by Alex P. and Adithya P.

Building the resilience to productively work through conflict is one of our most important tasks in building DSA into a real party – one that many leftist organizations struggle with. Without a healthy democratic culture and structure, political disagreements metastasize and become intertwined with personal grievances, a toxic cocktail that can boil over and implode chapters (including our own in 2022-23).

Selecting leadership can require navigating divides within a chapter that may not always be entirely reconcilable. Leaders have to be able to build some level of ideological or strategic unity to collectively execute a shared direction for the chapter, or risk gridlock and inertia that blunts our organizing momentum. On the other hand, operating too hegemonically risks alienating or marginalizing others within the chapter to a degree where they feel their only recourse is to leave, which, for an organization like DSA which prides itself on its big tent politics, would be robbing us of one of our greatest strengths.

There’s no formulaic approach for striking the right balance here. It requires rigorous and frequent analysis of the current conditions surrounding the organization (i.e. a muscle that needs to be regularly exercised), being structurally flexible enough to meet those changing conditions, and strong leaders capable of facilitating those tasks and meeting the moment.

In 2023, we stepped up as leaders in a disorganized, demobilized chapter lacking cohesion and stretched across siloed working groups. Our analysis then was that the primary task was to re-establish a healthy chapter culture and organizing practice. We emphasized general meetings as a social and political hub for the chapter and built consensus with leaders across the chapter for a collective campaign, with the mindset that the politics of the campaign was secondary to building a shared democratic muscle where the chapter collectively executed and debriefed this campaign together. 

We believe this approach was generally vindicated by the growth and maturation of the chapter over 2024-25. That trajectory has not changed since, and we’re now taking on projects larger than ever before. Some of the challenges we’re working through or likely to hit in the coming years are new, others are familiar territory for veteran DSA organizers – maintaining political cohesion with so many chapter projects without stifling new organizing, the presence of more politically developed and organized factions within the chapter, etc. 

Sustaining our social practice and chapter culture is still a priority (and mostly outside the scope of resolutionizing), but we now believe structural changes to our leadership election process are also needed to better facilitate this over the next few years, as Madison Area DSA becomes a chapter over 1000 members strong and we reckon with how to most effectively wield that growing power at the city and state level. From observing how larger chapters have already been wrestling with these questions, we want to tackle these changes proactively rather than reactively.

In that context, we’re bringing this proposal to the 2026 Chapter Convention to change how we elect executive committee officers from row elections for single seats to at-large elections. Here’s a brief summary of the actual changes in our proposal, followed by additional context and rationale for why we’re motivating this.

• The executive committee this year will prioritize building out committees to delegate more of their current administrative work (e.g. budgeting, general meeting coordination) where appropriate..
• Starting in 2027, the five non co-chair officer positions on the Executive Committee are elected at-large from a single pool of candidates, rather than by individual election for each position. The newly elected executive committee will vote on their officer roles after the chapter election. 
• Exec elections will be required to use Single Transferable Vote, a ranked-choice voting system that preserves proportional representation.
• The Administrator position shall be renamed to Secretary, in line with other chapters.
• Provisions where branches automatically receive an additional voting representative on Exec shall be removed.

What does the executive committee do?

In order to understand how these changes will affect the composition of Exec, we need to discuss what the executive committee actually does.

The bylaws (specifically Articles V and VI) give a brief overview of what Exec’s basic scope entails, as well as the duties of each officer. While that description is not inaccurate, it doesn’t capture the full scope of leadership responsibilities, and the influence they have on the political direction of the chapter as a whole.

Individual exec members have additional administrative and political leadership duties beyond the scope of the bylaws, including tasks like liaising with working groups, committees, and other chapters; adjudicating grievances and conflict; and developing new leaders to replace them. Political leadership here is not limited to ideological positions, but encompasses other dimensions of organizing leadership such as how they show up in the chapter’s internal political life, organize others to accomplish projects, and model skills like delegation.

While the chapter may vote to take specific actions or direct broad strategy, it is often Exec that is tasked with implementing that broad mandate (or steering other chapter bodies in doing so).

