Had legitimate procedure been followed, neither of the two Cahills would have made the ballot, and Steve Murphy would have earned the party’s nomination. Johnston clearly made some unorthodox (and arguably unethical) moves, which had the effect of subverting the will of the delegates who were present. (Contrast this with the Lt. Governors’ balloting that year, where Phil Johnston did apply the rules conscientiously, in which a hard-working clean elections candidate was left off the September ballot because she could only get around 10%.)
Fast-forward to 2006 and we have a potential for Chris Gabrieli to benefit from the same shenanigans that bailed out the two Cahills. Because of his late start, Chris has been scrambling for delegates; if he had his 15% accounted for and in the bag, he wouldn’t be calling people four times a day, sending them reams of mail, and buying millions of dollars worth of air time. Yet, because of his checkbook, and the barrels of money he has spent for the Democratic Party, he has some influential friends within the State Committee- several state party staffers have left the party to work on Gabrieli’s campaign.
The question here is:
How far will Phil Johnston go to get Chris on the ballot if Deval and Reilly appear to have 86% or more of the delegates between them?
Will it be run of the mill horse-trading and arm twisting, as we would all expect at a convention, or will it be something more insidious, like delegates mysteriously switching votes (after the votes had already been tallied) to get a candidate on the ballot (see Charles Yancey, auditor, 1986), or a repeat of the sham Treasurers’ vote in 2002?
daclerk says
Phil got crucified by it and he wants peace this year. He won’t do it.
<
p>
Plus, read your Delegate guide: there is NO provision to suspend the rules as he did in 2002. The only reasons for suspending the rules that’s allowed this year are to either “refer an item to the Democratic State Committee or to adopt a resolution relative to a sense of the Convention…” In other words, it’s either to send an idea to the DSC that will be deliberated post-Convention, or adopt a resolution calling for [impeaching Bush; firing Phil Johnston; supporting the troops.] Plus, any such resolution must be submitted in writing, by 50 delegates, prior to noon on Saturday.
<
p>
Any amenment to the Convention rules must be presented by 5:00 p.m. Friday of the Convention and must be copied enough so that each delegate gets one. I would imagine that the Gabrieli people could try this route, but that it wouldn’t be taken up until after the speeches. Gabrieli really shouldn’t do this, though, because he’s made Dems look disorganized enough already by getting into the race. He shouldn’t make the convention look bad too.
<
p>
You must have been in a different part of the arena than I was in 2002 because while I agree that Tim Cahill was no where close to getting 15% of the “ayes”, Jim Segel clearly had the most support at that time. Plus, had the Cahills not gotten on, we wouldn’t have seen Tim’s cute kids on TV! (And Segel woulda routed Murphy, but that’s another story…)
progressivedem says
Perhaps it is time to end the convention as a ballot access mechanism. The convention focuses a disproportionate amount of our candidates’ time and energy AND MONEY on a small,arguably unrepresentative portion of the electorate. The endorsement has been the kiss of death, and every endorsing year, a substantial group points out the shenanigans of the convention, which leads to new rules and a new round of alleged shenanigans four years hence. The 2002 treasury nomination process was the worst.
<
p>
Perhaps we should make ballot contingent solely on signatures. We can still use the convention for endorsements, such as they are.
david says
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for ages. Thank goodness someone else agrees!
andy says
I have lived here almost four years now so this is my first convention experience for governor. I have to say based on everything I have heard that this convention process is the most undemocratic, backward assed, out-of-touch process I have ever encountered, and no, I am not exaggerating.
<
p>
The idea that our party could potentially prevent Gabrieli from getting on the ballot is ridiculous. Yes, I know, he knows the rules he could have done this earlier, yada yada yada. Those arguments make sense because I, like most other Patrick supporters, don’t want him in the race and stealing delegates. However, this is a democracy and if someone wants to run for office why on God’s green earth would we prevent that. We complain we have no good candidates but we have no problem thinking of every way possible to make sure some can’t get on the ballot. Ridiculous.
