed the vote, when we have 99 auditors who know how to count? Every dollar spent on this party-run primary is a dollar that won’t be spent on a tough legislative race.

It would have been a worst-case option, but given the shaky state of IDP finances, and the relatively low turnout, it might have been reasonable to forego a vote entirely and just have had the state central committee select a delegate slate. Yes, that’s an insider process, but so is a party-run primary that only a little bit bigger circle of insiders know about.

Why were the first ballots sent out more than two weeks after the announced January 12 date?

How were requests managed to make sure that voters did not attend Republican caucuses on January 15, change party again before the February 19 deadline, and request a Democratic ballot? There was a lot of emphasis that this was illegal, but only vague explanations of what would be done to prevent it. (The only fail-safe ways would be to share valuable and proprietary caucus attendance lists with the Republicans, which is unlikely—or to have a government-run primary.)

What about claims from multiple voters that they never received their ballots? That may have been user error with the online request process—but why was there no system for voters to confirm that requests had been accepted and that ballots had been sent or received?

The language was part of the problem.

Why did the terms “preference card” and “mail-in caucus” annoy me so much? Because the language is part of the denial.

After the 2016 de facto dead heat in Iowa, the DNC adopted a rule saying caucus states had to include a recountable document – since you can’t re-count the heads when they are no longer in the room.

In discussions with New Hampshire, IDP learned that the word “ballot,” and especially the process of qualifying for a ballot, were key elements of what the New Hampshire Secretary of state considered the difference between a “caucus” and an “election.” So IDP came up with the term “presidential preference card” (NOT a “ballot”) and made them all write-in (thus there was no process to qualify).

In this cycle, with Iowa Democrats officially scheduled after New Hampshire, we should no longer care if the term “ballot” triggers them. A little common-sense language would have gone a long way toward convincing critics that IDP really is committed to a new post-First era.

Yet IDP insisted on calling something that any reasonable person would call a “ballot” a “preference card” instead, and called their mail-in voting process a “caucus.” That sent the message that they consider 2024 a temporary setback and that the “natural order” will be restored in 2028. At least this time they put candidates’ names on the “preference cards.”

The media was part of the problem.

With few exceptions, state journalists uncritically parroted IDP’s Newspeak terms “preference card” and “mail in caucus” in the few stories that publicized the process.

Granted, process stories aren’t as fun as chasing candidates. The state press and IDP could do little about the fact that Biden was not going to actively campaign here. In 2012, Barack Obama wasn’t here much either—but he had a large campaign presence in Iowa, which was still a swing state. In 2024, Iowa is about electoral vote 420 on Biden’s depth chart.

So there wasn’t much Democratic news to report. But the stories that did run tended to be too late and too vague—“Deadline to request preference card is today” was a typical story. Confused voters would call their auditor the next day (as the deadline fell on President’s Day) only to be told it was too late and there was no way to vote in person. And when the “preference cards due today” stories landed, auditor staffers like me had to field phone calls from voters standing outside their polling places wondering why they weren’t open.

It didn’t help that there was publicity, including two tweets from Vice President Kamala Harris’s account, listing Iowa as a Super Tuesday state and urging people to go out and vote.

The party needs a better publicity plan.

This may be the most realistic place to expect improvement.

If we will be stuck with this hybrid process for the future, which seems likely, Iowa Democrats need to find better ways to get the word out and boost turnout. The public expectation—a mass mailing to all registered Democrats—is too expensive for a financially challenged party. But the online request process required voters to already be kind of in the know about the inner workings of the party, and confused many older voters. And, again, there was no confirmation email to indicate the request had been successfully completed.

Maybe a contested nomination process will take care of the publicity. We will never again see the kind of candidate resources we saw back in the days of First, but even as a Super Tuesday state we’ll see more than the nothing we saw this cycle.

Democratic legislators need to introduce a primary bill.

The lack of a primary bill makes it look like Iowa Democrats are more committed to the donor class (who feel they have a constitutional right to personal phone calls from presidential candidates) than to our role as the party of voter rights.

We are past the “funnel” deadline for the 2024 legislative session, but there is still time to offer amendments, and there are still election bills pending. I know it won’t pass, and there are of course many other priorities this session. Yet legislators had time this week to introduce two dozen troll amendments to the Don’t Tread On Me license plate bill.

A primary bill is still valuable for the purposes of discussion, and to show national critics that Iowa Democrats are committed to change. The sooner the Iowa Democratic Party truly lets go of its early state fantasies, the sooner we can start undoing the damage Republicans are inflicting on our state.

Ten months of denial and secrecy over

(Originally published at Bleeding Heartland)

"The Iowa Democratic Caucuses As We Knew Them Are Finally Dead," reads the Friday headline at New York. 

The truth is, The Iowa Democratic Caucuses As We Knew Them died on December 1, 2022. That night the incumbent Democratic President of the United States said "Our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process," and announced a calendar of five early states that did not include Iowa - a decision quickly ratified by the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

What followed was ten months of denial and secrecy by the Iowa Democratic Party which finally ended Friday with an announcement that the party would release the results of the "mail-in caucus presidential preference" on March 5, Super Tuesday, the earliest date allowed by the DNC.

And after all that delay, the final plan looks a lot like what I recommended on December 10: hold the caucus meeting on the same night as the Republicans (which turned out to be January 15, 2024) but only conduct the legally required business of electing precinct level officers and uncommitted delegates. Then after the caucus, at a later date that was compliant with the DNC calendar, we could conduct the mail-in presidential vote.

That's exactly what IDP is going to do, according to an email sent to "SCC Members, Leaders, and Friends" just three minutes before the Friday press conference, which is basically no different that reading it in the Des Moines Register.

What took so long? No one really knows, because IDP leadership was very tight-lipped about the "vigorous and lengthy negotiations with the DNC" from December till this week. Rank and file Democrats deserve to know the details of that. I have a strong opinion but no evidence. Let's just say I think Georgia removing itself from an early Democratic state slot scheduled for February 13 or 20, because Georgia Republicans would not cooperate, was a key factor in the delay.

