[Posting in my capacity as an angry private citizens AND one who is the field director for the United Independent Party, the fastest growing alternative party in Masssachusetts
Follow me on twitter!]
Clown A: Brian Joyce (D-Milton) who’s office just got raided by the FBI
The FBI and the IRS are conducting an investigation into Massachusetts state Sen. Brian Joyce.
A spokeswoman for the FBI confirmed Wednesday that both agencies are conducting what she described as “court authorized activity in connection with an ongoing federal investigation.
Needless to say, what primaries or indictments can’t do maybe running solid candidates on the general election ballot under the UIP banner can. It’s so crazy it just might work!
Clown B: Mistah Speakah Bobby DeLeo
Holding up our grandchildren’s future by opposing alternative energy:
However, due to inaction by House Speaker Robert DeLeo, solar development in the state has been effectively put on hold. This week, the major solar incentive program which issues solar renewable energy certificates (SREC II) hit its limit as the amount of installed solar capacity in Massachusetts quickly reaches 1,600 MW. As concerned constituents and business leaders flood the State House with emails and phone calls, members of the House of Representatives need to take this urgent issue to the Speaker’s office.
One progressive lawmaker has voiced her concerns:
Rep. Marjorie Decker aired a view shared by a majority of her colleagues in the House of Representatives, asserting that “now is the time to regroup and advocate with legislators to act in the interest of lifting the cap, to strengthen community solar, and protect low-income households.” Decker recommended a stronger solar bill that would be “not only good for the environment, [but] essential to the Massachusetts economy.”
Too bad you voted to give him lifetime tenure Majorie, he fooled you once and now we are all getting fooled again.
Time to beat back the clowns, can’t beat em on a Thursday in September, but you could beat them in a general, especially this year.
Email me your suggestions: jconway@unitedindependent.org
Christopher says
…what’s stopping her from filing her own legislation and if it gets bottled up in committee (not sure what the statistical likelihood is of the majority of the committee not being in step with a majority of the whole House) circulating a discharge petition?
I would still like some evidence, such as prior experience, that someone who can’t be successfully primaried can be beaten in the general. Your post identifies Decker as progressive – is she really someone you want to target?
jconway says
It was to highlight the fact that while she was right to complain about the Speaker pulling this move, maybe she should’ve thought about that before voting to make him speaker for life?
ryepower12 says
that was allowed on the floor of the House for a vote using the discharge petition without the blessing of the Speaker?
I can think of a number of bills that had clear majorities of support and never, ever saw the light of day for years upon years — until leadership finally gave the bill its blessing (usually after seriously watering down the bill).
Heck, I can think of a bill off the top of my head that had a majority of the House *sign on as co-sponsors* and it didn’t get the light of day.
Unfortunately, a discharge petition that is in opposition to the Speaker’s plans isn’t going to get very far, and will end up getting the person who started it a one way ticket to the basement for years and years.
If we want real reform on Beacon Hill, legislators should be able to sign discharge petitions anonymously, it should come up to a vote within 30 days. Ditto for any bills in which a majority co-sponsor.
Christopher says
…but with a majority of legislators with enough backbone just about anything is possible.
centralmassdad says
Might help with the ol’ platform and stuff.
ryepower12 says
what would stop of her choosing to file a discharge petition, and forcing the issue.
I explained.
It is unfortunately, and I don’t like it, but nothing gets done on Beacon Hill without the Speaker’s blessing. That’s not to say that the Speaker doesn’t bless things that he may not have wanted to bless because of internal or external pressure, but that blessing is going to come first, and probably only after he gets the compromises he or a certain few want.
Christopher says
The whole point of discharge is to get around the leadership. It does depend on how forcefully they want to press the issue, but if push really comes to shove they can always vacate the Speaker’s chair since he does at the end of the day serve at the pleasure of the House.
jconway says
That is a system that is neither democratic nor republican nor independent. It is simply a system that has continued for too long and isn’t working for most bay staters. Certainly for my whole 28 years, and certainly according to the Hill veterans that have commented on this thread, many decades before that. There are two equally valid lanes to try to change this.
One is electing more progressive Democrats to the state house who will exhibit the same courage Denise Provost and Jon Hecht did by voting against the speaker, the other is by electing United Independent Party members in places where a progressive democrat isn’t running or won’t be competitive to remove the incumbents supporting the speaker. You don’t see me recruiting challengers for Denise Provost. You don’t see any progressive democrats lining up to challenge John Rogers or Brian Dempsey either. So let’s really work together and think outside the narrow boxes people in power continue to use to divide us and keep us disorganized.
