My prediction has to do with voting at the convention.
They have the technology that can scan the bar code on our delegate passes to let us in the hall, and they had assistant tellers running numbers on laptops but we still have to physically write down the vote in a black book?
I agree that votes should be stated publicly so they can be recorded by all the campaigns. But they should also be input electronically so that the totals are all received at the same time by the party. This would eliminate any voting books leaving the delegation and taking 25 minutes to get to the counting area.
I do not think this will happen EVER – because it takes away the ability of what happened yesterday in Worcester to happen at all. The party apparatus would have NO power if they let that take place.
LASTLY – I had a converstation with Jarret Barios at a party on Friday night. I have been a big $$ supporter of his for a couple years and I asked WHY in God’s name he signed the infamous letter sent out by Gabrieli. He got all excited (in a bad way)and said “why didn’t you pick up the phone and ask me this? You know I support Deval but I really think we should let Chris on the ballot, fairness, yada yada yada..” when I tried to get in another point – he walked away from me (and my $$) in a huff. By the way he acted – I bet a LOT of supporters have been asking him the same thing.
Chalk it up as an example of Jarrett Barios trying to play both sides of an issue.
They did do electronic balloting as well as paper. Each district should have had someone with a laptop working alongside their teller. I think that they did the count by hand as well because the margin with Gabrieli was so close and they wanted to “be sure.”
<
p>
I’m not 100% about this, but I’m pretty sure that’s what was going on.
If the DEVAL campaign keeps push DEVAL as an “outsider” and everyone else as an “insider” it will become a meaningless argument much as “my daddy is better than your daddy” and a voter turn off.
<
p>
Why not get focused on your “positive” campaigning and “new approach” to politics? I suggest that mainly because the DEVAL as outsider isn’t going to fly. Unless you want to totally forget about the last 14 or so years of his life, as a Washington insider and Corporate insider.
I think there are differing definitions.
<
p>
While it is correct to say that Deval has political experience and connections through the Clinton administration, this is his first bid for elected office and he also lacks the political connections within the state that Reilly and Gabrieli have. So, with that in mind, Deval really is the “outsider” candidate of the three.
<
p>
Frankly, you have to have some connections in order to have a prayer at getting elected to anything — be it town council or Governor.
They did have an assistant teller with laptops recording the voting in each district – but in his words – it was just a prototype which they wanted to see if it worked.
<
p>
Tin foil hat on tight here…..who is to say those testers weren’t transmitting live to the state party the votes as they tallied?
<
p>
I know in 1WO Spellane and pedone were running around with sad faces until the very end when they turned into High School girls who’s boyfriend was just elected class president.
<
p>
/ đŸ™‚
CG got it, last I had heard he was 30 short then I saw Vincent with an ETE grin and high fiving.
<
p>
Disclosure: I was a Reilly delegate who committed to him at the caucus, I voted for Reilly but I did sign the petition for CG to get him into the convention.
<
p>
For all that he has done for Massachusets and our party he deserved at least that, even though I would not go back on my pledge. I am very happy for him, I am disappointed so many people don’t feel he deserves to be where he his.
<
p>
His reverse the curse is great
I was one of those laptop tellers. This was done only for the purpose of ironing out issues with the software, etc. These were not official counts and I advised several whips/delegates/etc. of this fact.
<
p>
I personally like the scanner idea. Everyone physically able comes down when called, scans their delegate tag, punches in their vote, passes a confirmation screen. Whips watch for scams, and there you have it. 30 seconds after voting is done, here’s your result.
<
p>
And for the poster that asked about the laptop info being wifi’d back to the party, trust me this wasn’t the case. I had one in hand, they were POS machines, most of the laptop tellers were not savvy enough to pull this off…Lastly, I checked. No wireless signal was available.
<
p>
If you have more questions about the process, ask and I’ll answer if possible.
The whips were and should have been transmitting their unoffical counts to the campaigns. Unless that is banned the campaigns can and should have approximate counts as the voting is going on.
I agree 100% about the scanners. Heck, if security can afford it, why not the party?
<
p>
Give each district two or three scanners — the teller scans your code, presses the buttons for your candidates.
<
p>
The only problem for that I can see is mobility/legal issues — do you have delegates pass it around? Or people come to the teller?
<
p>
I will agree one favorite pasttime in my area during the counting was coming up with ways the counting could be improved. THat said, it did go rather quickly and well all things considered.
I think a lot of local pols are going to get squeezed on this one. Sometimes that happens when you try to game the system rather than vote your conscience.
<
p>
Here’s a solution. Bring optical scanning voting machines into the hall. People announce their votes, mark their circles, and insert them into the ballot scanner. Voila! Not ten minutes after voting closes, out pops the receipt with all the totals. These totals can be immediately reconciled with the manual totals people have been keeping during the polling. Immediate results; end of controversy.
Laws are like sausages- it is better not to see them being made. I would suggest that political conventions would be a corollary to that old truism, as at conventions, we see candidates being made in much the same fashion as the former. To carry the analogy further, this weekend, we just saw something out of an Upton Sinclair book.
<
p>There is no doubt that the hour-long delay between the speeches and the voting was engineered to allow for the arm-twisting on behalf of Chris that went on by the legislative leadership. If the party was worried about the 22 delegates whose eligibility was challenged, it would have been far more efficient to conduct the balloting, hold those 22 votes in abeyance, and then if the vote was so close such that those votes would have been determinative, then the party could rule on each of the 22 delegate’s eligibility, without wasting an hour and a half of 4600 people’s time.
<
p>During the actual balloting, there was at least one instance of a credentialled delegate being disenfranchised by the tellers. (No one challenged him earlier when the challenge process happened; it was a unilateral decision by the tellers at the time of the balloting After an appeal to the sergeant-at-arms, the party’s response was to wait until the votes were in, and then determine if his vote would matter. If that rule was good enough then, than why wasn’t it good enough earlier before we had the arm-twisting?
<
p>The insiders will do anything to keep an outside candidate from getting the primary nomination. It’s no wonder that “the gang of three” ads were so effective in 2002.