The entire process was too closed, too secretive, and too long. We should have been discussing how the 2024 process could and should work, in public, way back last winter, with Iowans and not with national committee members, and made the announcement in spring or early summer. That would have set expectations and reduced confusion.

The delay also made it impossible for President Biden and his supporters to start planning for the fall 2024 campaign, because of extremely strict rules against campaigning in non-calendar compliant states. We had to watch fringe candidates Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chaos agents who could care less about rules, speak unanswered at the Iowa State Fair and get free media, while local activists had to worry about whether we were allowed to dust off an old Biden-Harris 2020 sign for a parade - all because IDP refused to set a contest date.

One thing we do know, from the last minute message to the grassroots leaders, is that IDP is playing for the future. "A fight right now over the early state calendar only weakens Iowa Democrats’ future chances," said IDP Chair Rita Hart. "I have repeated reassurance from the Rules and Bylaws Committee and its co-chairs that the presidential nominating calendar discussions will once again be opened up for 2028."

DNC Member Scott Brennan is more direct: "We intend to be first in 2028." Slow down, Scott.

True, Hart and Brennan recognize an important reality: 2024 doesn't matter. It matters even less now that Kennedy is taking his ball and going home for an independent campaign. And there is a certain benefit to Iowa's somewhat cooperative approach to the DNC, as opposed to New Hampshire's defiant insistence that they will break the calendar to stay First. (If they follow through, their delegation could and should not be seated at the national convention at all.)

But this Play For 2028 approach is one more sign of denial. Treating 2024 as a temporary setback means we won't be focused on building an Iowa Democratic Party for a post-First future. We'll still be counting on the national campaigns, organizers and money to come in and do it for us, like they have for the last 50 years - just not this one cycle. And we'll be spending 2025 and 2026 distracted by the Rules And Bylaws Committee again, just like we spent 2022 and 2023.

As for this year, the Iowa Democratic Party is preparing to spend a lot of money which could be used for more important things in order to conduct a pointless vote in an uncontested renomination race, simply to prove that we have learned how to count votes after our problems in 2016 and 2020, in the hopes that if we succeed, all will be forgiven and we will be restored to our "rightful" place on the calendar. We have county auditors who can count votes, at taxpayer expense, but more on that later.

The reality is, there are no "Iowa Democrats' future chances." The whole point of the DNC calendar reform was to get rid of Iowa (and take New Hampshire down a notch). They didn't like our process, they didn't like our demographics, they didn't like our recent election results, and they didn't like our arrogant attitude that First was our birthright.  

Four more years won't make us significantly less of a red state - rebuilding will take Iowa Democrats much longer than two cycles. It won't make us any less old or any less white or any less rural. And exile from the early states for one meaningless re-election cycle won't be enough punishment for a lot of corners of the party. Maybe we'll get some other small token of appreciation for behaving better than New Hampshire, but Iowa doesn't deserve to be considered for an early state slot until we get a state-run primary and until we win some elections.

For now, I need to be just a little positive and look at some details. The timeline announced Friday is as follows:

• Iowa Democrats will be able to request a presidential preference card (sic) starting November 1, 2023.
• Presidential preference cards (sic) will be mailed starting January 12, 2024.
• Iowa Democrats will hold our in-person caucuses January 15, 2024.
• The last day to request a presidential preference card (sic) is February 19, 2024.
• The Iowa Democratic Party will release results of our 2024 mail-in caucus presidential preference (sic) on March 5, 2024.
• Iowa Democrats will accept presidential preference cards (sic) postmarked on or before March 5, 2024.

First of all, let's use honest language. Now that we don't have to play word games with the New Hampshire Secretary of State, let's drop the stupid and confusing term "presidential preference card." It's a ballot. And it's not a "mail-in caucus presidential preference" - it's a party-run primary.

The first ballot request date, November 1, is really, really soon. It's still not clear what form those requests will take. If they're on line, accommodation will need to be made for those without computers. If they're paper, they'll need to be distributed somehow. And there are many people who will only be able to get a request form if someone prints it and mails it to them, which is an expense. Who does that - the state party or the locals?

Ballots will be mailed January 12. There is a five week overlap period when requests will be coming in and ballots will be both be coming in and going out. This overlap period includes Caucus Night. That means some people will come to the caucus with their ballots in hand and will want to turn them in. I would also expect IDP to include ballot requests in the caucus materials. That's a lot of stuff to juggle for a volunteer caucus chair and there's a risk of ballots getting misplaced. It might be better to hold off on mailing the ballots just four days, until after the caucus.

That said, many people will not trust the post office with a ballot and will want to return it in person. In earlier versions of the plan, IDP talked about county drop boxes. How will county parties be expected to manage and safeguard that? The average county chair does not have a box that's built like a tank and a 24 hour security camera like an auditor does.

The party plans to both announce results on March 5 and accept ballots postmarked March 5. That's going to mean a second set of results after caucus night to include the late arrivals. I think this is a rhetorical point. IDP wants to complain about the recent Republican driven change in state law that requires ballots to arrive before polls close on Election Day. Fine - but we'll need to set some specified cut-off date.

As for March 5, I was hoping for a different date. Iowa's results will be buried in the flood of results from both parties in other Super Tuesday states (to the extent that anyone cares about Biden 98%, Williamson 2% results). I would have preferred county convention day, March 23. This would have been a fun news handle for the county conventions (to the extent that anyone cares about Biden 98%, Williamson 2% results). But, as I expected, IDP clearly decided that the important thing was to go as soon as possible to emphasize that we really, really want to be an early state again.

Not discussed in the party release: Whether or not names will be printed on the ballots, and if so, the process to qualify. Will they be machine countable, which is way more accurate than a hand count? If not, are we going to quibble about whether "Joe" or "Biden-Harris" or "Bidin" votes will count?

