Following up on the Herald editorial from the other day, today’s Globe has the following to say about the now-famous 15% rule:
Who or what, exactly, is the Democratic Party? That’s a good question, and an important one. The answer from the Worcester convention is that a few hundred members of the Democratic State Committee, and a few thousand delegates to the convention, claim the right to be super-Democrats, able to dictate to the several hundred thousand voters who will cast Democratic ballots in September whom they may or may not nominate.
It is not a good answer. It is arrogant, insider politics that contributes to voter alienation and is often counter-productive for the party’s own fortunes, as the convention nominee is frequently spurned by primary voters. It is true for the Republican Party, too.
I have some quibbles with the rest of the editorial. But they got that part right.
In related news, House Speaker Sal DiMasi is reportedly backing Tom Reilly, but will urge some of the delegates over whom he has “influence” to vote for Gabrieli on the first ballot to help him clear the 15% hurdle.
Finally, here is a good quote from Deval Patrick regarding all the alleged behind-the-scenes machinations over delegate votes:
Patrick, appearing at a Boston event with friend and supporter Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic rising star from Illinois, said, âLook, here is my objective, Iâm going to be absolutely clear about it: I want every single vote on every single ballot,â Patrick said. âI thought that was the whole objective in competing in an election.â
He’s right, of course. And if any of the other candidates were in his shoes, they’d almost certainly be humming the same tune. That’s why the 15% rule is such a terrible thing. If the convention were just about the party endorsement – significant, but not outcome-determinative – then everyone would, and should, be going great guns to turn out every single vote for their candidate. But as things stand now, the possibility exists that the people who should be making the decision about who the Democratic nominee is – the voters – will have at least part of that decision made for them. That’s why Sal DiMasi is trying to get some of his delegates to vote for a candidate he doesn’t support. It’s unfair to put candidates and their supporters in the position of having to ensure that one of their opponents gets on the ballot. But it’s also unfair, and undemocratic (small “d”), to deprive Democratic voters of the opportunity to vote for their party’s standard-bearer. (Frankly, folks, I’m not a delegate – what if I want to vote for Gabrieli? Who the &*#$ are you to tell me I can’t?) This is a bad situation in which no one comes out smelling like a rose. So here’s hoping that everyone gets on the ballot tomorrow, and everyone quickly moves on to taking this race to the people who it should have been about all along: the voters.
…until we get instant runoff voting.
<
p>
The last thing we need is another 2002 where good progressive candidates split the vote and a weak insider squeaks by with under 35% support.
<
p>
Of course Reilly is sending votes to Gabrielli. He’s hoping that Gabrielli peels off enough independent-minded voters who would otherwise go to Patrick that he can squeak by.
<
p>
Our current system, where a candidate which 65% of people don’t want, is a far greater perversion of the popular will than keeping someone WHO DIDN’T RUN ON TIME off the ballot.
Voters can always write in his name. But how is it possible to quantify his support if he hasn’t participated in the process before now? Both Reilly and Patrick have been working for well over a year to meet voters and to explain their positions. They have loyally followers. Deval has actually energized activists (no small accomplishment and one that the DSC hasn’t been able to do for the last 18 years). No. The Gabrieli campaign is a gimmick of TV ads, media blitzing and finagling. We’ve been there before with too many losing candidates to keep track of. It would be the Shannon O’Brien campaign redux. Been there. Done that.
I have a few thoughts and questions for those who oppose the 15% rule. I offer them in no particular order, but all of them are bound up with this point: what makes for a “democratic” outcome strikes me as far less clear and simple than critics of the rule like to suggest.
<
p>
If a primary has so many candidates that the winner gets the nomination with only a plurality, not a majority, is this “the will of the people,” or “letting the voters decide?” Why? This is no mere hypothetical. For instance, consider the 2002 primary. I think any reasonable observer has to conclude that the overhwelming majority of Warren Tolman voters would have voted for Robert Reich, had Tolman not qualified for the ballot. It seems likely to me–but let’s just say plausible, for the sake of skeptics–that Reich would have beaten O’Brien had the convention knocked Tolman out. Following the logic of those opposed to the rule, we should see it as a great victory for democracy that O’brien got the nomination with the support of one third of all who voted in the primary. Before we conclude that this is the “more democratic” outcome, a lot more argument is needed than anyone has offered on this site or in the endless handwringing by the Boston press.
<
p>
When is it too late to run? What if, say, Gabrielli had waited until next week to discover his call to service and wished to run then? Are all cutoffs for getting on the Party’s ballot illegitimate?