Some of you can feel free to disagree and say your method of change works better. I am not really interested in that debate, I am interested in achieving results that fundamentally change this status quo which has endured for decades. The means don’t matter to me as much as the end-which is putting enough pressure on this legislature that it begins to do it’s job. I honestly think everyone here shares that goal.
stomv says
It is small ‘d’ democratic. The 160 legislators get to vote on leadership, and by proxy, on the powers of leadership. They chose (and continue to choose) the Speaker. They’re choosing the outcome, democratically.
jconway says
N/t
stomv says
My point isn’t that the legislators are victims. Rather, the entire legislature (or, at least, the majority) is at fault for the Speaker being so powerful. The power of the speaker isn’t written in puddingstone beneath the Great Cod.
Every legislator who votes for the Speaker is, in the same action, voting to cede the power to the Speaker. And every two years, the majority of legislators do just that.
jconway says
I’ve talked to one of them who says he despises the situation but is helpless in stopping it so he’d rather go along and keep his committee seat. In that sense it’s about as democratic as the General Secretarist voting to select the CCCP Chairman or probably more accurately a papal conclave during the time of the borgias. Sure votes are being taken and counted, but they ain’t free ones.
Christopher says
Somebody needs to whip votes for Speaker outside of Beacon Hill so that when time for voting comes, the Speaker won’t know what hit him. Of course that requires having another candidate for the position.
Christopher says
…there has been no indictment yet as far as I can tell, and he already rectified one ethical issue by paying back the money. Those calling for him to step down before the investigation is concluded are being premature IMO. I do think that legislators should not be allowed to have other jobs (and yes, I’m willing to raise salaries if need be), so there would not be the temptation to use public connections for private benefit such as the Globe article describes.
(It would be nice if MA’s paper of record didn’t misidentify Rosenburg as the Majority Leader rather than President.)
Peter Porcupine says
..that we know about. Just sayin’.
bob-gardner says
just sayin’
stomv says
The challenge is that our “full time” legislature isn’t really full time. There are multiple one-or-more month long stretches when it’s quiet. And, of course, if you don’t have a (credible) challenge in primary or general, you’ve got election system with little to do.
Lots of legislators can work a second job. Law, insurance, consulting, etc. Jobs where they can “fill in the time gap” often times doing meaningful work. I don’t have a problem with that.
Additionally, the lege pays on the order of $60k or $70k. If you want educated, quality people, that just isn’t enough, at least not in Boston metro. You say you’d support a pay raise, but if you want legislators to make no extra money, we’re talking about something like doubling their wages. In the mean time, they are understaffed, their staff are underpaid, and the offices and physical plant are dumpy.
There’s simply no public appetite to increase spending on legislators, staff, or the building — not to the tune of millions of bucks a year.
Christopher says
…but there are just too many potential conflicts in the types of work you mention. I’m not convinced we have to raise salaries quite as much as you suggest, though I think only leadership makes as much as the figures you cite. High five-figures should be plenty, but maybe it’s relative. If I suddenly started making 60-70K I’d feel like I won the lottery.
Peter Porcupine says
Many legislators, to put it gently, would have trouble remaining employed in the private sector without being a legislator.
lodger says
It should be a job, not a career. If a pol wants to make a career out of politics – run and get elected, sit for a term or two, then run for higher office. Otherwise go back to the private sector; which is from where they should have been elected in the first place.
Christopher says
…with having a long and distinguished career in the same legislative body? As long as they get re-elected there’s no reason not to.
lodger says
I just think our system was intended to have citizen legislators and would function better with better results if it were more in that direction. I think it would be a natural barrier to corruption, it would keep those who craft our laws to be nearer to their effects. I could go on but I’m sure you can populate a list bolstering your position too. So I’ll leave you with this, isn’t much of the criticism here on BMG of our legislators in Massachusetts due to those who have made “long and distinguished careers in the same legislative body”?
centralmassdad says
I’m pretty sure an argument could be made.
Peter Porcupine says
A little black volume called the Bird Book, after the Audubon guide. It features a picture and a bio of each House member.
Some had job. Rep. George Peterson was a tree surgeon. Vinny deMacedo owns a gas station. Some were realrors, some were attorneys.
But you could always spot the lifers – they were the ones that list their profession as. … Legislator.
(we made fun of them..)
stomv says
I don’t have a problem with enacting tighter ethics standards for secondary work… but banning a second job because “there are jost too many potential conflicts” seems overly broad.
