First, the party should only hold conventions in even-numbered years. So called “issues conventions”–those in odd-numbered years–are sparsely attended and expensive. A bi-yearly convention schedule would make the one off-year convention more meaningful by increasing the number of issues to be discussed. It would save the delegates and the party money. The party could look at innovative ways to continue participation in odd-numbered years, such as holding a virtual convention or sponsoring and encouraging events at the district level.
The second change would encourage cities and towns to send delegates who are committed to attend the convention by penalizing those committees that do not fill their delegations. I propose that the party reduce the number of delegates allotted to a city or town by half the number of no-shows at the previous convention (rounded down).
For instance, the Clinton Democratic Town Committee is allotted 12 committee-level delegates (the 13th Clinton delegate is State Representative Naughton). Since 11 of the 12 delegates to the 2008 convention did not attend, the Clinton delegation to the 2010 convention would be reduced by 5 delegates (half of 11 is 5.5, rounded down to 5). Delegates would still be allocated on the basis of the town's turnout to the 2008 election as they are currently, but after the delegates are allocated the delegation would be reduced by the five delegate penalty.
Would that be harsh? Perhaps, but knowing that the delegation would be reduced in future years by no-shows would be a pretty strong incentive for city and town caucuses to elect delegates who will actually attend. If the local committees had been told before the caucuses in February that they would lose delegates to the 2010 convention–where all of the state offices will be up for nomination–if delegates missed Saturday's convention, how many more delegates would have attended? Would Democrats in Leominster send just one out of 24 committee-level delegates (the other four are either elected reps. or state committee members) if it meant losing 11 votes in 2010? No way.
In an effort to keep a set number of delegates in each delegation, cities and towns who field full slates would gain bonus delegates from those committees that are penalized. For instance, as a reward for filing a full slate Bolton, Lancaster, and Westminster would each gain a couple of the delegates Leominster gives back.
However it works out, the state party needs to find a way to make the off-year conventions as well-attended as the convention to nominate the slate of state-wide candidates.
Adapted from a post at my blog, No Drumlins.
I personally find great value in the off year conventions. In my own town, as Chair, I keep calling people until I find enough delegates to run. This in and of itself helps to grow our Democratic network. Through conventions there is a cohesiveness that is created and a way to connect with other Democrats in our district. I would simply not be able to get that number of people interested in attending the DCI for example, an alternative that Christopher suggested. For me, it is a great way to connect with friends from campaigns across the state, to meet with readers and others. Others find it to be a waste of their time.
<
p>Leaving aside whether I am “normal”, I do think that people have the right to make choices, as janalfi did. I can not see penalizing towns where delegates make different decisions.
<
p>Someone mentioned people who run, deprive others from getting elected, and then don’t attend. That is a problem. On the other hand, when there is insufficient interest in running, I encourage people to run, even if there is no expectation of attending. You can’t go back in time and get elected; there is always the possibility that things might change and you decide to attend.
…as to how to get people to show up. As Chair of a small town committee I have successfully managed to fill my slate of delegates for the last two years and I send reminder emails and make phone calls to remind folks. This year I organized a car pool to cut gas costs, but we had a very careful discussion about what we wanted to attend and our target departure time, because several of us had graduation parties or other obligations.
<
p>The conventions can be slow and boring; vendors run out of food or the choices for food are so poor you regret showing up; the cost is one more expense for a few folks who are already struggling with basic necessities, and at least in my town, year after year, it’s the same people who show up and run for the spots. I’ve attended all but 2 conventions since 2001; the last one I was even remotely excited about was 2006 because it was a nominating convention.
<
p>I think meeting every year helps build momentum but I think in odd years it should be made less expensive and opened up to more people – sort of a networking/workshop event rather than a platform convention in standard format. I know that doesn’t help the party predict the number of registrants and thus do a cost benefit analysis of any particular site for the convention, but I think mixing it up has to be a consideration, otherwise what’s the incentive for attending?
