Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Convention transparency

June 5, 2006 By lovable-liberal

  • All candidates gained the ballot.
  • Counting fewer than 5000 votes still took so long that the convention lasted into the evening.
  • Each of the gubernatorial candidates is a credible candidate; I will support the winner after September.  So, what’s wrong with the outcome? 

    The problem is that the process is dishonest – or looks dishonest.  Votes delivered by power brokers to give razor-thin margins of approval matter more than the rest of our votes.

    A fair and above-board process would have the following features:

  • No counting of votes until all votes are recorded.
  • No changing of votes once voting closes.
  • All challenges during the convention must be made in view of the convention by identifiable delegates.
  • After voting has closed, the only admissible challenge is teller accuracy.
  • Counting must take place in public view of the convention.
  • The tallying should be complete in fifteen minutes.  And then we could get on with convincing the electorate.

    Please share widely!
    fb-share-icon
    Tweet
    0
    0

    Filed Under: User Tagged With: chris-gabrieli, convention, deval, deval-patrick, gabrieli, patrick, rules, vote, votes, voting

    Comments

    1. sabutai says

      June 5, 2006 at 5:29 pm

      Nobody can help it if it “looks” dishonest.  I have no idea if it was, and I’m not going to pretend that I know.

      <

      p>
      The counting process was laughable, I htink we can all agree.  Not sure how to do counting in front of everyone — frankly, I suspect the delay was because the eight campaign representatives watching the counting were vigilant to the extreme.  Doing it in front of 5,000 people would mainly give everyone of them a reason to feel robbed.

      <

      p>
      I still maintain that if Gabrieli had not been on the ballot, the convention would have been a disaster, presented as such and interpreted as such.  I can’t imagine any better way to play into the “corrupt, lazy one-party” theme of Healey then not even letting our own party members have a fair shot at power. 

    2. lovable-liberal says

      June 5, 2006 at 6:27 pm

      Of course we can help if it looks dishonest.  Slow counting is a hallmark of elections that can be manipulated, and our conventions have a long history of being manipulated.

      <

      p>
      We could count in public.  We took the votes in front of each campaign’s counters, and that’s a good thing.  Let the sun shine in.  Cameras and microphones!

      <

      p>
      If Gabrieli wanted a “fair shot at power”, he should have come to the caucuses instead of getting a free pass at the convention.  We Mass Dems need him, but we need fairness more.

      <

      p>
      What we really can’t help is how Republicans and the media will spin our actions.  What we need is something we can defend without hairsplitting, for example, “Everyone knew the rules; everyone followed the rules; this is the outcome.”

      <

      p>
      Last, the only way to get a fair result is to have a fair process.  That’s the idea of law.  Without it, we’re all just rationalizing our own interests.

      <

      p>
      It’s actually pragmatically better for me to have Gabrieli on the ballot.  He’ll hurt Reilly more than Patrick, and I support Patrick.

    3. stomv says

      June 6, 2006 at 6:16 am

      No counting of votes until all votes are recorded.

      <

      p>
      This is a no brainer.  At the very least, they can start counting but the candidates reps (and everyone else) must be incommunicado.  You lock the three counters, three Dem reps, eight candidate reps, and three reporters in a room and no information comes out until all votes are counted.

      <

      p>
      No changing of votes once voting closes.

      <

      p>
      Is this permissible now?

      <

      p>
      All challenges during the convention must be made in view of the convention by identifiable delegates.

      <

      p>
      I don’t know if this is necessary.  As long as there is a competitive race, the candidates have every incentive to watch what is going on.

      <

      p>
      After voting has closed, the only admissible challenge is teller accuracy.

      <

      p>
      Why?  If a vote should be challenged, it should be challenged.

      <

      p>
      Counting must take place in public view of the convention.

      <

      p>
      Nah.  You can solve it the way I explained above.  Just have enough eyes.

      <

      p>
      I don’t understand why it took so long though.  This is really spreadsheet material.  You take the pages from the counters, pop them in the spreadsheets, and you get your total.  If each campaign wants to pour over every single vote (and in this case, the govs and Lt govs would have wanted to), go for it.  By puting them in the room the way I described above, it wouldn’t even take long since they get a “head start”.

      <

      p>
      The voting process was efficient enough while maintaining its transparency — but I don’t know why the tallying was so slow.  There’s really no reason for it, and it results in delegates leaving before a second vote (if necessary), which really skews the results.

      • shack says

        June 6, 2006 at 7:48 am

        As any campaign whip can tell you, the results of the vote were known (or could have been known) within 10 minutes of the end of each teller finishing polling his or her district – probably even earlier.  People with radios in my section were talking about Murray having 49% in the Lt. Gov. race at least an hour before the DSC officials slowly announced the results of each Senate district from the podium. 

