Broken San Francisco Democratic Party Central Committee

There has been a lot of movement nationwide with actual Democratic Party activists running to take over local Party committees. Chris Bowers won a huge write-in victory in Pilly and now my friend Anna is taking on the powers that be in Texas. But we won't see anything like that in San Francisco, were the SFDCCC is viewed mostly as a political stepping stone and the way things are set up it ends up dominated by politicians seeking something other than helping the Democratic Party. At an SF Wall forum thread, there is a good discussion about the current state of San Francisco's Democratic Party. BuodicaaSF notes:

Sue Bierman
HAS NO COMPUTER. In a time of blogs, a time of great websites, such as the one Janet Reilly did for her assembly race, a time when young people all organize via computer, we are dealing with an elected person who does not have a computer.

The highest vote getter in AD 13, who can't even remember her own name or "how long [she] has been on the DCCC" (check the June issue of Central City Extra). This is what is in charge of the Democratic Party in San Francisco?

thecityplanner notes:

I feel that it's fair to say that the majority of people serving on the DCCC...12th or 13th...have absolutely no interest in party building, quite the contrary. There are many that will practically go out of their way to make anyone new feel unwelcomed.

I think we all now why they don't want anyone new involved.

No wonder the local democratic party is so boring...it's either a private DCCC affair or it's an event with one of the annointed ones (DiFi, Pelosi, Migden etc) who have come down from their throwns to show up at something...and then it costs $50-$100 to get in...unless you're on the DCCC.

It doesn't have to be this way. Able Dart brings up a key point that deserves a ballot initiative:

Note that County Committees need not be organized by Assembly District lines. A group of activists upset with the Migden Mafia might well put a reoganization initiative on the ballot. How on earth would the electorate and the establishment react to such a thing?

My guess is that the establishment wouldn't like it, but it would be great news for the Democratic Party in San Francisco. randlepatrickm sums it up:

The DCCC in its present state really represents an old way of doing business, that has been outdated for quite some time. The days of Tammany have come and gone, it's about time the democratic party catches on and changes the way they conduct their business.

Chris Bowers won a write in campaign with a little over a hundred votes in Philadelphia -- which is a far bigger city. In San Francisco, Jimmer landed 10,539 votes but that still wasn't enough to be part of the Democratic Party at the lowest common denominator. This racket causes central committee candidates to spend more money campaigning than state legislators do in a number of states. By the time most are elected, all of the time, energy, and resources they could tap were spent campaigning for themselves and the local Party gets nothing done.

Anyway, here are the winners, "your" elected SFDCCC (not counting the proxy votes from Democratic office holders):

COUNTY CENTRAL COMM. AD 12
TOM A. HSIEH  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    15,820    7.27
ARLO SMITH .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    15,684    7.21
SUSAN HALL .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    15,348    7.05
CONNIE O'CONNOR  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    15,324    7.04
MARY Y. JUNG  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    14,045    6.45
MEAGAN LEVITAN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    13,828    6.35
JANE MORRISON .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    13,814    6.35
DAN DUNNIGAN  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    12,715    5.84
MELANIE NUTTER.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    12,002    5.51
MATT TUCHOW.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    11,640    5.35
TREVOR MCNEIL .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    11,161    5.13

COUNTY CENTRAL COMM. AD 13
SUSAN BIERMAN .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    21,549    7.69
DAVID CAMPOS  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    20,124    7.18
LESLIE RACHEL KATZ  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    18,924    6.75
SCOTT WIENER  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    17,184    6.13
HOLLI THIER.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    16,731    5.97
MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    16,645    5.94
LAURA SPANJIAN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    16,638    5.94
ROBERT HAALAND.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    15,540    5.55
BILL BARNES.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    14,603    5.21
GERRY CROWLEY .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    14,482    5.17
RAFAEL MANDELMAN .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    13,296    4.75
JOE JULIAN .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    13,216    4.72
DAVID WONG .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    11,087    5.09

There are some good people on that list whose time would have been far better spent campaigning for Democrats than campaigning for themselves. There is also a lot of dead weight, that should move along, but won't because of the way the SFDCCC is set up. I'm for lowering the entry barrier so people who want to help the Party are in control instead of people out to help themselves.