Exec has wide latitude in how to prioritize these decisions, strategizing and implementing (which can have significant political consequences in terms of what sort of infrastructure or power that builds for the chapter long-term), how much outreach is performed to membership or coalition partners, which chapter bodies are brought into planning, etc.

Exec also plays a key advisory role for the chapter, and has been a primary force for bringing proposals to the general membership. Unlike other chapter bodies though, Exec has authority to define the terms of discussion to general membership that can potentially tip the scales, deciding such things as what items (such as proposals, resolutions, or bylaw amendments) are agendized, how much time they are given, what the format of discussion looks like (alongside the decisions of the meeting chair), and some hand in the degree of announcement given to the general membership prior to the meeting. Exec also is empowered to make some political decisions on behalf of the chapter between general membership meetings. 

All of the above can in theory be overwritten by a vote of the general membership, but this is a right that often goes uninvoked. In the past few years, we can recall very few motions brought forward by Exec (as a whole body, not individual members) that have failed to get approval by the general membership. While there are other factors such as pre-selection of motions for ones that are most likely to pass when brought to the chapter, having a good understanding of the collective political vision of the chapter, and being personally developed enough to write and present a winning proposal, the powers of the chapter’s highest offices does confer potential to put an often unintended thumb on the scale. 

If the executive committee is tasked with the responsibility of steering the chapter and executing its will, then that committee should be broadly representative of the chapter’s collective will and political currents, which often form loose collections or tendencies. “Factions” is the most useful term for speaking to these distinct collections of members.

What is factionalism, and why are we engaging with it?

Factionalism is a bit of a dirty word, especially in the context of liberal democratic forms. However, factions are any collectivity of our membership that are bound by common goals, generally directed towards internal (within DSA) organizing ends. If you have ever spoken to other members in favor of or against a contentious motion prior to a meeting with the intent of building support or identifying opponents, then you have engaged in a sort of factionalism. 

Most internal organizing that meets some level of opposition can be described in factional terms, though such factions are usually short-term. There is a natural tendency to gravitate towards others within the chapter who share similar vision, which can take many forms: a group chat, an affinity for specific chapter projects, or perhaps something more formal like coalescing around an ideological caucus.

This is a normal, generally healthy expression of political conflict, and addressing those conflicts productively is in part how we resolve the contradictions inherent to a big-tent organization like DSA. A lack of such conflict might indicate a failure to engage in impactful political action, preserving the big-tent at the expense of building/wielding power, or that the membership has consolidated around a singular, all-encompassing political vision, collapsing the big-tent; something that our organization in its current form would be unlikely to structurally survive.

Regardless of whether such a conflict is acknowledged or not, factionalism is a reality that is already present within the chapter, has been for some time, and will continue to evolve as we grow. Rather than bury our heads in the sand, it is important that we address the potential pitfalls of factional conflicts before they can grow to proportions with dire organizational consequences (splits being the primary concern).

As our chapter grows, questions and disagreements on political strategy will have greater stakes, which increases the pressure and incentives for members to make tradeoffs that might secure short-term political victories at the expense of our long-term organizational health.

Returning to the substance of our proposed bylaw amendment, one way we can place guardrails is by making Exec more likely to proportionally represent the range of political currents within the chapter. Our current election system, while effective in previous stages of chapter development, is less well-equipped for our potential future trajectory. We believe that changing to an at-large voting system places some guardrails against factional excesses, and also allows membership to better consider candidates on the basis of their leadership rather than just for the specific position they’re contesting. In the event our chapter doesn’t develop beyond our current level, we think it unlikely to have a major impact on our elections as currently run.

One weakness of row elections is a reduced ability for membership to weigh in on the collective makeup of the body, instead having each race be a separate first-past-the-post election. This can result in a leadership body not representative of the chapter, and organized political pluralities or slim majorities able to win disproportionate voting power on our highest leadership body. An example of this is in New York City, where the two largest political factions won about ⅔ of members’ votes in last year’s convention delegate elections (using STV), but represent almost 100% of seats on the chapter’s steering committee, since candidates from those factions can win a simple majority in almost every row election. This is not inherently a bad thing on its own and not an indictment of the chapter’s other successes, but we believe it presents real contradictions and limitations for NYC’s internal democracy. 