        <

        p>
        All of that slow process of announcing results was window dressing to keep people interested (!!??) while the real dealmaking was happening behind the scenes and in a handful of districts where power brokers were getting people to switch their votes.

        <

        p>
        The rule that allowed the manipulation of the outcome says, “Delegates may change their votes” after the second call in each district.  Once that preliminary headcount is known, the arm twisters know how many votes they need to switch in order to get the outcome they want.  As long as the ballot remains open for a given district, people can lobby individual delegates to recruit the number of votes needed to change the outcome for a given candidate. 

        <

        p>
        If we want a fair process, the spreadsheets you describe should really be something like a Blackberry in each teller’s hand to record votes as they are spoken (except we also need a paper trail!).  Each delegate should get one vote and no chance to go back and reconsider – just like a real polling place.  The instant results are fed into a central computer and the only permissible adjustments after the fact should be for operator or mechanical errors.

        • stomv says

          June 6, 2006 at 8:39 am

          I had presumed the “slow counting” was so that they could certify the ballots.

          <

          p>
          Just as MA election machines can tell you who won within minutes of the election closing, so could whips.  But, the MA election results aren’t certified immediately — everything must be gone over to ensure there was no hanky panky or unintentional problems… and I had presumed that was the same story at the convention: let’s go over the results with a fine toothed comb to make sure that the results are precisely correct.

          <

          p>
          Does anybody out there know the real deal, and can he or she back it up with a document outlining policy and procedure?

      • lovable-liberal says

        June 6, 2006 at 12:47 pm

        # All challenges during the convention must be made in view of the convention by identifiable delegates.

        I don’t know if this is necessary.  As long as there is a competitive race, the candidates have every incentive to watch what is going on.

        <

        p>
        Well, maybe not necessary but still better.  If you like more eye, why not thousands more?  Definitely not thousands more voices, however, hence closed circuit TV.

        <

        p>

        # After voting has closed, the only admissible challenge is teller accuracy.

        Why?  If a vote should be challenged, it should be challenged.

        <

        p>
        Limiting challenges by type prevents the return of arm-twisting through challenges.

        <

        p>
        There’s plenty of time for other challenges before and during the voting.  Limiting some types of challenges to a particular period is already established; challenges against delegates who supported Republicans by rule had to be done before the convention opened.  (I assume that the reason for that is to allow for a fact-based defense, but it could also be about treating ex officio elected officials more delicately.)

      • porcupine says

        June 6, 2006 at 1:06 pm

        If you count quickly and out loud, how do you make corrections when the vote totals deviate from the agreed-upon script?

        <

        p>
        Ironically, 4 years ago in the Healy vs. Rappaport fight for endorsement, people were being speeded UP, as the perception of the Rappaport floor managers was that they would do better with a QUICK count.

        <

        p>
        They guessed wrong.

    4. drgonzo says

      June 6, 2006 at 7:32 am

      how the populace votes and how our legislators vote. Legislators use all sorts of Parliamentary maneuvering (recounting, slow-counting…) to gain a desired end.

      <

      p>
      The populace (except for specifically noted historical cases of fraud — Boss Tweed, Boss Daley, Boss (Kay) Harris) has generally voted on secret ballots with no strong-arming of the voter. Clearly this is not how the convention works.

      <

      p>
      But it is the way the game is played, and as a political party (and not a governmental entity) it can get away with the sort of strong-arm voting that would be considered unconstitutional everywhere but Florida and Ohio.

      • lovable-liberal says

        June 6, 2006 at 12:54 pm

        You’ve replied to an argument about how things should be with a statement of how things are.  Did you mean imply that some things never change and that we should be philosophical about it?

        <

        p>
        Why not?  Remember how Hastert and DeLay have kept U.S. House votes open waaaay beyond the usual fifteen minute limit?  On one of them (Medicare?), they even approached bribery on the floor of the House.  It stank.

        <

        p>
        Can we not stink like the Republicans?  That’s all I’m asking.

    Recommended Posts

    • No posts liked yet.

    Recent User Posts

    Predictions Open Thread

    December 22, 2022 By jconway

    This is why I love Joe Biden

    December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

    Garland’s Word

    December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

    Some Parting Thoughts

    December 19, 2022 By jconway

    Beware the latest grift

    December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

    Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

    December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

    Recent Comments

    • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
    • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
    • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
    • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
    • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
    • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
    • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

    Archive

    @bluemassgroup on Twitter

    Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

    From our sponsors




    Google Calendar







    Search

    Archives

    • Facebook
    • RSS
    • Twitter




    Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.