My disillusionment comes from the illegitimacy of the voting process. Accepted motions are subject to majority voice vote and decided according to the perception of the moderator. In a large auditorium with poor acoustics and thousands of delegates, it is obviously impossible to get an accurate estimate of the support for and against the motion.
Lop-sided outcomes are pretty clear, but close votes are subject to the bias of the moderator and are seldom challenged. Furthermore, voice votes are inequitable because your impact as a delegate depends on how loud you can shout.
Last year, the endorsement vote for Kerry’s senate seat was counted individually for each delegate. That situation is much more democratic. However, this would probably be too time-consuming for the more complex votes at platform conventions.
So what are better alternatives to voice votes? One (expensive) idea would be to use an electronic voting system at the convention. Another would be to use paper ballots, employing IRV where more than two choices are presented. A third option would be to hold the vote online. There are probably other good options out there. Each alternative has its costs and challenges, but I believe there must be something better and more democratic than the voice vote.
Other gripes I have with the convention include the poor food and the over-air-conditioned atmosphere, as I have experienced at the past two conventions and complained about on this blog. There are some good reasons to go including the excitement of meeting other Democratic activists, attending the workshops, and listening to engaging speakers.
Until the MA Democratic Party finds a more democratic way of voting, I’ll be finding other ways of spending my time.
christopher says
I believe conventions run according to Robert’s Rules and as such, a delegate can raise a division motion and force a counted vote.
<
p>Unfortunately, this isn’t practical the way conventions are currently set up. There should be more microphones set up throughout the hall so delegates can access them. Senate District Tellers should be prepared to take recorded votes if the need arises.
<
p>Though not as disillusioned as you seem to be I do sympathize with your concerns. The most bogus vote ever taken at a convention was for our nominee for Treasurer/Receiver-General in 2002. There were four candidates and the time was pushing 11PM. It was decided to have a rising vote rather than a roll call and party staff tried to visually count from the front platform! In the end I believe the result was recorded as each candidate got 25%, therefore no endorsement, but everyone on the ballot – disingenuous on multiple counts IMO. At very least the district tellers should have done the counting.
<
p>I’m recommending this diary because as a sometime parliamentarian I’m interested to know what other ideas people have. I’d also love to know from someone who’s been there what takes SO LONG behind the scenes to count roll call votes. Adding 40 sets of numbers and calculating percentages should only take a few minutes!
patricka says
take so long because of challenges.
<
p>It’s never the process of physically counting the votes that takes so long but it’s the procedural challenges to particular voters.
<
p>As a candidate for the Democratic State Committee, I am committed to reforming the convention process to work for the benefit of the delegates, who represent the rank and file of the party. I know the litany of frustration and I firmly believe that we must make the convention a positive force for the party rather than a source for frustration.
christopher says
Specifically, what is being challenged at this point in the procedure? It seems that challenges to the seating of delegates would have/should have already been addressed by this point. Are there challenges to how votes were counted, and if so how do those come up? Maybe I’m just fortunate to have always had a good district teller and there has never been a question as to who has voted for whom in my district as far as I can recall and for as long as I’ve been participating.
abinns says
Conventions are messy. People running around, whips here, tellers over there, etc. By the time voting comes around the challenges to credentials have been done with. Those are addressed by the credentials committee before the vote.
<
p>The challenges talked about above occur when a candidate thinks that there was a mis-tally or something funny with a district (usually). It can also occur when a candidate needs to buy some time.
<
p>Example: The candidate may have their own whip/teller out on the floor that says in this district they have 95 votes. When the official vote comes out, it says they only have 93 votes. The candidate can challenge that and the ballots have to be re-examined by officials and representatives from the two (or more) campaigns.
barbq says
How would you reform the convention process?
barbq says
I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone actually forced a counted vote at the convention. First, I think it would catch everyone off-guard and cause great confusion, and second, I think it would frustrate everyone there who already knows they will be late to lunch even without a recount. Has this ever occurred?
<
p>The organizers script the agenda within a predefined schedule. While deviations from that agenda are not explicitly discouraged, the social pressure of not wanting to delay lunch, and the lack of sufficient microphones, is enough to prevent procedural challenges. The event’s structure empowers the establishment over the delegates.
abinns says
Electronic voting is difficult to pull off in a convention setting where challenges to the results are possible (and probable), transparency is a must, and resources have to be managed (i.e. it’s expensive).