<
p>In February I didn’t know my niece was going to celebrate the occasion of her high school graduation with a cook out on Saturday, June 7.
<
p>All to often the accomplishments of young women or women in general (e.g. Hillary) are not sufficiently acknowledged. I made a decision to recognize the accomplishment.
<
p>Also, I notified my ward chair so that an alternate could attend in my place.
<
p>Not that there is “bitterness,” an Obama term; but maybe some people stayed away to send a message to the party about their displeasure about how Deval Patrick, Kerry, et .al. acted.
<
p>Hillary’s announcement on Saturday concerning unity got short shrift at the convention. Maybe Deval Patrick and John Kerry were sending a not so subtle message.
<
p>Even though attendance at issues conventions has always been an concern, I find it peculiar that Hillary supporters are being pilloried as the cause for this.
<
p>Now the Obama folks seem to want to come up with some complex draconian formula to punish the mainstream of the party. How elitist of them?
<
p>By the way, if I were a gambling person, as our governor is, maybe delegates were offended by the strong arm tactics of the Kerry campaign and were sending a message.
<
p>I wonder what the vote would have been had all the delegates attended. I for one bet that Ed O’Reilly would have garnered more than 22.5 percent!
<
p>Let’s have party unity! Not tyranny of elitists Deval Patrick and John Kerry!
<
p>Democrats unite to take back our party!
<
p>
“In February I didn’t know my niece was going to celebrate the occasion of her high school graduation with a cook out on Saturday, June 7.
<
p>All to often the accomplishments of young women or women in general (e.g. Hillary) are not sufficiently acknowledged. I made a decision to recognize the accomplishment.”
<
p>Is this to say peabody that had it been a nephew graduating you would have been at the convention???
<
p>”Not that there is “bitterness,” an Obama term”
<
p>Sounds to me you are the one not looking for unity because had you been at the convention you would have heard those terrible Dems Patrick and Kerry espousing the need for unity and talking of how much more unites us than divides us. Seems to me they’re the ones who’ve got it right and maybe you need a little more time to see throught the trees.
<
p>It is acamdemic whether it is a niece or nephew. Obviously, I made my point thouggh!
<
p>Democrats unite and take back our party!
<
p>
“In fact, Bolton seated four delegates even though they are only allocated three seats; because there were no-shows from other towns the Bolton alternate was seated.”
<
p>I thought that alternates could only fill vacancies from within their own towns. Could someone please clarify and confirm?
<
p>This has been very frustrating for me during years that I have lost contested caucuses only to find that some elected didn’t show. Even the delegations nearest to the convention site, like mine, had absentees. Maybe we can start by not having conventions on the weekend most likely to have graduation ceremonies and parties.
<
p>I also stand by my DCI suggestion. In Amherst we had workshops like DCI and the formal session wasn’t much. If the focus is going to be breakouts and workshops anyway I figure we might as well eliminate the need for caucuses and credentials and just say, “Y’all come!”
And I thought that in cities, alternates could only replace delegates from the same ward. Can someone clarify the rules for this? I was elected as alternate, but received a delegate badge in the mail without any indication of who I was replacing. I had to call my Ward Chair to find out.
…that an alternate is only supposed to replace a delegate from their own town/ward. But after the initial roll call, the teller instructed the Bolton alternate to head to the delegate desk at the stage. He returned with the “Delegate” sticker affixed to his credential.
<
p>FWIW, it appeared the teller was recruited on the spot. She had an “Alternate” credential and I don’t think she came to the convention expecting to have that job.
I’m not happy with the sparse attendance either. But rather than penalize the voters for delegates’ absence, I’d penalize the delegates. How about a $100 registration fee, with $25-35 returned at the end of the day in the form of a gift card for one of those Dem Party affiliate cards? I don’t like hiking the fee, so there may be other methods. Howzabout $5-$10 going to a town committee for each delegate in attendance? That gives the chair a lot of motivation to make sure everyone shows up.