If you were to change the rules effective tomorrow (or Jan 2017), plenty of legislators would find themselves in a financial quandary. They have mortgages, car payments, college tuition payments, whatever, all entered into with an understanding of their future income. No more hourly billing on the side, and there just isn’t enough money to get it done anymore. If they can’t work a side job, many of them quit the lege. Good or bad, it’s a pretty clear outcome. Hell, the only ones who would stay are the ones who are already collecting a pension from another job and those who are independently wealthy — as if the legislature didn’t already skew old and wealthy enough already.
Legislators make ~$60k/yr, plus per diem, plus bonuses for leadership positions. Here is one source helpfully provided by the google.
TheBestDefense says
Legislators also receive $600 per month for incidental office expenses, which they can pocket and still cover their business cards and cell phones out of their campaign accounts. They get a free parking space on Beacon Hill which is available 24/7/365. They can lease a car with campaign money.
They can travel to “conferences” which frequently double up as a vacation – there is a reason that the National Conference of State Legislators and the Council of State Government stage their winter meetings in the warmest parts of the US and their big summer gathering in places like SF, Seattle and Quebec. The legislator pays for their airfare and hotel room for ten days for a three day conference and then the legislator only needs to pay out of pocket for their spouse’s airfare, while there are plenty of free food and drink events sponsored by corporations. I went to one of these in the early 1980s when I was working on a multi-state energy policy issue and was shocked by the open secret of a free vacation. I understand things have only become more brazen since then.
For most, the work load is not that heavy and many either go to grad school (Harvard’s KSG provides full tuition to one member of the legislature every year) and most have outside income. It is not a financially difficult life.
TheBestDefense says
In the second graph above, it should read “The legislator pays for their airfare and hotel room for ten days for a three day conference from their campaign account and then the legislator only needs to pay out of pocket for their spouse’s airfare…”
boston2009 says
Reality is that by any reasonable analysis, Joyce tried to conceal his unethical use of political funds to pay for his son’s graduation party. He apparently thought that we would either accept his explanation or perhaps not even notice what he had done. He didn’t “rectify” anything…he “settled” that violation but did not admit to any wrong-doing.
Let’s also not forget his “dry cleaning” scam…what we are talking about could represent as much as $50,000 worth of services he received for free – why? There are strong indications that Joyce was not been honest in his explanation of why he received this money.
Joyce also received over $140,000 legal fees (from the dry cleaner’s insurance company) involving some environmental legal problems he was supposedly resolving.
There is more: he obtained 40 pairs of $234 sunglasses as holiday gifts for his colleagues but didn’t pay the vendor until the Globe asked about them. Even then, he paid only $3,641, mostly from campaign funds, instead of the full price, more than $11,000.
More troubling is how Joyce appeared to have attempted to merge is law business with his legislative-constituency responsibilities.Officials from a Philadelphia-based solar energy company said they came to Joyce for help on a legislative issue and he asked the company, Tecta Solar, to let his firm represent it.
These kinds of numbers make DiMasi, Wilkerson and others look like pikers in comparison. He is a troubled guy who’s conduct is just starting to come to light.
jconway says
Won as an independent write-in sticker candidate. That is exactly the kind of move that happens rarely around here but can be facilitated by putting people like her on our ballot line. She and Sciortino won despite not being on their ballots, but we are here as an option for those who can’t win their primaries but could win a general. Absolutely we welcome people of that caliber to have a second chance at a one on one shot.
sco says
Sonia Chang-Diaz lost the all write-in Democratic primary against Diane Wilkerson in 2006. She beat Wilkerson in a rematch in the Democratic Primary in 2008 when they were both on the ballot. Nowhere in the process was she an independent.
Christopher says
…ran sticker campaigns in the PRIMARY which Wilkerson won in 2006, Chang-Diaz challenged Wilkerson in the PRIMARY in 2008, which she won, at least assuming this page is accurate.
When Sciortino ran in 2004, he challenged the incumbent in the Democratic PRIMARY and won. In 2008, due to missing signature sheets, he ran a sticker campaign again in the PRIMARY which he won and of course had the advantage of incumbency.
Therefore, neither of these is an example of an independent/3rd party candidate challenging, let alone successfully, an incumbent Democrat in the general election.
theloquaciousliberal says
No she didn’t.