<
p>If a vote was taken electronically, a voter verified paper trail should be provided right? That’s the stance of the DNC and I would assume most sensible voting advocates. At the State Convention you would need enough voting machines (a laptop would suffice) and printers to get all of the delegates to vote in a reasonable amount of time (plus backups). That’s a LOT of equipment and not very reasonable to do at a state (or even national) level.
<
p>This is only a small piece of the difficulty with electronic voting at political conventions (the Democratic ones anyway).
<
p>Voice votes are usually used for non-controversial items where there may be a very small handful of opposition. As somebody posted above, these votes can be challenged by delegates/members.
<
p>My view is that voice votes have their place (convening or adjourning the convention anybody? Could you imagine taking a roll call on something as simple as that??). But roll call votes also have their place, usually in contested races for backing (JK vs EOR in 2008 for instance).
<
p>So a good convention will have a mix of both depending on the circumstances. The people that run conventions do they best they can with a massive amount of logistics, politics, and precedence to manage. All live, while in front of 1,000s (or millions on the national scale).
<
p>Disclosure: I worked at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and 2008 in technology and project managed the 2008 Voting System from development to implementation and execution.
barbq says
Thanks for your insights, abinns. Although the technology investment might be expensive, I would think it would be peanuts compared to the massive bank accounts of the party.
<
p>If the amendments and motions were finalized before the convention, then they could be publicized in advance. Pro and con arguments would be made at the convention, and delegates could vote on scannable paper ballots that would be fed into machines during the lunch break. Results would be available by the end of lunch or by the end of the day in case a recount was requested. Would that work?
<
p>Alternatively, the party could reduce the number of voting delegates from each committee, down to a size that would be manageable with a proper voting system.
<
p>Other thoughts?
amberpaw says
In fact, though this may not be well known, the convention MUST be a fund raiser itself, and raises about 20% of the yearly operating funds for the state party.
<
p>I do think that the venues have had terrible food, been extremely uncomfortable, and also, for someone like me with a hip replacement, presented real physical challenges and been exhausting.
<
p>My way of dealing with this, though, has been to volunteer to be on the site committee and see what I can do.
<
p>You are, of course, free to choose not to participate. But the choice not to participate is unlikely to lead to improved conventions. The question becomes, what are you willing to do to either improve logistics [I include food, heating, cooling, accoustics, organization in “logistics] or function? I wish more who choose not to participate over logistics and content would say so – even more, that activists like yourself would “roll up your sleeves and make it better.”
barbq says
While complaining helps raise awareness of the issues, it would be better if I got involved on a committee to change the procedures.
<
p>The more I think about this, the more I believe that the problem is that the number of voting delegates is just too big to hold a proper vote at the event. Perhaps if each city or town elected a representative to vote on their behalf, it would allow for a more manageable process. This wouldn’t prevent all the delegates from showing up, it would just change the voting procedures at the convention. I think if we had a more reasonable voting scheme, then more delegates would invest their effort into the process.
<
p>Thanks for your service on the site committee.
amberpaw says
…but if chosen, I will serve. Just being clear, here.
<
p>…and clearing up the idea that the party, itself, has a massive bank account…it does not..well maybe compared to mine, but not massive at all.
abinns says
<
p>That’s another difficulty with conventions. Since many amendments, motions, challenges, etc aren’t prepared ahead of time by their very nature there needs to be some fluidity in the process.
<
p>Take for instance that there may be 30 eligible voters in a Senate District, but only 15 show up. Attendance has to be taken and those 15 marked absent (no, really, they are). Then if Elected Alternates can be found and placed, they are seated with the delegation.
<
p>It’s not a direct parallel, but offers a glimpse of the movements that occur during a convention.
<
p>There are dozens of things that need the approval of a convention (nominations, adjourning, motions, etc). The voice vote is something that will have to be used to get through procedural items, and as undemocratic as that sounds to some people, there are checks if in fact they are needed. However, for the items that REALLY matter for Democrats and attendees, roll call votes are taken. They take a huge amount of time to prepare for, conduct, supervise, and analyze though. That’s why they aren’t used for everything.