Structural changes on their own are of course insufficient for resolving political and organizing problems. Our chapter has had the same row election system for years and vastly different political cultures over that time; some chapters with steering committees elected at-large have a healthy internal democracy, but others do not. 

As such, our other priority with this bylaw amendment is to shift the focus of elections towards that of electing the strongest leaders overall. This is increasingly important as the scope of officer roles exceeds the ability for all tasks to be completed by any single person, before considering other leadership responsibilities on Exec’s plate.

Over the last three years we’ve made major strides in our membership work, going from most tasks being handled directly by membership coordinator (or other exec members), to a standing committee led and overseen by the membership coordinator. This has also helped create a leadership development pipeline where people running for membership coordinator have been able to build more direct experience before running. To a lesser extent we’ve seen similar success with our Communications Committee. Regardless of the vote on the larger proposal, we believe it should be a priority for Exec to set up similar structures to delegate other areas of work, e.g. budget and finance, general meeting coordination, and other common administrative processes.

To make this a reality, we want to set the expectation that organizing leadership is the primary requirement for these roles, something we’ve already emphasized to candidates for Exec this year. We want the chapter to elect the members best suited to lead those roles, recruit other members and delegate work as necessary, and believe at-large elections allow us to more effectively consider that long-term.

Baseline technical skills are still needed for certain roles, but in the past few years many officers have come in without extensive prior experience and develop these skills after taking office. Our long-term growth requires elected officers understanding their role as overseeing particular areas of work rather than being solely responsible, and have resources and guidance built in to ensure that future terms of the executive committee are able to take on those roles from all levels of baseline experience. 

This, alongside the expansion of committees aiding individual offices in performing many of their expected tasks, including more technical roles like treasurer, leaves us confident that we can continue what has already been standard practice of electing officers whose primary qualifications are in more generalized organizing skills. This is in line with the trend away from the main historic selection criteria for Exec, which has been based entirely on whoever has been willing to run, resulting in a 4-year stretch of conventions (2021-2024) with uncontested elections. 

We’ve heard concerns that running in an election whose technical responsibilities are not definitively listed at the time of the election might discourage members from running, and that the post-election sorting of roles is too much of an open question. In our experience, this sorting process is already happening, but prior to elections – members considering running for Exec typically talk with others informally beforehand and we see at least 1-2 cases a year of people adjusting what positions they run for based on what others are running for.

The natural expectation written into this bylaw amendment is that most people will likely join exec with a “preferred” role they might want to pursue, with mechanisms to resolve irreconcilable conflicts between exec members over the same desired role, opportunities for exec members to rotate roles as needed (though we don’t expect this to need to be invoked often), and the option for exec members to resign and trigger a new election if they find an assigned technical role to be personally intolerable. If the capacity to fill these roles exists in the current moment, it will continue to exist under the new structure. In all, it formalizes, democratizes, and makes transparent processes that are already happening.

Conclusion

It is important that, when a DSA chapter is altering its bylaws, that such changes are not intended to be overly prescriptive. The goal should not be to fundamentally change the nature of our organizing work through the changes, but to more subtly adjust existing practices to fit the current conditions. Additionally, changes to bylaws should be utilized to give formal recognition to informal practices that have proven useful for the body at large, designating a mandate that such practices continue or simply acknowledging that said practices are unlikely to cease given current organizing needs. This philosophy is reflected in another proposal we authored to rewrite our bylaws with guardrails against that process being used as a vehicle for major political changes, and it informs our thinking behind this proposal as well.

We believe this change helps codify leadership expectations we’ve contributed to shifting the last few years. And though we don’t expect it to have a significant immediate impact, we believe it sets up long-term scaffolding whose positive effects will be increasingly felt as we continue to grow and tackle new challenges in the coming years.