So there's a lot more details to be fleshed out, and that will need to happen in less than four weeks before those requests start coming in.

In the big picture, there is good news. The most important change happened months ago, even before Iowa Democrats were demoted in the calendar. The old system where people had to stand in the corner for hours of endless headcounts and realignments, in crowds of up to 900 people, is over. Anyone who simply wants to vote for president does not need to attend a meeting at one and only one specific time and place. Since Iowa Republicans will not cooperate with an auditor-run primary election, a mail-in party run primary is as good as Democrats can do. The party of voting rights needs to contrast our improved, inclusive system with the same as it ever was Republican caucus where if you cannot attend, you cannot vote. And we should push for more.

The next legislative session starts very close to caucus night. Democratic legislators should emphasize voting rights by introducing a bill for a real, auditor-run Iowa presidential primary. It doesn't matter that Republicans won't assign it to a committee. It's a point that should be made and it's a point that will make national news. And, if you think trying to get back into the early states is important, it's a point that will help our standing with the rest of the national Democratic Party.

Thoughts on Running for Office

In the wake of the special session there's been a lot of Run For Something talk. I've been that person who ran and lost a tough race no one else wanted to run. It's been a while but the fundamentals haven't changed much. I don't want to throw water on anyone or be a gatekeeper. I just have experience and advice. Some of it's hard. You can accept or reject as you like (remember, I lost)

I’m not going to talk about ideology - reasonable people disagree on the best approach - or biography – you are who you are. I’m talking about universal constants.

First off: You will probably lose. You need to be OK with that. There are a LOT of reasons to run besides winning yourself. If you can move the needle for the top of the ticket a few points in your direction, you've accomplished something and you've built for the future.

But running might not be the best thing for you, and it may be bad enough that it's better if nobody runs. Google yourself. If the first thing you find is damaging or embarrassing, know that the other side will use not only against you but against the rest of the ticket. We dodged a bullet last cycle in one area district.

Look at every social media account you've ever had all the way back to MySpace and Friendster and be prepared to answer for anything you ever posted. If you can find it, they WILL find it.

You will have to raise money. "If every Democrat in my district donates $5" is not a plan. Even if you can name the rare counter example, Magic Internet Money is not a plan. "The state party will pay for it" is not a plan. This doesn't mean "the party doesn't care about rural districts." But at some point they have to look at numbers and odds. What limited resources they have will be spent on the swing districts. Triage is cold and cruel and you will probably be triaged out like I was.

The deal is: You, personally, will have to cold call people and ask for money, starting with family, friends, and working out to party donors. You will hate this. Everyone from Joe Biden on down hates this. It's the only way.

"Money isn't the only thing." True. But without it nothing else happens. Volunteers are great but they need lit to drop, signs to put up, and something to stuff envelopes with. That's not free. You don't have to match your opponent dollar for dollar. But you have to have enough cash to be visible and credible.

"If every independent votes for me, I'll win" is not winning math. That's drawing to an inside straight. Unaffillated voters vote pretty much the same way as their neighbors who register with a party. Again, you personally winning is not the only big picture goal.

"I'll talk about the issues." You're already an idealist for taking on this tough race, and that's good.  That's how it's supposed to be. That's not how it is.  Your small campaign will not be able to change this.

How long have you lived in your town and been active in the community? Do people know your family? In a lot of districts this matters more than "issues." I ran a year after I moved into the district and I was VERY clearly an outsider. I was a terrible fit, but it was me or no one.

How's your job? Can you afford, professionally or economically, to take time away from work - vacation days, an unpaid leave of absence? Would you even be allowed to do that? (Yes, you have some rights, but good luck with that.) It's not fair that people who are financially better off have an advantage in politics - but it's that way with EVERYTHING.

All those tough things said, my people in the district were very grateful I did what I did, and I'm proud of it. It was a learning experience that made me better able to help other candidates. I like to think my little campaign helped Bill Clinton and Tom Harkin win Louisa County. I made some long term friends. And some of the people who helped me  went on to bigger and better things.

I'll end on a couple positive recommendations.

You should spend as much of your time as possible doing the things that only you can do. That means talking to voters and it means the lion's share of the money asking. It also means your Human Being Stuff - being a partner/parent/adult child, your day job, and your other personal stuff that can't be delegated. But everything, on the campaign side and personal side, should be delegated when possible. Candidate spouses are the real heroes.

Finally, be yourself. Not everybody is going to like you. But everyone hates a phony.

Billboard chart rules and eras

You can't compare any Billboard chart records pre-1991 to post-1991 or pre-1999 to post-1999 because of the way marketing and chart rules have changed.

There's six distinct Billboard chart eras:

Pre-Hot 100 - multiple singles charts for airplay, sales and jukeboxes, often with different Number 1s at once. Pre-rock transitioning to rock (peak Elvis is pre-Hot 100). Long peaks, especially for non-rock songs. Multiple versions of the same song often chart simultaneously (the good original version and the lame Pat Boone cover).

The pre-Hot 100 "Top 100" was dated on Wednesday from 11/2/55 through 6/19/57.

There was a three day "week" with the chart date moving to Saturday on 6/22/57. It stayed Saturday until 7/19/58, the last Top 100.

There was no chart Sat 7/26/58 or Mon 7/28/58.

1958-late 70s - Hot 100 comprehensive chart debuts Monday 8/4/58. It was a Monday date through 12/25/61. It's not entirely clear whether there was a Saturday 12/30/61 chart. If you click on that date on the Billboard website it gives you the 1/6/62 chart. However, some sources list unique data for a 12/30/61 chart. In any case, this was the point of transition from a Monday chart date to the Saturday chart date, where it has remained since.

Data was self-reported by stores and stations, often manipulated (payola). Single release required for Hot 100 eligibility. Some famous album cuts (Stairway To Heaven) ineligible.