In Sept. 2008, when she won, Chang Diaz ran and beat Wilkerson in the Democratic primary. Neither candidate ran a write-in sticker campaign (that year). Wilkerson ran a brief sticker campaign (as an Independent) for the General before dropping out in late October. Chang-Diaz won the
In 2006, which you night be thinking of, Chang-Diaz ran a sticker campaign but in the Democratic Party primary (after Wilkerson failed to collect enough signatures to be on the ballot herself). Wilkerson won the nomination and Chang-Diaz did not run in the General.
jconway says
So under that 2006 scenario she could have run with us. Perhaps this hasn’t been done before, but that’s part of the point. We are disrupting a stale status quo and saying “yes we can” instead of no you can’t, that’s never been done before. Asking “why not?” instead of settling for “why bother?”
Christopher says
…of pulling a Lieberman and running independently in the general upon failing to get your nomination. Granted it worked for him, much to the chagrin of Dems (so it cuts both ways), but some states have sore loser laws to prevent this. In MA I think the deadline to get on the general ballot as an independent is before the primaries. I’m not sure if a candidate can run in both the Dem and UIP primary and accept one if he loses the other.
centralmassdad says
Pretty sure that, in the end, CT got a far better Democrat in the seat, and that things worked out fairly well.
The MA Democrat platform in a nutshell: we support the election of Democrats so that Democrats can be elected. Other than that, we really have no reason to exist.
Peter Porcupine says
Consider the infamous Richard Bretschneider.
In 2004, and again in 2008, he was candidate for Nantucket Sheriff as a Democrat, Republican, Green, and Libertarian. He filed papers, won all 4 primaries, and appeared 4 times on the ballot to run against himself. Twice.
We may have residency requirements, but no rule that you be registered in the party whose nomination you are seeking. Since he as unenrolled, he was able to run in all 4 party primaries.
stomv says
Electoral fusion is practiced in eight states; it remains very powerful in New York.
Personally, I’m a fan.
jconway says
It would certainly make my job a lot easier and alleviate many of the concerns people here have about third party’s, especially this one 😉
jconway says
I always thought it was NY only, so thanks for the informative piece stomv
stomv says
I have no idea how it works in practice in those other seven states… it may be nominal but not well used for all I know.
judy-meredith says
Here’s the link….
TheBestDefense says
You are mistaken, as I described in general terms for primary elections. The candidate you refer to, Bretschneider, ran as a WRITE-IN candidate in 2004 as a D, an R, a Libertarian and as a Green in all four primaries. He was not eligible to do as you claim he did. Want details? Try the SoS web site on PD43 which clearly states again what I wrote. Here
http://electionstats.state.ma.us/candidates/view/Richard-M-Bretschneider
stomv says
I mean, on the one hand, it’s easier — you ask every primary voter to write you in.
On the other hand, in the Democratic Primary the man won 50.8% of the 1079 votes cast, against two other candidates on the ballot and two other write-ins. In the Republican Primary the man won 47.7% of the 1028 votes cast, against two other candidates on the ballot and one other write-in.
Interestingly, six years later he got spanked by James Perelman, who is also unenrolled.
ryepower12 says
and almost certainly lost.
I don’t think using a successful Democratic Party primary challenge is a good example of why candidates should run as UIPs.
It is, however, a good example of why more people should run primary contests against incumbents.
jconway says
The Obama coalition will come out to vote in November, not September, along with the 54% of the electorate that is not part of a party. They don’t show up in Democratic primaries. And simply being part of the Dem caucus on Beacon Hill leads even new blood to vote the Speaker’s way. Look at Sciortino to Barber and ask me if that’s real progress on the one issue that counts. A UIP caucus with 5-10 members would have a lot more leverage and power than our paper tiger progressive caucus working within a majority that routinely takes them for granted.
Do both/and, if they lose the primary in a special they can come into our ballot for the general. I am more than open to that strategy and have already discussed it with several progressive challengers. If they know they will lose the September primary, they can run easier write in campaigns for ours. Sonia’s win is an exception, not the rule, and it would’ve been easier for her to run on our ballot line had it existed then win the sticker campaign she impressively won.
But this isn’t about one race ten years ago, it’s about profoundly changing the culture on Beacon Hill. You don’t do that by only sticking to old methods.
TheBestDefense says
Your strategy is not possible. A legislative candidate must be enrolled in the party in which they are running in two weeks (March 1) and no person may hold a registration in more than one party. Trying to game the system as you are suggesting might very well result in a candidate who otherwise got the appropriate signatures to be left of all primary ballots.
The exception is a candidate who runs in a party primary and thinks there is a substantial chance s/he will lose. They can simultaneously stage a write-in campaign to win a second party’s primary nomination and if they are both the high vote getter in that primary AND get more signatures than is required to get on the ballot (150 votes for House, 300 for Senate) then they can get the second party’s nomination. S/he can even win two party nominations.