<
p>A full roll-call vote at the National Convention would (and has) taken 3-5 hours. That’s not a typo. 3-5 Hours. They have about 5,000 delegates. The MDP Convention in years with candidate endorsements has about the same.
<
p>
<
p>I would just see people going crazy about this one, claiming that regular people are being shut out of the process. It’s a good point they would have though. The point of a convention is to be representative of the Democratic Party. Would 100 people be representative enough? 200? 1,000? It’s a tough call. Most have said 3,000 to 5,000 is representative, so that’s how many delegates we have.
stomv says
You rent a bank of laptop computers for the day. One computer for every 20 people would be sufficient, plus a few backups for breaking. The software is super easy given that you don’t have the kind of fraud risk since the vote can be tied to a person’s name for auditing, something that isn’t done in an anonymous election.
<
p>There are loads of logistical problems (power, hardwiring them to a network, moving people to and fro the computers, etc) but cost is not really an issue.
stomv says
you could do this with cellphones. Bring in a portable tower to the room so everyone has coverage, and have them text to a number just like American Idol. The voters pre-register their name to a specific phone number, and when they text they then get an auto callback to accept their vote or reject it. You can drop the texting altogheter. Just dial 1-800-4-MA-Dems and follow the voice prompts. Press 1 for aye. Press 2 for nay.
sabutai says
The first issue is about the logistics — the food and facilities. I don’t know what can be said about that. For the price the Party is willing/is able to pay, we’re only going to have a few choices, and none of them that great. I’ve never been clear why the concessions consistently run out of food, but I think that’s as much about the arena personnel and managers as the Party. Though I’ve often thought a couple large signs could be useful (including — PLEASE — “If you paid your fee, you do not have to stand in this line”) the logistics are about what we can expect for the price we’re willing to pay.
<
p>The second issue is about the party. It’s about the party chairs deciding that they don’t want to deviate from the way they’re happy running things. It’s about the fact that Phil Johnston and John Walsh are defenders of the status quo, and they have an uncommon amount of power. The chair doesn’t fairly assess the vote, the party closes down the table to receive charter amendments early, the favored candidates are given extra time, etc. It’s like being in the General Court.
<
p>I can’t imagine changing the first one short of setting aside more money for conventions, which strikes me as a waste. As for the second, I imagine the way to change that is some of what’s beginning to happen — get a state committee who will support a democratic chair for the Democratic Party.
barbq says
Investing in better food would pay dividends in the form of better attendance and therefore better fund raising.
<
p>I agree with the second point, and I think that it will involve serious grassroots organizing to get us to that point.
sabutai says
I’ve been elected to every convention for which I was eligible since I moved back to the US. However, let’s see what happens during the convention:
<
p>
The convention is a made for tv spectacle. It’s also fun — you get to see fellow Democrats, browse the swag, add to your CNN canvas bag collection, hear the occasional interesting speaker, catch up on occasional gossip. That’s my take on it, at least.
mike-chelmsford says
I reluctantly chose to be a delegate this year, probably more due to Kate’s arm-twisting than anything else. But what does spending $75 and probably a $100 night in a Springfield hotel get us?
<
p>As a party fundraiser, more than half the money I’m spending isn’t going to the party. It’s going to a hotel. I’ll bet another 25% is going to the venue and lunch.
<
p>As training, too much time is spent on the floor, not in the workshops.
<
p>Plenty has already been written about how unfair the voting process feels, and how painfully slow it is.
<
p>It’s an expensive opportunity to network. I wonder if regional meetings wouldn’t be a better way to facilitate networking.