Glory days of Top 40 radio. Rapid chart turnover. Short songs, with a norm of 3 minutes, though this grows steadily with time (landmarks: Like A Rolling Stone, Hey Jude. Elton John's singles regularly exceeded 5 minutes.) Albums become important mid to late 60s (Sgt. Pepper). Record sales grow throughout the period. Artists released an album or two (Beatles, Elton John) per year, but usually only one to three singles per album. One off non-album singles are common.

Long chart peaks (I Want To Hold Your Hand 7 weeks at Number 1, Hey Jude 9) fade away around 1970, and vanish by 1976. In 1974-75 one week at Number 1 was the norm and four weeks would get you Number 1 for the year. Chart runs over 20 weeks are rare.

The All Beatle Top Five was a unique anomaly driven by America's delayed case of Beatlemania; rights to the early material were split among multiple labels. Once the early material had all been released in America, this didn't happen again. For my money, given the differences in rules and patterns over the years, the All Beatle Top Five remains the greatest chart achievement.

Another major chart outlier in this era is The Twist due to its two Number 1 chart runs 18 months apart. Until very recently The Twist was called "the biggest hit of all time" (again my whole point is that comparing across eras is impossible).

Late 70s - November 1991- Same chart rules, but different patterns due to different record release strategies. Top 40 Radio fragments and loses its cultural dominance to MTV. Long chart peaks briefly return 1977-82 (You Light Up My Life and Physical 10 weeks, see also Night Fever, Endless Love, I Love Rock & Roll) but vanish by the mid-80s (When Doves Cry at 5 weeks in `84 was about as long as it got - unfortunately for Bruce Springsteen who was stuck at 2 and never did get a Number 1).

Songs start to get longer with the average closer to four minutes; the Casey Kasem countdown expanded from three hours to four. 

Record sales plummet fast in the fall of 1978 (notorious flops: Sgt. Pepper Soundtrack, the Kiss solo albums). Albums become more important than singles and cassettes start to take over from vinyl (with CDs emerging late in the era). Sales grow back as the formats change.

Chart runs for singles get a little longer (Tainted Love sets a record at 43 weeks) but rarely get beyond six months. What happens instead:

The Long Album Cycle begins, with acts releasing four (Rumours), five (Purple Rain, Sports, Heartbeat City), or even seven (Born In The USA, Thriller, Rhythm Nation) singles from an album over cycles lasting up to two years. Non-album singles become rare. Still some unity to pop culture (Thriller), with Nirvana being the last mass culture moment. 

From 1976 to 1991 the chart was "frozen" over the holiday week. This does not mean "Let It Go" was Number One. The end of the year issue was a double issue focused on year end charts and Billboard skipped a publication week. Officially these unpublished magazine weeks are chart dates, but the chart is identical to the prior week (all positions were "frozen"). In most cases the pre-Christmas #1 song held over, but there were exceptions:

1/1/77: Rod Stewart got credit for an 8th week at #1, a LOT for that era, but fell out of #1 on the 1/8 chart. Did he REALLY hold on for an 8th week or would Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis Jr have knocked him off a week earlier if there had been a fresh chart?

12/30/78: #1 transition the next week, Le Freak to Too Much Heaven

12/29/79: #1 transition the next week, Pina Colada Song to Please Don't Go.

November 1991-December 5, 1998 - The Soundscan Era, the CD era. A transitional era for charts. Direct collection of data begins in November 1991 and chart patterns change immediately - but single release is still required for Hot 100 eligibility. But this is when the vinyl single dies, and CD and cassette singles never sell as well as the glory years of 45s. Thus radio airplay dominates the charts.

The beginning of extreme long chart runs (How Will I Live, You Were Meant For Me at about 15 months each) and long Number 1 peaks (I Will Always Love You and Macarena at 14 weeks, One Sweet Day at 16).

The album and airplay charts were more accurate indicators of real popularity than the Hot 100 as many key hits (Iris, Don't Speak) were not issued as singles in order to to boost CD sales (the "one good song on the CD" era). This contributed to long #1 peaks as the competition was weaker for the songs that WERE chart eligible (Candle In The Wind 1997 and Unbreak My Heart).

High chart debuts begin in 1995. This culminates in the first Number 1 debuts (MJ again with the quickly forgotten You Are Not Alone). Debuts were often manipulated by delaying the limited quantity but chart-required single release until airplay peaked (Sunny Came Home).

Beginning with the weeks of 12/26/92 and 1/2/93 Billboard ended their "holiday freeze" and resumed publishing unique charts over both Christmastime weekends.

December 5, 1998-circa 2010 - Early modern era. Album cuts become chart eligible, and in 2000 Aaliyah earns the first Number 1 single without a single. The iPod and download era (legal and not). With MTV abandoning music videos, and everyone with headphones serving as their own DJ, the mass culture era ends. Still primarily a singles era (begins to change with Taylor Swift's 2008 album Fearless becoming a proto-chart bomb). Number 1 debuts nearly vanish except for American Idol stars.

Several longevity records set, with Black Eyed Peas holding Number 1 for 26 straight weeks.

The 2000s marked the rapid growth of the "Featuring" credit, as collaboration becomes a norm with the singer singing the hook or multiple rappers taking a verse. This skews chart stats a lot, in particular numbers of hits stats.

2010-present - The modern era. Streaming emerges as the primary medium. Number 1 debuts return and become almost the norm. Chart manipulation moves from the payola/false reporting problem of the Classic Hot 100 Era to the fanbase model (bulk purchases, endless loop streaming, etc - Nicki Minaj and KPop fans are particularly rabid at this, though Swifties are not 100% innocent. Many artists play into it). Chart rules frequently change to try to stay one step ahead - see the ban on "bundling" (free single with purchase of tickets or merch).

The "remix" also became a chart factor. This has been around for 20+ years (J Lo's "I'm Real") but in the late 10s and the 20s it's a big chart tactic. 