<
p>
Right now, we have a political system dominated by money. That Gabrielli could spend millions drawn from his venture capital fotrune in order to inflate his poll numbers when most voters aren’t paying real attention–this is a victory for democratic principles? Again, why? To be clear: I am not suggesting that we are in reach of a good solution to the dominance of politics by money. For instance, campaign finance reform efforts are usually ineffectual and sometimes only makes things worse. (Progressives: are you sure the $500 limits helps your candidates? I’m not.) But the extent to which money now corrodes the egalitarian core of democratic principles suggests that we should not be quick to think that “democracy” is what would be betrayed if Garielli’s money fails to get him what he could easily have had by choosing to work hard to organize voters a few months ago.
<
p>
Strong parties are politically desirable. I don’t think a system in which parties mean nothing in the lives of individuals and stand for nothing as entities–a system in which disconnected voters choose among unaffiliated, entrepreneurial candidates–makes for more vibrant democracy. On the other hand, excessive control by Party bureaucrats is no recipe for an empowered citizenry, either. We in Massachussets know this as well as anyone. I think a convention controlled by delegates chosen by any citizen who chooses to register and show up at a caucus (and a system in which the convention is the ultimate authority, not the State Committee) is not a bad way of seeking to make the Democratic Party meaningful while resisting the problems of bossism. I’m for Deval Patrick, as you’ve surely surmised by now, but I’m also, on basic principles, for candidacies of this kind, candidacies based on organizing and mobilizing people in this way.
<
p>
For those patient enough to keep reading, here are some further thoughts amplifying what’s in the previous paragraph.
<
p>
Think of the (vastly stronger) role of parties in parliamentary systems, systems at which–in other contexts–progressives concerned with “small ‘d’ democracy” often look longingly. It’s not just progressive activists, either. Political scientists have often described parties as among the most crucial of mediating structures that help turn isolated individuals into citizens equipped with political skills and with a forum in which to exercise them. For that reason, many political scientists over the past few decades have bemoaned the decline of the party system in the US, the transformation of parties into loose networks of politicians who are independent operators more than members of a coherent structure advocating a coherent agenda. I am not at all sure this is an apt description of the Rove-era national Republican party, but it clearly applies to the Democrats nationally. And in at least one sense it applies to MA Democrats, too: although we’ve got one party rule in the legislature, we’ve also got an an electorate increasingly disinclined to register with a party at all. In such a context, especially, I think the question of what fosters democracy is complex. Say that Christy Mihos decided that the best use of his money was to change his registration and seek the Democratic nomination. Say he was rich and dumb enough to put $20 million toward that end. Are you sure that there should be no process by which party activists decide whether or not he’s a Democrat?
<
p>
“Frankly, folks, I’m not a delegate – what if I want to vote for Gabrieli? Who the &*#$ are you to tell me I can’t?”
<
p>
Well, nobody’s actually telling you that. First of all, as has been pointed out, he can always run a write-in campaign. Secondly, he can always run as an independant.
<
p>
This process is not about ballot access. It’s about who gets to vie for the Democratic nomination. And as a delegate, I’m going to say that Gabrieli shouldn’t get that chance, for two reasons.
<
p>
First, and more importantly, I ran as a Patrick supporter. I do feel the moral obligation to vote for him at the convention.
<
p>
Secondly, Gabrieli didn’t play by the rules but still expects to take home more than just a parting gift. I’m right up there with folks who think the rules need change, that the current “one chance to get 15%” rule is dumb, but Gabrieli knew the rules going into it. He knew it would be an uphill battle.
<
p>
Which is not in itself a reason to deny him ballot access. If he’d stuck to trying to win delegates over, then sure, why not. But he didn’t.
<
p>
It’s the TV ads that tick me off. Trying to game the system by potentially turning public opinion against the mechanics of his party. That’s just not cool.
<
p>
I suspect, though, due to the large number of ex-officios who are well aware of public opinion and the potential downfalls of denying Gabrieli, that he will find his way on without a problem. So I suspect this whole discussion is a moot point.
<
p>
The real discussion to be having is what replaces the 15% rule? Where do we go from here?
Bullcrap.
<
p>
I’ve lived in MA for only a few years, and in Brookline less than that. Hell, I’ve been a Democrat for only 7 years.
<
p>
I’m a delegate. Not an add-on, but a run-of-the-mill elected by my community delegate.
<
p>
This isn’t insider politics. It’s a mix of insider politics (the ex-officios, et al) and genuine, elected by the people for the people rank-and-file Regular Joe Democrats.
<
p>
There are pleny of the Regular Joe Dems for a number of candidates to get 15%. It’s also a barrier to prevent those candidates without broad appeal ==cough, cough, Loony Lyndon LaRouche, cough, cough== to get on the ballot.
<
p>
The rule isn’t anti-Democratic, not one bit. The rule won’t keep Gabrieli off the ballot — his lack of organizing and timliness will.