Of course that means you have to ask your unenrolled friends not to vote for you in the Democratic Party and make sure that at least 150/300 (House/Senate) follow your wishes, take a change of registration form when they enter the voting booth on Thursday September 8 (yes, primary day this year is a THURSDAY). And of course that means they cannot vote for you in the Democratic primary.
There will be four parties with ballot lines this September but the only people who are eligible to vote in a party primary are enrolled members of that party and voters unenrolled in any party.
So a legislative candidate who wants to game the system as you suggest would have to run in the Democratic primary and simultaneously lose the primary while getting his/her most loyal unenrolled friends to try to win a different party’s nomination. The fact that you did not know this, that Massachusetts law makes it difficult for people in one party to mess with another party, and the deadlines are long before the primaries and final elections mean that your strategy is DOA.
The SoS has a good general booklet on the subject for candidates and their strategists.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/Candidates-Guide-generic.pdf
BTW, the notion of five to 10 UIP members in the legislature even in ten years? Really?
Peter Porcupine says
If they are enrolled in NO party, they can run in any party primary. See above – one UNENROLLED candidate was simultaneously a Green, Libertarian, Democrat and Republican to ensure his victory.
This may have been changed – it should be – but this was done in 2000 and 2004.
Christopher says
…for a candidate to enroll in a party to run in that party’s primary
jconway says
March 8th. But 150 unenrolled or registered UIP voters would likely be enough to successfully nominate a candidate via write in in our September 8th primary. This option is perfectly legal and relatively easy to execute, the Secretary of State’s office confirmed they can be registered in any party and still win our party’s nomination if they cross that minimal threshold and have more votes than anyone else doing the same thing. I believe it is this phenomena that porcupine was referencing with the Islands sheriff.
TheBestDefense says
You have got a minor bit of what I wrote upstream correct, but are wrong on a crucial detail. The March 8 date you claim only applies to federal and statewide candidates, and of course there are none of those on the ballot (obviously this does include the Presidency, which is governed by different laws). The March 1 date I noted upstream is the correct date for what are known as “district” candidates, mean Governor’s Council, State Senator, State Representative and county offices. If you doubt this, call the SoS Elections Division at 617-727-2828 as I just did to reconfirm what I previously wrote.
TheBestDefense says
You are wrong again, as I described in general terms for primary elections. The candidate you refer to, Bretschneider, ran as a WRITE-IN candidate in 2004 as a D, an R, a Libertarian and as a Green in all four primaries. He was not eligible to do as you claim he did. Want details? Try the SoS web site on PD43 which clearly states again what I wrote. Here
http://electionstats.state.ma.us/candidates/view/Richard-M-Bretschneider
ryepower12 says
but one of the reasons why they’re hard is that people rarely mount serious challenges.
Plus, when people have mounted serious challenges — raised the money, done the door knocking — they’re successful more than you may think.
And they’re certainly more successful than 3rd Party or independent bids, even if there’s probably more races than include a third candidate in the general than there are heavily contested primaries of incumbents.
BTW: I’m not opposed to the existence of third parties. I think contested elections are great for the country, and if elections were more often contested in MA, I think that would be great for MA.
I just don’t see UIP being that party, certainly not now, and doubtfully even in 5 or 10 years. I don’t even think it has the right platform to do it — the UIP’s platform is basically socially liberal Republicanism…. which is basically the brand of politics both that a majority of both of our parties have on Beacon Hill.
That, to me, is the biggest problem with the UIP. If it were the “United Progressive Party” and actually stood for progressive issues — something very different than what people are already getting — I think I’d be a little easier in my criticism right now, but the UIP — as it stands — bears absolutely no resemblance to Carl Sciortino, Sonia Chang-Diaz or any other past or current progressive stalwarts on Beacon Hill. I think it’s a little disingenuous to raise those comparisons, to be frank.
So… I’m glad that UIP’s behind something like the net metering issue, but let’s see it plant its flag on single payer or raising taxes on the rich. I won’t hold my breath, but I do wish you the best of luck. (You’re going to need it :p )
jconway says
And when has or will the Democratic supermajority do that again?
Actually go to our website which I linked to above and look at our platform. We make MD style multiplayer cost controls, we back a progressive income tax, we back raising the minimum wage to $15/hr, we back a well regulated adult use market for marijuana which progressive favorite Maura Healey just outright opposed, we back clean elections and oppose using superpacs or corporate donors to fund our candidates. We back adopting the open meeting laws for the legislature and speaker term limits. We believe Wthere should be more women and minorities represented in the legislature.