<
p>
But then again this whole slate business is ridiculous too. sco and Susan seem ready to bust knee caps and create loyalty oaths signed in blood. Changing circumstances should allow for change which means the slate one created four months ago should be based on the facts as they existed then.
<
p>
The whole convention process puts way too much power in far too few hands. If we were committed to open government then I think we would do away with all the silliness that the convention entails and stick with signatures as the determinant of who gets access. That is the most open, fair way to go. As for the Party endorsement, let their be a primary. Sorry, that was a bit of a rant and I apologize. Also to sco and Susan, no personal attack by me here so please don’t be offended. (Susan has already arm wrestled me on the subject which wasn’t a fair fight because Lynne was helping her!).
david says
Well said, Andy. I’m glad there’s starting to be a cadre of folks (like me) who see a real danger to the party and to small-d democracy arising out of putting ballot access in the hands of the “delegates.” I don’t have a problem with holding a convention to determine the party’s “endorsement,” since the “endorsement” has no effect on whether voters can or cannot vote for a candidate. But ballot access is essential and shouldn’t be left to the whims of such a tiny subset of those who vote in the Dem primary.
shillelaghlaw says
The whole purpose of political parties is that they are a vehicle for like-minded individuals to coordinate resources and networks to further candidates whom they feel best represent their values. Because in this state we have open-primaries, independents can play a decisive part in who is the nominee of either of the parties. The respective state committees then spend bundles of money and resources to help their nominees get elected.
<
p> It’s not unreasonable for either of the parties to put in some controls to ensure that- A.) The winner of the primary is not anathema to the values of the party (many would say so about both Weld and Silber, or B.) That the credible primary candidates are not bogged down spending money and resources fending off attacks from fringe-element candidates (hello John Bonifaz), or that C.) said credible primary candidates aren’t subjected to attacks by fringe candidates that will ultimately harm them in November.
<
p>The canard that asking the candidates to get 15% of the convention delegates is somehow anti-democratic and denies the voters a choice holds no water- the same could be said about forcing candidates to get 10,000 signatures, requiring them to live in the district they wish to represent, or requiring that they be US Citizens.
<
p>Chris Gabrieli knew full well what the dates for the caucuses were; if he had announced his candidacy in earnest, even the night before the caucuses, he would have earned his 15%, no sweat. Yet he chose to wait until after the caucuses. If Chris had decided to run for Governor after nomination papers were due, and was thus disqualified, would that be un-democratic?
<
p>I think it’s laughable that Chris Gabrieli had no interest in running for Governor, until he was passed over as Reilly’s running mate. His candidacy is nothing more than a Multi-million Dollar Temper Tantrum.
david says
Needless to say, I do not agree with your disparagement of the arguments against the 15% rule – since I’m the one who’s been making them! To me, there are crucial distinctions between the 15% rule on the one hand, and the other rules that you mention on the other. Living in the district: seems obvious that district-based representatives should live in the district that they represent, otherwise how will they know what matters to the people who live there? Looks pro-democracy to me. US Citizens: there’s room for serious debate on this one, but it is at least not unreasonable to argue that those who actually make the laws that govern the people that live here should be citizens. And the most popular argument, signature requirements: it seems obvious that some degree of ballot access is necessary, otherwise you’d have ballots like the California recall with 150 candidates for Governor, and that’s probably a bad idea. Signature requirements are good in that (1) they require a candidate to demonstrate a certain degree of support among registered voters, the people who will actually elect him or her, and (2) they require the candidate to have a certain degree of organization, money, or both, which are signs of a serious candidacy.
<
p>
The 15% rule, on the other hand, requires a showing of support among a largely self-selected group of elites, either elected officials or party activists. 98% of the voters have no idea what a delegate is, when the convention is, what happens there, or anything else like that. It seems to me that any time you restrict the voters’ choices for who will represent them, you are by definition engaged in an anti-democratic enterprise. Sometimes, there will be excellent countervailing reasons for doing so – that, I’d argue, is the case with in-district rules and signature requirements. But in the case of the 15% rule, I just don’t see it.