It's not uncommon for a song to reach Number 1 without having ANY impact on the larger pop culture outside the act's core fanbase (the "stans"). Huge Week 2 drops are common (BTS member Jimin's solo single just dropped from 1-45 for a new record. Nicki Minaj dropped 1-34 and Swift dropped 1-38 though that was mostly due to the Holiday Chart Bomb).

The rare "stable and organic" hits stay at Number 1 for months (Old Town Road a record 19 weeks, As It Was 15, Despacito 16, Uptown Funk 14).

Beginning of the serious Chart Bomb Era where many or even all songs on a superstar album (primarily Swift and Drake, but others like Bad Bunny) debut at once. Compare 26 out of 30 tracks on the Hot 100 for Red TV vs. zero of 30 for the no-single White Album. First the Beatles 14 of Hot 100 record fell. Then Drake tied the All Beatle Top Five. Finally Taylor occupied the entire Top Ten.

Most chart bombs are short as the non-singles ("single" being more a mood than an actual format, signaling radio promo efforts or video releases) drop fast the 2nd week (though the biggest tracks from Swift's latest album have shown some longevity in the low to mid rungs).

A minor variation is the Necro Chart Bomb when an artist dies (Prince, Petty, Bowie) and their greatest hits re-chart for a week.

Starting in the late 2010s there's also a four week or so Holiday Chart Bomb when the same core group of Christmas songs returns each year, breaking lots of chart records related to slow climbs, fast drops, and multiple runs (All I Want For Christmas Is You taking 25 years to hit Number 1, hitting Number 1 in four separate chart runs, and dropping from Number 1 to completely off the chart three times). 

Each year the Holiday Chart Bomb gets bigger and longer. This has the side effect of interrupting otherwise long consecutive chart streaks, as holiday songs push down non-seasonal songs and trigger the Recurrent Rule (dropping below 50 after 20 weeks gets you dropped from the chart) or the Super Recurrent rule (dropping below 25 after a year). It also leads to high re-entries like "Blinding Lights" returning at number 3 the week after Christmas. I'm not at ALL a fan of the Holiday Chart Bomb (for decades Christmas songs were only listed on a special holiday chart - a policy I believe should return).

Chart turnover is low and slow except for weeks with chart bombs. Songs stay on the chart either one week (Glee Cast, chart bombs), exactly 20 or 52 weeks, or forever: 90 weeks, including over a year in the top ten, for the new "biggest hit of all time" Blinding Lights, and 91 weeks for Heat Waves which took 59 weeks to reach Number 1. Songs peak either in Week 1 or in Week 46 or so, with country tracks lingering for months in the low chart rungs and slowly building. 

Some acts accumulate insane numbers of "Featuring" credits (Drake, Minaj, Lil Wayne). In contrast, nearly all of Swift's hits are as a solo artist or in a handful of cases Swift as the lead artist with a guest. However the re-recordings have racked up roughly 40 duplicate hits ("You Belong With Me" and "You Belong With Me Taylor's Version" are considered separate chart entries).

With numbers of streams, and quick hooky viral videos, becoming more important, the average length of hits has dropped back toward the three minute mark. One stream of a song is one stream, whether it's the 1:52 original version of Old Town Road or the 10:13 long version of All Too Well (making Swift's achievement of Number 1, and the longest running time Number 1 ever, all the more impressive).

I never said the blog was dead. It's only semi-retired, and I have always reserved the right to don the beret as needed for special occasions. So on this Easter Monday the blog rises from the grave.

It's been a long Iowa caucus tradition that the two parties set aside their policy differences and work together on process issues. It's also been a long tradition that the parties don't tell each other how to conduct their own business.  You want to have a straw poll and call it a caucus? Fine. You do you. We'll be over here counting our preference groups.

That tradition has been stained to the breaking point in the months since the two national party committees made different decisions about Iowa's traditional First role - the Republicans keeping Iowa first, the Democrats completely banishing Iowa from the early state window.

This week, that bipartisan tradition snapped entirely. The final break was House Study Bill 245, a late session surprise from Rep. Bobby Kaufmann - a Trump campaign advisor and the son of the state party chair. Given the prominence of the sponsor, the unusual method of introduction, and the late date, I'm assuming this will pass.

The bill makes two key changes in caucus process. The first change ends the long bipartisan tradition that Iowas can register to vote or change party on caucus night. The bill would instead require voters to choose and register with the party 70 days before the caucuses.

It's clear what's at play here. The Trump wing of the Republican Party of Iowa is worried about anti-Trump Democrats and no party voters crossing over. But guess what? Crossovers happened EVERY time there's a caucus in a re-election cycle, as independents go where the action is. 

But if Iowa Republicans suddenly see that as a problem, they can change their process without changing the law. They can simply make the 70 day requirement a party rule. Is that mean spirited and vote suppression? Sure, but it's their party event and thus their business. You set your rules, and let us keep our doors open to people who want to join the Democrats on caucus night.

The other change would lock the caucuses into the status quo of 2012 and earlier by requiring caucus voters to attend the precinct level caucus in person. 

This is designed to kill the Iowa Democratic Party's plan to separate the presidential vote from the caucus itself, and conduct a by mail presidential preference process. It would also kill the satellite caucuses that were attempted in 2020 and on a very small scale in 2016 - even though most of those were at the same time as the precinct caucuses. There were serious flaws and inconsistencies to the satellite caucuses, but they did open up the process to some people who could not attend.

Even the Republicans had a very limited caucus participation program for military and overseas voters. I look forward to the Kaufmanns explaining to our troops why they can't vote.

Republicans may be concerned that the New Hampshire Secretary of State will call the Democratic mail-in process an "election" and move New Hampshire's date in front of Iowa. They are also worried that people might vote a Democratic absentee ballot, then attend a GOP caucus.  