<
p>
P.S. (Frankly, folks, I’m not a delegate – what if I want to vote for Gabrieli? Who the &#$ are you to tell me I can’t?) Did you organize for your town/ward caucus? Did you run? Did you vote? There is an open process for choosing delegates, and those delegates (often) run pledged to a candidate. Want your candidate on the ballot? Make sure he’s got the delegates. So take your self-rightous “who the &#$” attitude for a long walk off a short pier. The rules were set about 360 days ago, and everybody knew what they were. Fight to change the rules then, or play by them to your advantage now. If you’re too dumb/lazy/disinterested to do that, well then, tough. Welcome to democracy my friend. [/rant]
I am really tired of these Gabrielli discussions and the “who the &*#$ are you” comment was a bit much. I came here to rant about it and saw two others already had. How is 1500 delegates not a representative group??? People need to distinguish between “democracy in action” and “everything working out precisely the way the majority of me, myself and I would like it, with zero effort or planning required of me or of my favorite candidate.”
I am a delegate because I went to my caucus, I ran as a delegate and I worked at it. In my town we had ten people interested in 8 spots, so two people agreed to become alternates and all ten of us were happy. Nobody was shut out.
<
p>
Four of us are going to our first nominating convention, so the notion that some smoky-room insiders are limiting the choice of people who chose to sit on the sidelines is absolute nonsense.
I thought the 15% rule was dumb when it was implemented and I think it’s dumb now. This wasn’t even a decision made by all the delegates: it was mostly implemented by the State Committee and hammered into place.
<
p>
However, I’m not going to vote for my second-choice candidate at the convention just because it’s a screwed up system. I’ve cast a couple of votes for candidates that I thought were second-best in my day and I regret every single one.
<
p>
But this is also a reason why normal people need to run as delegates even in non-electoral years. Without delegates to serve as a voice of sanity, bizarre rules changes will continue to happen year after year, causing more confusion and controversy like this. So, you’re not a delegate this year. But will you be one next year?
The Globe and the Herald have a pretty clear motivation for being against the 15% rule — they just want to sell more papers. If Patrick pulls the unthinkable and knocks both opponents out, presto, the primary is over, and the papers will have a lot fewer screaming front page Democratic food fight articles in August and early September. Even a two-man race presents less opportunities for reporting and possibly fewer newspaper sales than a three-way race.
And you didn’t disappoint! 🙂
<
p>
But just remember, there are a lot more Democratic voters who aren’t delegates than who are. And, frankly, I would wager that there are a lot more Democratic voters who agree with what the Globe said than who disagree with it (though most of them won’t be in the DCU Center this weekend). And as for your suggestions that anyone who doesn’t like the outcome has only themselves to blame because they didn’t get involved soon enough, really, where does that lead? Obviously not every registered Democrat can be a delegate, or can attend his or her caucus, yet you seem to be saying that those that don’t have no cause to complain if the candidate they like doesn’t end up on the ballot. It’s not a tenable position to tell the voters that our party desperately needs in November that they’re insufficiently attentive to their rights and should shut their yap about their candidate not being on the ballot. That sounds like a Kerry Healey victory to me. The problem with restricting ballot access through a device like the 15% rule is that it inevitably concentrates – in fact, it is designed to concentrate – too much power in too few hands.
<
p>
Anyway, I’m glad that almost everyone seems to agree that the rule is a bad one and should be significantly changed or abandoned in the future. I don’t back a rules change for this convention. But I sure hope the momentum to ditch this rule survives Saturday.
The posts on civility … the debate on proper net etiquette … lamentations that BMG users didn’t respect each other … capped off finally by the admins rolling out a brand new policy on respectful and proper posting guidelines. Duly noted.
Turns out it was just a tactic to make us more vulnerable to their own devastating sarcasm. These guys are geniuses!
<
p>
Kudos to you, worthy Administrators. This humble grasshopper would study at your feet…
I know this isn’t going to please the Frankly guy, but here goes. I don’t think the 15% rule is a bad rule. Because MA is essentially a one party state everyone calls themselves a Democrat, even when they are Republicans or some other thing in their beliefs. This convention is a prime example of that. I don’t think Reilly is really a Democrat. He, like everyone else, wants to be the Democratic nominee because the Democratic nominee almost always wins (well the governorship may be an exception). So he’s played this middle game where he wants to get the nomination and then turn around around and trash liberals and progressives so that he can get those holy independents to vote for him. It’s a strategy that has cost the Dems the corner office everytime. Get nominated, trash the left to move to the center, and then….lose because the left won’t vote for you and the right only votes Republican. It’s a losing strategy and I think this 15% rule is an attempt to at least have all the people on the primary appeal at least to a small number of Democrats. Is that really too much to ask? If you ask me. I wish Reilly had been pushed off the primary, then he could run as an independent, which is where he belongs.