<
p>
As a thought experiment, imagine that you, unlike every reader of the site, are not obsessed with politics. Instead, you’re an average registered voter who pretty much always votes but doesn’t pay much attention until things really heat up. But you watch TV, so you’ve seen Gabrieli’s ads, and you watched the debate the other night, and you liked what you heard from Gabrieli. And then you find out that a bunch of insiders at a “convention” that you didn’t know anything about are keeping him off the ballot, even though he got his 10,000 signatures.
<
p>
What will your response be? (Note to commenters: don’t tell me what the response should be – this is about what it will most likely be.) IMHO, the response will be annoyance, a feeling that you’ve been deprived of the chance to vote for a candidate that you were interested in, and a sense that the Democratic party is run by insiders who don’t really care about the voters and are more interested in preserving their own power.
david says
I meant to say that some degree of ballot access control is necessary to avoid a CA recall scenario. And yes, I’m sure there was a signature requirement or something for California, so don’t bother to look it up and tell me what it was. The point is that as long as 10,000 signatures are needed here to run for Gov or LtGov, we are never going to have a situation like California – it’s a significant enough requirement that it will keep frivolous candidates out.
shillelaghlaw says
You’re neglecting to address the main point, that any political party has the right to have some amount of control over who its own nominees will be. Anyone who can pass the signature threshold can run as an independent; therefore all citizens have access to the ballot and be available as a choice to the voters in the general election. As far as presenting oneself as a member of an organized party, or challenging to be the nominee of an organized party, why shouldn’t the party in question dictate the terms of eligibility for a prospective nominee, if it has to expend resources on behalf of that nominee? Not to belabor the point, but each party has the right to ensure that its candidates share a common philosophy with its members.
<
p>One of the major reasons for the stultification of politics and public policy in Massachusetts and America is the homogonization of candidates in the general elections. Each candidate spouts out the least offensive thing they can say (other than “would you like to see my tattoo?”), and plays to the middle- to “average registered voter who pretty much always votes but doesn’t pay much attention until things really heat up” using your words- to the point where politics is distilled to the lowest common denominator of insipid buzzwords like “values” and phrases like “it’s your money” or “iron-clad lockbox”. Without any real distinction, most voters have no choice but to vote for “the guy I’d most like to sit down and have a beer with.” This is a direct result of open primaries which seek to attract independents who can propel a “centrist” candidate to victory in a primary. (Think back to 1990, 1998, and 2002 in the Democratic primary for Governor or 1990 in the Republican race for Governor, 2002 in the Republican primary for L.G. In 1990 most registered Dems voted for Bellotti, and most Republicans voted for Pierce; in 1998 Harshbarger got most of his votes from stray independents.
<
p>At a national level this is more of a problem than it is here. Be honest with yourself- how many times in the last ten presidential elections has there been a major rhetorical difference between the two major party candidates? Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all spoke in generalities and platitudes, with a couple of nice catch-phrases thrown in- “I’ll never lie to you”, “I paid for this microphone”, etc.
<
p>The last time there was any substantive debate between two candidates about the role and scope government was in 1964- Johnson vs. Goldwater. (Reagan was a pretender to the Goldwater crown; he spent more money than Johnson.) Each candidate was chosen either by convention or closed primary- by the “insidious insiders”.
<
p>Far too many elected officials in this state have run as Democrats for the sole purpose of gaining an electoral advantage in November, who would not withstand the scrutiny of true Democrats in a closed primary. Why have parties at all, if any Tom (pick one- Reilly or Finneran), Chris, or Guy, can just declare that they are a Democrat and have at it without the scrutiny of those who truly believe in the principles of the Democratic party?
david says
I agree with a lot of what you say, but it leads me to the exact opposite conclusion regarding the 15% rule. To me, a big part of the problem is too much control by party insiders. That’s exactly what the 15% rule is all about. And, to me at least, the homogenization problem you describe can be traced to olde-timey party insiders having too much control over the party. Have you read “Crashing The Gate” (the book by Kos and Jerome of MyDD)? If not, you should.