All of that is more progressive than anything you will ever get from the Beacon Hill Democrats. We were the only party that opposed the Olympics and worked to put it on the ballot and oppose special deals and corporate welfare like IndyCar and the GE deal. Not to mention long term projects like renewables, expanding transit, zoning reform, and building more affordable housing untouched by either major party candidate in the last race. We don’t call ourselves a progressive party since the bulk of voters in this state reject ideological labels and many of the progressive things we purport to do are just plain common sense. Start with the good policies and sound ethics of good governance and leave the team red and team blue bullshit to the other guys.
But if you can create a movement that attracts a lot of Sanders supporters-you’re welcome to attend our south shore meet up which is feelin the bern, and some moderate Republicans and republican meaning unenrolled voters disgusted by the far right direction of their party, some libertarians and some populists-well you got a motley crew significantly more progressive than the DeLeocrats running Beacon Hill and certainly more interesting and committed to governing on behalf of the whole state.
I welcome all criticism and view it as an opportunity for folks here to learn more.
Peter Porcupine says
…do they have to pay any more attention to your platform than the Democrats do to theirs?
If you oppose, $15, marijuana, etc., can you still run UIP for ballot access?
Christopher says
No party has the right to excommunicate a candidate who follows the legal procedures.
jconway says
Those are issues and stances that Evan Falchuk took during his gubernatorial campaign which were obviously to the left of the stances Martha Coakley took, and I forgot to mention supporting overturning Citizens United, but apparently he is a millionaire who is hell bent on thwarting the democratic process unlike our former AG who used gestapo tactics to thwart performance artists instead of investigating corrupt officials in her party.
We are a post-culture war party. The debate on marriage equality and abortion is settled and the correct side won. Other than that, no litmus tests for our candidates other than a commitment to running honest and ethical campaigns and pursuing forward thinking solutions to solve out state’s problems. We will likely release a broader statement of principles where candidates will pledge against double dipping, pledge to complete their terms without taking another job, pledge to vote for transparency and leadership term limits on Beacon Hill, etc.
fredrichlariccia says
when you said :
” We are a post-culture war party. The debate on marriage equality and abortion is settled and the correct side won.” ?
I find it disingenuous not to give due credit and recognition to the Democratic Party by name for championing marriage equality and abortion rights.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
ryepower12 says
1. If a candidate runs in a primary, loses, and then runs a sticker campaign as UIP (or any third party), they’re a) just as likely to lose as if they ran a sticker campaign as an independent, and b) almost certainly costing themselves any chance of winning a future race for the election next time around, and maybe even forever.
Sonia Chang-Diaz won the second time around because she ran the first time around…. and stayed in the party. She used that first election to introduce herself to a huge swath of the voters, helped her build a volunteer and fundraiser base, gave her a platform and brand that was well known and appreciated in the community, and allowed to run for the same seat for basically 3-4 consecutive years.
If she shifted parties from primary to general, she’d have lost much of that support and base 2 years later.
Running a spirited underdog election and losing doesn’t necessarily hurt one’s chances if they run again during the next election, and it can often help them. But if you lose a primary, try to run what most will see as a spoiler campaign in a general, then try to run again in the primary two years later… the dynamics are entirely different.
2. Sticker campaigns are EXPENSIVE, very difficult and complex campaigns. You need staff or very trusted volunteers at every single polling location, during every minute of the day. Those staffers or volunteers need to have easy access to voters, which is easier said than done given the laws of how close people can be to an entrance (hint: it’s very far, especially when enforced). Before you talk about this kind of thing to anyone, you really should have a firm understanding of just how difficult that kind of a campaign would be.
Carl Sciortino won his sticker campaign as a very popular, aggressive campaigner who was a popular incumbent. And he had to raise over $100,000 to do it, for a race that he would have won in a breeze otherwise.
Almost anyone else would have lost that race. Certainly, if he was a 1st time candidate who ran a failed primary campaign, then ran a sticker campaign against a Democrat on the ballot, not even $100,000 would be enough. Hell, someone could spend a million on that race and still lose.
TheBestDefense says
I am with you on this. Your second point (2) about sticker campaigns was especially good. For those who have not worked on a write-in campaign, it is hard to understand the logistical difficulties of conducting one weeks in advance, from 150 feet away and with the legal restrictions on coordinating among parties, PACs, staff and donors.
jconway says
We aren’t competing in any races where we would be a spoiler. We are looking at places where candidates have run uncontested for years or where candidates have done poorly against token opposition from fringe candidates. If it’s a real swing seat (not to many in this state) there is less of an opportunity and more of a risk.
ryepower12 says
it was a brain fart. My bad.