That seems to be an exaggerated fear for this cycle, since the Democratic nomination is not likely to be seriously contested. No one's going to want a Democratic mailed ballot except the committed party activists and the leftists who want to cast an anti-Biden protest vote. Neither group is likely to show up at a Republican caucus. The people who might be inclined to monkeywrench the Republican process are the same people who care about being on the county central committee or about getting their platform resolution passed.

Going forward, if  there even is a going forward, double caucusing is legitimate concern and a challenging problem. But it should addressed by the two parties working together and finding an answer that works for both of their processes.

You know what system works to allow absentee voting and prevent people from participating in both parties process? A state run primary election.

But that's clearly not going to happen - even Democrats didn't introduce a for-show bill - and this bill clearly is. So what do Democrats do?

The Republicans clearly want us to run our caucuses just as we did in 2012 and earlier (with the elimination of the questionable "improvement" of the satellite caucuses, and the addition of the early party registration requirement). That is the absolute last thing we should do, for all the reasons of disproportionate representation and inaccessibility and exclusion that I have talked about for years.  (Granted, the overcrowding would not be as bad in a re-election year.)

That gets us in even more trouble with the DNC than we're already in. First off, the sitting Democratic president and presumptive nominee has directly said "Our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process." Second, we are likely going to be dragged along by the Republicans into holding our caucus on a date that does not comply with the DNC calendar. Eliminating the mail-in vote would break yet another rule - the requirement that caucus states have an absentee process. It seems increasingly unlikely that Iowa's national delegation will be seated at the Chicago convention. 

Making Iowa Democrats look bad is not the GOP's main motivation here - I'm convinced this has more to do with internal Republican politics - but it's a nice bonus.

As I outlined in December, it was possible for the Iowa Democratic Party to both comply with state law and still follow the DNC calendar rules. State law does not say that we have to vote for president before any other state. It simply says that we need to hold a caucus and elect precinct level party officers before other states vote for president, The law does not require a presidential vote at the caucus - and I see nothing in HSB 275 that changes that.

Iowa's original plan, as presented by then-chair Ross Wilburn to the DNC Rules And Bylaws Committee last August, was to conduct a mail in presidential vote in the weeks before the caucus night meeting, announce the results on caucus night, and then conduct the legally required party business at the caucus. My proposed variation on that would be to have the caucus meeting, but then hold the mail in vote later, at a calendar compliant date.

Maybe such a vote in March of 2024, or a straw vote at a county convention, could be called something other than a caucus and used to allocate the national delegates. Or maybe it can't.

Another piece of bipartisan cooperation has fallen by the wayside. It's a lousy trick to blindside Democrats this late in the session. 

Iowa Democrats were blindsided by our own national party in 2019. In order to address the new requirement of an absentee caucus system, we spent months planning a phone-in "virtual caucus" system - only to be told with no warning just four months before the caucuses that it was unacceptable.

Now we're getting blindsided by our fellow Iowans - who used to be our allies on caucus issues.

If the Republican position was always going to be "Democrats doing a vote by mail caucus is unacceptable" - and I'm pretty sure that was the case - they should have signaled that ASAP. We should have know that before Wilburn even presented the idea to Rules And Bylaws. Months of planning time have been lost.

Also lost are all the benefits Iowa Democrats used to gain from first. Now we're boxed into a position where we will have to scramble just to comply with state law and have a meeting, and where the biggest win we can hope for is getting seated at the national convention with hotels closer to the United Center than to Davenport.

A couple years ago I raised the idea that Iowa Democrats may have no presidential nomination process at all - that our caucus process would be prohibited and that at some point the state party leaders would quietly choose a delegation. The first part of that has already happened. It's looking increasingly likely that rank and file Iowa Democrats will never get any chance to express their personal presidential nomination preference.

How Iowa Democrats can follow state law and DNC rules

 (originally published at Bleeding Heartland)

As Iowa Democratic Party leaders struggle through the denial stage of the grieving process, they are clinging to a state law that supposedly privileges Iowa’s historic first place on the presidential nomination calendar.

In an email sent to party activists on the evening of December 1, soon after President Joe Biden announced his support for a Democratic nomination calendar that does not include Iowa among the early states, party chair Ross WIlburn wrote:

Our state law requires us to hold a caucus before the last Tuesday in February, and before any other contest. When we submit our delegate selection plan to the Rules and Bylaws Committee early next year, we will adhere to the State of Iowa’s legal requirements, and address compliance with DNC rules in subsequent meetings and hearings.

While the law itself is ridiculous—what if 49 other states pass the same law?—Iowa Republicans are also pushing the “state law” argument. In part they want to make the Democrats squirm. But also, Republicans have grounds for concern that if Democrats follow the new Democratic National Committee approved calendar, it will hurt the Iowa GOP’s chances of staying First on their side, which the Republican National Committee has approved for 2024.

The Iowa Democratic Party is in a jam. If we go along with the Republicans, the DNC penalties are draconian. There are strict restrictions against candidates campaigning in calendar breaking states, and there would be an automatic reduction by half in the state’s national convention delegation. Stricter sanctions could be imposed, including kicking the Iowa delegation entirely out of the convention. 

And the DNC will not hesitate to impose the harshest punishments on Iowa. The president himself said, “Our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process.” We learned in the Rules and Bylaws Committee discussion just how much other states hate our poor track record and our complicated process.

Unlike New Hampshire, which is also making loud threats to break the rules, we do not have two Democratic senators or swing-state status to protect us. We are the perfect state to make an example of. We are too weak within the national party to get away with breaking the calendar rules, and too weak within the state to get the law changed.  

But we don’t need to. Iowa Democrats can both follow state law and be in compliance with the national calendar. It’s not hard; you just have to read the law.