<
p>My concern with the mentioned penalty is a quadrennial reply of the Michigan and Florida situation on the state level. If a candidate didn’t make the ballot because two years ago people didn’t show up from a city or town where he was strong, that would be unacceptable. Penalizing an O’Reilly or Gabrieli because of what people did before he was even running doesn’t make any sense in my eyes, and just sets up for more bad blood within the party…not least of all because tracking and counting would be in the hands of party elders, who have been less than scrupulous about how they ran conventions already.
what about a really nice dinner/party? Multiple, since no place can hold us all?
<
p>My frustration is that the two best part of the convention — the Van Jones speech and the training — were the least attended. It’s a real shame, because we Dems had plenty to learn from both parts of the program that we Dems seemed to avoid like the plague. Instead, we’re stuck listening to the state auditor ramble on, and frankly the speeches by people who weren’t JFK, EO’R, or Van Jones were pretty much irrelevant.
<
p>I’d like to see an itinerary like something like this:
<
p>0. Floor check-in
1. Opening remarks (5 mins)
2. Speech 1 (15 mins)
3. Speech 2 (15 mins)
4. Floor votes on rules changes (30 mins)
5. EO’R speech (20 minutes TOTAL)
6. JFK speech (20 minutes TOTAL)
7. Vote
8. Breakout classes [outside arena]
9. Van Jones speech [back inside arena]
10. Announcement of EO’R/JFK results
11. Closing remarks (5 mins)
12. Scatter to good parties/food
<
p>Now, I don’t know how (12) works exactly, but it seems to me that when I RSVP for a wedding, I choose the chicken or the fish or the beef. Likewise, I could choose the BBQ joint hosted by AFL-CIO, the pasta dinner hosted by the Deval Patrick committee, the Chinese buffet hosted by NARAL, etc. The kicker: those dinners are subsidized by the higher fees, which still have hardship exemptions. End result: more people staying through the end of the convention, more socializing, and more stimulation of local business.
I like this idea much better than the OP’s suggestions. Penalize the actual people who didn’t show up, rather than the town. After all, the DTC of Peabody wasn’t responsible for peabody’s niece having a graduation party, and the DTC of Natick wasn’t responsible for me getting strep throat.
<
p>I feel like losing my registration fee (and yes, I did register and pay) is enough of a penalty for me having not gone; Natick doesn’t need to be penalized additionally.
<
p>So let’s talk about encouraging delegates to show up, rather than punishing towns and their DTCs.
Have something worth attending.
for towns that elect no shows. I know myself that I have not been able to go to some conventions in the past because I was defeated in the caucus by elected delegates who never showed up. Towns should be responsible for ensuring their delegates show, barring legitimate excuses. Attendance records should be available to the town chair and the caucus-goers electing convention delegates.
<
p>However, I do believe yearly conventions are a good thing for the party, particularly with the emphasis the past five years or so on breakout sessions. They are a great way to network and learn about helping the party. The fee should be cut to a reasonable level, and those that don’t want to go to off-year conventions shouldn’t run for delegate slots.
Maybe I’m biased as the chair of a DTC for a town that gets a lot of delegates, but I don’t really see why this is important. The only issue that I can see is that the no-shows are taking up a slot that an interested participant might have. But if most towns/wards can’t fill their delegations anyway, that doesn’t seem like a real problem.
<
p>We should be encouraging people to go to these things, yes, but not by penalizing them if they don’t.
<
p>In regard to the off-year conventions, I will say that my first convention was 2005, and it was that event that started me along the path toward becoming an activist. I certainly can’t be the only person that’s true for.
We DO have active county clubs who have training, etc.
<
p>What does an issues convention DO? Do you write a platform there, or do you just pass resolutions unanimously about issues to feel good about?
country clubs. Ha!
We do Pass and Deny resolutions. Very few resolutions get passed unanimously and a lot of resolutions get rejected. Many resolutions get rejected before they are even presented to the delegates. We aren’t the feel good party you think we are.