<
p>
I give Deval Patrick a lot of credit for turning the rule to his advantage, since it’s really not supposed to help guys like him, but that doesn’t change the basic point that the rule gives party insiders a tremendous amount of control over who shows up on the ballot. And as to candidates running as independents, that’s a nice idea, but we all know that an independent is not at all likely to win (sorry, Christy).
susan-m says
You can’t tell me that Gabrieli didn’t know what the rules are here in MA for getting into a race, and yet for whatever reason (and you know what my opinion is…) he chose not to, until after Reilly got smoked at the caucuses.
<
p>
I’m for following the rules. Gabrieli is for buying his way in. Plain. And. Simple.
<
p>
If you have such a hard-on for letting anyone on the ballot, then I think your energies are better spent trying to change the rules, rather than bitch at the people that are merely advocating that the rules, as they are presently written, should be followed.
<
p>
Changing circumstances should allow for change which means the slate one created four months ago should be based on the facts as they existed then.
<
p>
Jeez, you are SUCH a lawyer.
<
p>
I hate to harp on the rules thing, but slates are part of the rules too. Any candidate can organize slates, but they need to at least SHOW UP and organize in order to effectively benefit from them. That’s the key here: Show up. Know the rules. Don’t just try to buy your way in.
<
p>
lolorb says
There are thousands of people across the state who have gotten involved in politics (again or for the first time). They aren’t insiders or party members. They are regular people who have worked hard for their candidate in their local communities. Whether they are supporters of Reilly or Patrick makes no difference. They were encouraged by the party to become involved in the process. Now that they have (with quite a bit of success), does the party rejoice and applaud their efforts? No. The party chair publicly dismisses the very activism that he theoretically sought. The party then bends the rules so that a candidate who did not participate in the proscribed process gets special consideration. Why do you think the 15% rule was once so good and now it isn’t? What changed? Is it possible that the rule changes have backfired?
<
p>
I would have agreed that “the convention process puts too much power in too few hands” before this cycle. With the influx of new activists, I’m not so sure that it’s all bad. If a candidate clears the 15% hurdle, it means that people were working hard in their own communities across the state for that candidate. I think that’s good representative democracy. It might even be more representative than signatures because we all know that anyone with a few million to spare can pay people to collect signatures.
joeltpatterson says
The caucuses were a great way for me to get involved in the political process. This is the first time I’ve been a delegate, and I got to meet lots of people in my precinct, and hear lots of opinions.
<
p>
These caucuses were a way for the Democratic Party to reach out to more people on a personal level, to create bonds with the local communities. The Republicans will always run candidates with fat war chests and truthiness-laden TV commercials, but we can start playing this game on OUR terms, Democratic style. We can reach out to people in every precinct to personally ask for votes, to remind neighbors to vote, or to request absentee ballots if they’ll be out of town. We know this personal effort can work because it is how the Republicans turned out the vote for Bush in Ohio. Besides suppressing the urban & college vote, they used the personal networks of churches and Am-Way to remind like-minded fence-sitters to get into the voting booths.
<
p>
There are lots of progressives out there in Massachusetts who want a Democratic candidate to represent them, to push for their cause. The caucuses already exist, and are a great way for community members to connect with the Democratic party, to make it more responsive to the people. The candidate who recognized the potential of the caucuses, Deval Patrick, showed us he is looking for ways to connect politics to the people, ways alternative to TV commercials.
bob-neer says
Maybe we should end the Party while we are at it. What is it good for besides getting jobs for insiders? I’m asking the question in good faith: I really want to know if anyone has a sensible answer to this question given the current facts on the ground in Massachusetts.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
<
p>
As I understand it, the Convention Rules cannot be changed w/o a 2/3 vote of delegates in attendance. In other words, 1/3 of the delegates could block any change. So, to think that the Gabber (or anyone) could propose a major change that would not clearly benefit the candidate(s) that the majority of delegates are there to support (such as shrinking the 15% minimum), and get it adopted, strains credulity.