Here’s what Iowa Code 43.4 actually says:

Delegates to county conventions of political parties and party committee members shall be elected at precinct caucuses held not later than the fourth Monday in February of each even-numbered year. The date shall be at least eight days earlier than the scheduled date for any meeting, caucus, or primary which constitutes the first determining stage of the presidential nominating process in any other state, territory, or any other group which has the authority to select delegates in the presidential nomination.

 
Despite the way both parties are spinning it, 43.4 does not say parties must conduct a presidential preference process at the caucus.

In fact, Republicans had a long tradition of not holding a presidential straw vote at their caucuses in years when their incumbent presidents were seeking re-election. They changed that policy in 2020, but Republicans did not hold a vote in 1984, 1992, or 2004. The decision was somewhat controversial in 1992, when Pat Buchanan won nearly 40 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary against President George H.W. Bush.

All 43.4 says is that parties have to elect their precinct level officers before any other state starts its presidential nomination process. The DNC only cares about how early Iowa is voting for president. No one cares when we elect Central Committee members and county convention delegates. 

So Iowa Democrats should go ahead and do that—and only that.

The caucus date is uncertain, because New Hampshire is likely to insist on following its state law and hold the first primary a week before any other state. That will trigger Iowa Republicans to move their caucus date back. Iowa Democrats are just along for the ride (albeit willingly).

On whatever night the Republicans set, Democrats should have a mid-term style caucus to debate the platform and elect committee members and delegates. But it needs to be made clear that election as a delegate is in no way linked to presidential preference. The handful of activists who attend off-year caucuses, or who stayed late in presidential years after the hours-long nightmare of realignment, would attend.

So when do we get to vote for president?

In a December 6 email to county chairs, Wilburn outlined a few more details of the somewhat vague vote by mail plan he and Scott Brennan presented to the Rules and Bylaws Committee over the summer.

JANUARY 2, 2024

First day for the Iowa Democratic Party to receive requests by mail or online portal, and send preference cards to registered Iowa Democrats.

14-28 DAYS PRIOR TO THE IN-PERSON CAUCUS

IDP Chair opens the non-present participation period of the caucuses. Caucus-goers may return their preference cards by mail, in-person, or drop box. The non-present participation period will continue for at least 14 days. During this time, Democrats may continue to request a preference card.

5 DAYS PRIOR TO THE IN-PERSON CAUCUS

Last day to postmark or hand-return preference cards

1 DAY PRIOR TO THE IN-PERSON CAUCUS

Deadline for Iowa Democratic Party to receive mailed preference card (Note: this would likely be a Sunday, with no mail delivery)

CAUCUS DAY

The Iowa Democratic Party will release the raw caucus results by a time certain to the public. Caucus site coordinators will receive both the raw results and delegate allocation results for all precincts at their site, and announce the number of delegates to be elected for each candidate (or uncommitted) in each precinct.

One good thing that came from the calendar reform process, and from the survey the Iowa Democratic Party conducted over the summer, is that no one is continuing to defend the old “stand in a corner for three hours to vote” system. The reformers have already won that battle. 

Many details need to be thought through before implementing a vote by mail system, and that work needs to start very soon. The process will also be expensive, which a financially weak party will need to address. But the vote by mail concept is a good framework.

The timeline simply needs to be moved into compliance with the new DNC calendar.

After the precinct caucuses, the traditional next step of the process is the county convention in March. That’s a perfect time, outside the early state window that we are no longer a part of. We can make the county convention the new centerpiece of the presidential preference process.

IDP should schedule the proposed 14 to 28 day vote by mail window to begin between Wednesday, February 28 and Friday, March 1, on whatever day the early state window is officially considered closed. We can then spend the month of March voting, which is a nice long early voting window like we used to have in this state.

Democrats should then announce the presidential preference vote results at each county convention, on Saturday, March 23 or 30. This creates actual news out of the convention, to whatever extent “Biden 99 percent, Uncommitted 1 percent” is news.

(One under-discussed aspect of the calendar change is that President Biden weighing in so strongly is an indicator that he is running for re-election, so the 2024 Democratic cycle is likely to be uncontested. That gives Iowa Democrats a low-key, low stakes cycle to work the bugs out of our new system before a contested 2028 cycle.)

County conventions can proceed to elect pledged congressional district and state convention delegates, based on the results of the preference vote announced that morning.

The Congressional district and state conventions would proceed much as they always have and elect pledged national delegates. And, with Iowa in compliance with the DNC calendar, those delegates would be seated at the national convention with full votes and no penalties.

This plan is very close to what IDP presented to Rules and Bylaws. The only thing that changes is the time frame of the mail in vote. The Republicans already set the precedent that we do not need to have a presidential vote at the caucuses and we can simply elect unpledged county convention delegates. Delaying the presidential voting to March not only complies with both state law and party rules, it preserves as much of the Democrats’ traditional caucus to convention process as possible, given our removal from the early state window. The only thing it does not preserve is First As We Have Known It.

Of course, all this assumes Iowa Democratic leaders want to comply with the DNC calendar. All indications are, they do not. Let’s be honest here. “Following state law” is just an excuse. The real concern is keeping the privileges of First: the command performance cattle call events, the year and a half of candidates and organizers blanketing the state, and most importantly to some, the personal phone calls from presidential candidates to key state players. 

State law says we have to elect delegates and central committee members early. It does not say that South Of Grand donors have a constitutional right to have Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigeig’s cell phone numbers. It does not say that small county chairs have a right to be quoted in the New York Times. It does not say you have a right to collect selfies with presidential candidates. We did this to ourselves, over many cycles and with many mistakes.

Iowa Democrats are in the weakest position we have been since the pre-Harold Hughes dark ages. It’s not just First that we have lost—it’s the entire way we have done things for 50 years.

Every hour and dollar wasted on fighting a battle for First that is already lost is time and money not spent building for the future. First will be very hard to replace. But accepting the loss and accepting our diminished role in the nomination process is a necessary first step in the long hard fight toward winning back the state.