<
p>I hate to complain when I don’t have anything positive to offer, but there really needs to be an alternative. Without any clear mission for the convention, it’s hard to pin down a better way of doing things.
lynne says
We’re thinking of making it an early-start-breakfast carpool ring to Springfield on Convention day. If you’re interested.
christopher says
I would personally love to see even-year only conventions with Democratic Campaign Institutes on the odd years. I would suggest holding local caucuses a couple months later than we do and having a strict deadline for submission of charter, bylaw, and platform amendments one month before caucuses. Time-sensitive issue resolutions can still be petitioned from the floor, but should be projected on a screen rather than require thousands of paper copies. DCIs can still raise money for the party without requiring caucuses or credentialing.
amberpaw says
2. Network
3. Train local committees
4. fund raise for the state party
5. Adjust the platform/party culture
6. Improve statewide communications
7. Strengthen the state party by both skills building, and face time
<
p>[these seem to be the “issues convention” functions but I would love to hear what others think on this]
christopher says
Adjusting the platform would require an actual convention, but the other items it seems could be the result of a well-planned DCI.
kate says
I was reminded of thread back in 2006
<
p>Peter Porcupine talks about how the Republican Party does things, a Platform Committee made of RSC members, passing a platform that nobody reads, conventions every four years. In 2006 sco then commented:
<
p>16 and 5. THere must be something good about our system.
<
p>Let’s look at build morale, network and train local committees. I saw that in your local committee you elected s number of delegates and alternates. I’m assuming that all the delegates actually plan to attend. That may not be a valid assumption.
<
p>Do you think that you could get that many people to attend a DCI?
<
p>I like to think of myself as a good organizer (see Mike-from-Chelmsford note). I filled every delegate and alternate slot in my community and we have some people who are expecting to go as add-ons. I don’t think that I would have the same success at getting that number to a DCI. I think the most we have had from Westborough attend a DCI in recent years is two.
<
p>There may be a number of reasons to drop the off year convention, but I’m not sure that a DCI could, almost by defintion, fill the same functions.
sabutai says
I agree with a fair bit of what you say, Kate, but not everything the Mass. GOP does is automatically wrong.
I think the biennial conventions are more a result of being short of interest, people, and funds than a cause of it.
sco says
Because Kate misattributed that quote to me. That was actually your comment, not mine, that she pulled out from ’06.
kate says
Oops! Sorry to sabutai and sco. sco is correct. He had made a different comment.
christopher says
…the internal workings of either party have much bearing on our external degree of success. In my experience it is pulling teeth to fill a slate in an off year. Once again this year we are short and I won’t be the least bit surprised if they don’t all show. My full delegation hasn’t showed up when the convention has been close by so I hate to think what our attendance record will be in Springfield. I’m not convinced that numbers alone are the measure of success. We may not get the numbers of people at a DCI as we need for a full convention, but if we get just enough of the right people that might be better from an organizational standpoint. Then again, given the gripes I’ve heard both from this diarist and local delegates maybe more would show up to a well-planned DCI because they would feel they are accomplishing something rather than hanging around for hours waiting for vote results. Personally, I become more convinced with each odd-year convention I attend that it is completely unnecessary to go through the caucusing and credentialing process every single year. All the advantages you cite for networking and organizing can just as easily be accomplished at a non-convention event without the procedural headaches.
mike-chelmsford says
One of Kate’s rules for managing volunteers is to give them something useful to do. Off-year conventions just don’t accomplish that.
<
p>I’m going because Kate asked. A few others are going because I asked. You could feel it at our caucus — it was more of a duty than a privilege.
<
p>I think Chris is right on with an off-year DCI.
<
p>And there must be more democratic ways of adjusting the platform. Perhaps a smaller convention, or votes taken at each caucus.
amberpaw says
So I will accept input, and learn the process, the parameters, and how sites are chosen and report from time to time.
cos says
You say that lopsided votes are obvious, but a few years ago they wanted to amend the party charter and ruled that a vote on that had passed even though it was obviously and lopsidedly a no. Ever since then, they’ve been operating under a party charter that should be considered illegal under the party’s own rules, because it never passed. I see no point to even holding votes at the state convention, because whoever’s running the convention gets to pick the result as they like it, and there’s apparently no recourse.
amberpaw says
I don’t have the faintest idea what vote and when this happened, or what you observed which leaves me in a quandery. Could you post the year, the issue, and the vote, please?
<
p>Also – it is not possible to change the past.
<
p>To change or repair the present specifics are required. I don’t have ANY idea what you are talking about.
ed-prisby says
I’m pretty sure that was 2005. He’s right. It was a joke.