<
p>
I think we will see a very orderly Convention, and a clear winner on the first ballot. The only suspense, so far as I’m concerned, is whether the LG race will be over on one ballot, or will require two.
hoss says
…you expect Murray to be the one to be able to do that? Is he trying for it? Does anyone know? He’s the most recent sender of mail to me, but does anyone have insight into this or into whether Deval is actively trying to keep one or both of the others off the ballot?
michael-forbes-wilcox says
Others?
<
p>
“whether Deval is actively trying to keep one or both of the others off the ballot? “
<
p>
I can’t speak for Deval, but as a Patrick supporter, I would be delighted to keep one or both of his opponents off the ballot. Why would I wish for any other outcome?
<
p>
Your mention of Murray is confusing to me, since he isn’t running against Patrick.
hoss says
You said that the only other drama could be in the lG race where we don’t know if it will go to a second ballot. I presume you mean by that that Murray could win the 50.01% on the first ballot, or do you think Silbert, Goldberg or Kelley could get 50.01%?
michael-forbes-wilcox says
I don’t have a clue who will win the LG endorsement. I was just meaning to point out what I thought would be obvious — that with 4 candidates running, it’s going to be difficult for one of them to get over 50% on the first ballot. As a corollary, if one of them does, it will likely mean that (at least) one of them will not get the 15% required to be on the ballot.
david says
Hmm, let me think….oh, wait! Because the Democratic nominee should be decided by the voters in the Democratic primary, not by the delegates? Is that it?
michael-forbes-wilcox says
David, you have a bug up your arse over the way the Democratic Party in this state conducts its business. Fine. Start your own party. Or get involved in the MassDems and help reform the rules.
<
p>
Meanwhile, Deval Patrick represents the very best of the values of the Party and I want to see him be the next Governor of the Commonwealth.
<
p>
Patrick supporters followed all the rules (as arcane as they might be) to get to where we are today. If the rules had been different, we would have done things differently.
<
p>
So, please, quitcherbitchin’ and support a candidate. If you don’t like the Party rules, do a Mihos. And please, don’t tell me “98% of voters don’t know what a caucus is…” without a citation. If you’re going to make things up, be a little more vague. In my town, 90.3% of Democrates know what a caucus is. 78.6% don’t care. Remember, 65.3% of all statistics are made up.
<
p>
On a more serious note, “democracy” isn’t about the process or the game of elections, it’s about creating a government that is fair and just and responsive to the needs of the governed.
<
p>
Deval Patrick is going to make a great Governor, and I don’t need any other candidates to choose from. You seem to get caught up in the abstraction of HOW to choose a Governor. Meanwhile, our bridges are falling apart, our school systems are failing, and people are leaving the state in droves. Let’s get on with it.
david says
But I think you’re quite wrong about some of this. “Democracy” is about process, and without a system designed to ensure that “the people” (not“the delegates”) get to choose who governs them, there is no democracy, regardless of how wise and beneficent that governor may be. Your definition of “democracy,” a government that is “fair and just and responsive to the needs of the governed,” could easily be carried out by a truly benevolent dictator. It might be a very good government and might treat the governed very well indeed. But it surely wouldn’t be a democracy.
<
p>
So, to me anyway, “HOW to choose a Governor” is extremely important for “democracy.” To describe it as an “abstraction” is simply not correct. To the contrary, it is about caucuses, delegates, voting machines, voting districts, a huge list of very concrete issues that a lot of people rightly get very worked up about. I object to the 15% rule and the rest of the convention process precisely because it is anti-democratic. The fact that it may produce a result that benefits a candidate that you or I may like is completely irrelevant to that inquiry.
<
p>
And yes, I made up my 98% statistic. But you don’t seriously think it’s that far off, do you?
ed-prisby says
I always liked the words shenanigans.
<
p>
Weeeeeeee little shenanigans..
sco says
I’ll make sure to bring my broom.