And, to be clear, I’m not suggesting your party shouldn’t field candidates. Run as many, in as many districts, as you like. It’s a democracy — your party is free to run, I just don’t think it’s a good idea to recruit failed primary candidates to run sticker campaigns. It won’t go well for your party or the candidate. Better to recruit people to actually run as UIP.
jconway says
I am saying it’s not a particularly representative electorate that shows up to vote in these low turnout primaries, nor is it fair that in a first past the post primary say, for the vacant senate seat in the Boston metro area, for the second or third place vote getter’s who might be in the double digits to sit out. The Obama coalition will come out for the general and offer them a second chance. If it’s a situation like the Brockton or Fitchburg specials where the least progressive candidate wins the Democratic nomination it might actually help the movement.
But of course I would prefer them to come to us first and run as our nominees from the get go, that is also a strategy I am pursuing. You don’t change a legislatures composition over night, you find every ally you can get. I am more excited about the people that never saw themselves running for the legislature getting excited about being candidates or even working on campaigns like this for the first time. That’s the rewarding party, getting some of them elected would be even more rewarding.
thegreenmiles says
You think Republicans are sitting around saying there’s no way they can beat their incumbents in a primary?
You can’t beat them in September? You weren’t a good enough candidate, you didn’t organize enough, or your incumbent wasn’t as unpopular as you thought. Work harder & primary them again.
Pablo says
The problem is not going to be solved with another minor party.
The solution is to revamp the voting system. Let’s have a jungle primary in September, and the two strongest candidates (regardless of party) appear on the November ballot.
[Insert usual IRV is better post here.]
Jungle is much more straightforward that IRV, in that you vote in the primary, you know how your vote is counted. In IRV, as in the proportional game they play in Cambirdge, you really have no idea where your ballot might end up, and you need to fill out a ballot that resembles a multiple-choice test. Bleh.
centralmassdad says
The odds are better than reform from within, which has proven to be sucessful only in electing a stream of future felons to the most powerful elected office in the Commonwealth.
Your idea would be great–which is exactly why it would be opposed by the Democratic Party.
I support this new thing mostly out of desperation. It really only became clear to me in the last cycle–when “progressives,” liberals, and stalwart Democrats I had previously respected tried so hard to assert that the then-AG was such a great progressive and such a great candidate, despite obvious evidence to the contrary– that I realized just how completely divorced from reality our local politics actually are. Therefore anything-ANYTHING- that might pop the MADem reality distortion bubble is something that cannot be dismissed out of hand.
jconway says
But I have been a long time proponent of reforming the Cambridge system which is so arcane as to depress turnout in view. IRV for a single seat makes a lot of sense, having STV PR for nine at large seats makes little sense.
Also implementing IRV or a jungle primary within the Democratic primary is something I’ve endorsed for some time and would theoretically be a change one could make without having to change state law, which gives wide latitude to his party’s conduct their internal elections. I would encourage all the UIP critics here to actually implement the reforms they want in their party and withhold financial or material support to candidates that routinely disregard the platform. Until that happens, I would argue this method of last resort is a real tempting alternative. Rather than rooting for us to fail maybe we can help one another succeed at making this state more accountable, representative and forward thinking in its policies and politics? We aren’t working at cross purposes.
Pablo says
I would be happy to support a ballot initiative similar to California Proposition 14, which brought the Nonpartisan Blanket Primary to the Golden State.
You wouldn’t happen to know someone who might fund the signature gathering for the ballot question, would you?
ryepower12 says
We saw this appear on the ballot in California, introduced by Republicans, and it won.
I like the principal of a ‘jungle primary’ in theory — let the two strongest candidates of any party compete in the general.
In California, the GOP pushed it because they wanted all the Democrats to be busy raising money to beat each other in generals instead of uniting to beat Republicans in swing districts.
It still may be worth it if we see better Democrats elected in California, instead of more Republicans. I’d like to see the policy play out a little longer before we bring it here.
All that said, I’d love to see this adopted at a national level, for every election, period. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about this being used as a way for Democrats to depreciate the party’s already (relatively) limited resources, and everyone in the country would get the benefit of having the choice between the two absolute strongest candidates in every general election.