Why I'm Quitting The Caucuses

I never set out to be The Caucus Organizer for the Johnson County Democrats. The role landed on me by accident in 2004. Nearly every experienced party activist was involved in a presidential campaign, and almost no one was doing the logistics work of finding rooms, recruiting chairs, stuffing packets, and getting training done. The skill set overlapped closely with my job at the county auditor's office, so I stepped in to help. 

Each cycle, my role got bigger and bigger. By 2016 I was seen as the Person In Charge, a role I repeated in 2020 and again in the recent midterm caucuses.

But after a lot of struggling, I've decided it's a role I won't take on again.

Each cycle, the job got bigger because the turnout got bigger. I don't mind hard work. I regularly put in 80 hour weeks during election season. But I do mind work that's futile. I do mind work that's counter-productive. And I'm no longer comfortable with enabling a system that I believe is wrong.

The first year I was involved in caucus planning, Johnson County took a great leap forward in turnout, from 4000 attendance in 2000 to over 11,000 in 2004. For the first time, we saw rooms that were crammed beyond capacity. 

So we started getting bigger rooms. But the turnout kept growing - to 18,363 in 2008, even though the January 3 date meant most of our students were out of town. We jumped to 19,513 in 2016 and 21,436 in 2020. My personal caucuses kept getting bigger, too - from 100 in 2000 to 300 in 2008 to 430 in 2016 to 750 in 2020.

Some might think that such high turnout is a blessing - wow! you must have signed up a lot of new volunteers and committee members! Nothing could be more wrong. 

The change of the caucuses from neighborhood meeting to mass attendance event means more new people not trained in tradition and parliamentary procedure, and less committed to organizing the party, who just want to vote and go home - which 90 percent of attendees do as soon as the delegate counts are locked in.

But first we make them stand in line for 45 minutes, and then we make them stand in a corner for three hours to vote. And this chaos is their first impression of the local party.  

The rules of a caucus are set up for 40 people in a living room. Once the caucus grows above the capacity of a grade school gym - this isn't just a Johnson County problem, the average Iowa Democratic caucus goer attended a caucus of 191 people - those rules just don't work anymore. You can't organize in a crowd of 945 people, the biggest Johnson County caucus on record. You can only do crowd control and anger management.

Each cycle, I started earlier. Each cycle I booked bigger and bigger rooms, sometimes at costs in the thousand of dollars, until we were in the biggest indoor spaces that existed in each precinct short of Carver Hawkeye Arena.

Better organizing and training and planning can only do so much, even if your county's volunteer organizer has 24 years of professional experience in election administration. All I managed to do was make a bad situation slightly less bad.

Spaces larger than a grade school gym, in or near neighborhoods, are few and far between. Smaller precincts, one suggestion I keep hearing, won't help - that just means we would need three grade school gyms where only one exists. All we can do is book the one gym that exists and pray that no one calls the fire marshal.

When the biggest room in or near the precinct is no longer big enough, the only answer is to get some of those people out of the room.

But the overcrowding isn't even the biggest problem. Fairness and access is the biggest problem, and that's not just logistics - it's a challenge to us to live up to our ideals.

The Democratic Party is the party of voting rights, and we need to be the party of voting rights not just on Election Day, but on Caucus Night. We need fewer people in our caucus rooms but we need more people in our nominating process.

We already limit who can attend a caucus by making it a mandatory must attend in person meeting - even the satellite caucuses we had in 2020 still required attendance in one place at one time and required more advance planning and pre-registration than many people's schedules allowed.

The overcrowding makes attendance a physical and mental endurance test - walking many blocks in the dark from the nearest parking space, and sitting uncomfortably or standing for hours, large cavernous spaces with bad acoustics, and high confusing noise and stress levels that strain the capacity of those of us on the autism spectrum. I've seen seniors near tears at our office, begging for an absentee ballot.

A state or district party that only has to pull off one large convention can or should manage to check off all the ADA boxes. It's asking too much for a county party, with no financial help from the state party, to conduct dozens of district-convention-sized caucuses all at the same time, and be 100% compliant and legally liable if someone sues. It's not that we don't care - it's just that there aren't that many sound systems and babysitters and sign language interpreters available all at once.

There's other barriers to participation - schedules, transportation, and physical presence in your community. This one hits me close to home. My wife missed the 2008 caucuses because our sons were small and did not want to go, and in 2016 she had last minute mandatory overtime. I would have missed last month's mid-term caucus if my county had not decided to go virtual, as I was out of state helping care for my aging parents.

I'm no longer willing to book the rooms and recruit and train the chairs for the same old Must Be Physically Present process. I'm not even willing to attend anymore, knowing that there are so many others who can't.

I want to pass my experience along to anyone else who wants this role, and I'm willing to help implement new ideas - not minor repairs, but real changes.

Our long range goal should be a presidential primary. I understand all too well that Republicans control our state government and are not interested in changing. But it should still be our goal. I'm working to get it into our platform, and I'm hoping that at some point a legislator will be brave and introduce a primary bill.

While we pursue that goal, we should also work to make our last caucuses better. 

The mid-term caucus, where dozens of counties converted to a virtual or hybrid format in just two weeks, shows that we can be really creative and inclusive when we're given the chance. 

2024 may be our opportunity to try new things. President Biden is likely to run for re-election, which will largely take questions of Who Benefits? out of the mix. And with the long time New Hampshire Secretary of State retiring, we may have a chance to do what we haven't before.

Give people what they want. Let them vote and go home - let them vote all day long and go home. Give them absentee ballots - real ones that they can mark at home in secret. We should experiment with true absentee ballots, or multi-day early voting like Nevada did in 2020, or a "firehouse caucus" format where voting is open all day long at caucus sites, or all of these things.

I'm not here to argue about First, or about how representative my state is. That's up to the national committee. But I will say that we can no longer accept First as an excuse for a flawed process. For me, it's time to work on improving that process rather than enabling it.