George,

Whether a firehouse primary would be a good idea for the future, it cannot be implemented at this time. At the December 16, 2003, meeting of the City Committee, it was decided that we would have a meeting that followed the structure of the past nomination processes. In issuing the Call to Convention and the Temporary Rules, I am bound to follow the vote of that meeting. Even if I thought it was a good idea to have a firehouse primary (or what is called in the Democratic Party Plan an "unassembled caucus"), I have no power to decide unilaterally to do so, and we don't have time for another meeting of the City Committee to change things.

Having said that, there are advantages and disadvantages to the firehouse primary. I have recommended a firehouse primary system in years past, for many of the reasons that Tom [Vandever] advances, but have been
outvoted.

Advantages:

1. By leaving the polls open for a period of hours, more people can participate. This is the primary advantage, and it is a significant one.

2. There is no advantage given (see paragraph 4, below) to certain precincts that tend not to turn out well in the nomination process, but who do turn out well in elections.

Disadvantages:

1. It means that there is no possibility for a second ballot. There is no opportunity for people to think about who they might vote for on a second ballot, if their first choice(s) is/are kicked off the ballot on
the first round. Take what happened in 2002. If, for example, it was important to you that there be a woman on the ballot, and your first choice had been Joan Fenton, who was the low vote getter on the first round, you might have decided to support Alex Searls on the second round. Having one vote makes that impossible. (Unless you go to certain instant runoff systems, etc., that are beyond the scope of this note.)

2. A winner could be someone who would win with a mere plurality, rather than a majority.

3. There is a psychological benefit, if nothing else, to having everyone in the same room at the same time -- to hear the same speeches, to hear the same concession and victory speeches, to leave with (hopefully) some sense of unity. We didn't do that well in 2002, but if we did it better, it would be good.

4. It would get away from one of the principles that we have followed since the beginning of recorded time in the Charlottesville Democratic Party -- that we want to weight the nomination process in a way that corresponds to how well the different precincts turn out for Democrats. This means that although Tonsler Democrats tend not to participate in the nomination process much, they do come out to vote in good numbers, so we'll give them a weight equal to their weight in the actual election. Some regard this as a negative; I regard it as, on balance, a good thing. It tends to keep our nominations more in tune with electoral success.

So -- if we want to switch to that, it'll have to be at some future date. Can't do it for February 7.

Lloyd Snook (electronic mail, January 14, 2004)