Pablo says
The only way to get any real democracy into our elections is to go for the blanket primary. Sure, you may get Democrats running against Democrats, but it sure beats a lot of people raising money for uncontested elections.
williamstowndem says
… it’s just NADER, NADER, NADER, NADER … all over again. Look what’s happened in Maine. There is no shortcut. I rest my case.
jconway says
We are talking about state rep and senate candidates not the presidency or a governorship. 54% of all legislative races go unopposed, we would like to put a dent in that figure. We are not competing in races where we don’t have a one on one shot vs. an incumbent. I might add we may be competing against Republican incumbents the Democrats don’t bother to challenge as well as vice a versa.
Pablo says
If Maine had a Nonpartisan Blanket (Jungle) Primary, Paul LePage wouldn’t have had one term in the statehouse, never mind two.
stomv says
You can’t take the voting outcome based on one set of rules and assume that you’d get the exact same voting outcome with a different set of rules.
The candidates would have behaved differently. The campaigns would have behaved differently. The voters would have behaved differently.
You have no idea if LePage would have emerged to the runoff in a jungle primary.
Pablo says
He is an embarrassment elected by a minority of voters. All the polling indicates that, while advancing in the primary, he would have lost by double-digits in the general election.
If, by some quirk, he would have won in a head-to-head election, the majority of Maine voters couldn’t sit around shrugging their shoulders because they didn’t vote for him.
ryepower12 says
Pablo’s not exactly trying to make the calculations to jump time.
I think we can safely say it’s a strong, educated guess.
centralmassdad says
stand united in favor of casinos, corruption, bribery, election-rigging, and no-work jobs for our brother-in-law, while pretending that independent, ideologically-should-be-Democrat candidates are vanity cases, then a spoiler is what you get. Enough LePages, and maybe the Democratic Party might deign to address the reasons that it loses ideologically-aligned in a blue or very blue state, and stand for good government, rather than government as a profitable enterprise.
spence says
No doubt Joyce is shady. Unfortunately, the UIP money situation is also shady, so it’s difficult to take seriously as a savior. Btw- still waiting for the promised explanation of how Falchuk can put hundreds of thousands into a party when the legal limit is 5K…
Peter Porcupine says
.
spence says
Falchuk is just pouring his own $$$ into his Gov campaign committee and seems to be running the party through that. See for yourself at OCPF.
TheBestDefense says
There is also a UIP report at OCPF. Falchuk and his wife donated $10,000 in 2015, which I think is legal as there was in the past a presumption that a married couple could each max out with a single check. But there do not seem to be any real expenditures for employees.
http://www.ocpf.us/Filers?q=united%20independent&cat=C#filer-data
spence says
In the most recently reported two week period it spent about $32– which is extremely frugal for a party that presents itself as having staff, an office, a website, and lots of other operations. Meanwhile, Falchuk for Gov spent more than 100X that in those two weeks- about $3,764.
According to the year-end reports the party account spend about 45K in 2015, while the Falchuk for Governor account spent about 263K in 2015– all either self-contributions or loans (the report seems to contradict itself on which).
Ya, the double donation from a couple is totally legal still. But, Falchuk’s brother also gave a double donation in 2015, see here and here. It’s hard to imagine how this was not noticed by Falchuk and/or whoever does his books, given the very limited # of donors. I guess they’ll have to give that back. There’s lots of weird stuff in the Falchuk/UIP reports, I’ll probably do a post about it when I get the time.
Christopher says
If any Dem would like to primary Sen. Joyce, now would be a good time to say so. I assume a State Rep. is probably best prepared to make this last-minute decision.
jconway says
But I’ve been in talks with some interested parties about running on our banner. Again, I’m not saying he’s guilty of any criminal behavior until that’s proven. I am saying this behavior is at least inappropriate and happens when these folks go routinely unchallenged like 54% of the legislature.
I firmly believe that in a state as educated as ours, as important to American self government as ours, and as civically engaged as ours that we can have 100% of the legislators get a challenger every year in the general election. Even if our candidates don’t win, forcing incumbents to actually campaign, actually earn votes, and have challengers will serve as a critical check on their potential abuse of power, and at the end of the day, isn’t that what democracy is all about?
Christopher says
…there’s a better shot and chance of running with an established party, and if I were in the district that is certainly the route I would choose.
jas says
Timilty did takeout papers for primary – before Joyce announced retirement.
http://wwlp.com/2016/02/23/joyce-decision-to-bow-out-played-no-role-in-timilty-senate-run/
Christopher says
The PoliticoMA daily email is reporting that Sen. Joyce has announced he will not seek re-election.
seamusromney says
Would be good for you, jconway.
Joyce is likely to leave, and there’s at least one State Rep in the district interested in primarying him if he does get indicted and still decides to stay.
If UIP were actually out talking to people on the ground, you would know this.