If we vote down the bland-leading-the-bland, 100% content free, any version of Mitt Romney could run on it platform, what happens? Does the old platform stay in place, or do we become a party without a platform?
Pablo
Delegate
Fourth Middlesex District
Please share widely!
which answers this and many other questions!
Then I know what to do.
<
p>Just say no.
To spend $75 bucks to drive all the way to Springfield, and have a party not even pretend to care about what I care about…well, I decided not to go at all.
If you don’t go (and I considered it myself for a host of reasons) you silence your voice. Looking at this platform as it stands this would stifle many of us from having a party that truly represents change. Instead we get a middle of the road prattling platform that represents none of what we the activists have been truly fighting for these many decades. We all felt we turned a real corner with the election of Deval Patrick and then Barack Obama. Yet I suppose they are only pee-ric victories if we lose the war for our Party.
<
p>I have to agree vote NO! on the Platform.
<
p>It is not a true representation of Democratic Party Values. In this watered down state it appears to be pandering to Unenrolled and Ultra Conservative Democrats. In my opinion the platform is not the vehicle to reach out and sell our souls for an attempt to win their vote. In my opinion if they are that uncomfortable with the Platform that they cannot participate in the party then there is the door. I for one will not give up on so many of these issues that we have fought for decades in a veiled attempt to make it appear we control a majority of voters in Massachusetts. If we are kidding ourselves into a false sense that by selling our soul we will be masters of anything thing then shame on us. I personally have spent thousands of hours on Phones, walking neighborhoods, traveling to other states and writing checks not to have our Democratic Party turn itself into something like a Nationalist Party. I support a big tent I support the fact that everyone should have something they can hang their hat on and say this is where I belong but this iteration is lacking and I cannot support it but I am only one voice. We need many.
<
p>No I suggest you come and add your voice and join us in one more battle to protect what it means to be the Democratic Party.
<
p>Hey I wish we had a line in the platform that requires all nominated candidates to sign that they have actually read the platform and agree to support it before they actually can get the nomination. But hey I still have to have a few fantasies, as I grow older.
<
p>Barring a No vote I also will support the number of proposed amendments to change the platform we need your signature but you need to be their to have it count. So look at this as a donation to one more campaign!
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
who are delegates (even town committee chairs) who will be there to vote. I plan on voting NO on the new platform as it’s mostly conciliatory pablum. The gutting of the education plank is particularly objectionable, I might add.
Sorry, WoburnDem–I cannot stress enough how much I disagree with this. We are basically then setting policy through a process that includes a tiny proportion of people. I’m not sure what the proper role, if any, for the platform is, but those policy debates belong in a primary, not at a convention.
Conventions are NOT rubber stamp charades. Or should not be.
I’m specifically referring to his suggestion of a line binding all candidates to the party platform. I think that any Democrat has the right to violate the platform, and the ultimate recourse lies with the voters, not with the small slice of the voters that are party operatives, for lack of the better word.
<
p>I personally strongly dislike the proposed platform, and would vote “no” were I a delegate. I just personally don’t see it as that significant a document, and am really not sure what role it plays, other than informing everyone what the general opinion of party activists is. Not that this is not a useful goal, as it pushes any particularly value-empty politician towards the platform out of self-interests–just don’t see it as a defining document for all.
demredsox says candidates should be barred if they don’t agree with every plank of the platform. He said he wished more ‘reform candidates’ would agree to it… but there’s nothing regarding a requirement that they do so. I wish we had more DINO incumbents who would have stood by our party’s current (and hopefully future) platform… it’d be a much better state right now.
<
p>BTW: I don’t see why people think everything needs to be extremely important or useful. Is the platform extremely important or useful in the grand scheme of things? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. We spend one day as a party voting for this once every two years — and we only require that a few hundred of us actually show up to vote for the darn thing. People need to gain some perspective. Is it the most important thing in the world? No. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter – and that doesn’t mean that this proposed homogenized, bland and practically meaningless version of it should pass. It matters a little and we spend a little time on it – but because this document is supposed to represent the soul of our state party, it is important to get it right.
The Platform is to put in simplest terms a statement of our beliefs and goals. The Leadership of which, I count myself among, is obligated to assure that the platform reflects those ideals. Know I am not going to kick the State committee members who worked hard to put this together they did the job they put it together. I happen to strongly disagree with it. It does not clearly establish goals of our party it does not distinguish us from any other party and it to be frank waters down every major issue I for one care about as a Democrat and have fought for, for decades.
<
p>I for one will vote YES on amendments offered and if given the opportunity will vote NO on this platform change. May I point out an otherwise obvious fact we the delegates are required to vote to ratify or nullify the proposed platform change. The committee has presented a proposal not an edict. For this reason it is the will of those elected, to vote up or down on this platform CHANGE.
<
p>When would you like to discuss it after you make the change or before? I prefer before the horse is out of the barn and I do encourage others to consider the timing of this, next year will be a nominating convention time to unify behind the nominee not the time to enter into amendment upon amendment to change our platform at the 11th hour. This is the time to iron out this issue, we elected the first Democratic Governor in 16 years with the old platform. Until I see something that is better and reflects the strong commitment I have to this Party I will not support a change.
<
p>It is a delegates right and obligation to vote Yes or No.
<
p>I am openly encouraging a NO vote and at the very least a yes vote on the amendments discussed here and on other forums that improve the namby pamby language found in this proposal. I am not ashamed of being a democrat, nor am I ashamed of what I believe we stand for which has been reflected far better in past platforms then in the one currently up for consideration.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
I support a “No” vote. It’s just the suggestion that the platform be made a binding document of any sort that I disagree with.
…is this suggestion by WouburnDem:
<
p>If I’m not mistaken, this is exactly the purpose of the existing primary election system; that is, voters determine who the best candidate is to represent the Democratic Party and its platform in government.
<
p>I agree that adding language to the platform requiring Democratic Party candidates to support the platform would be unnecessary, because of its redundancy.
This as I go on to suggest was merely a fantasy of mine, not something I was going to propose or have even suggested before this post. It was putting into perspective the need for a document that clearly states the reason goals and purpose of our Democrat Party. Which again I feel this proposal on the table does none of that.
<
p>Again I am not proposing nor suggesting the need to include my wish in this document.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
I’ve been losing my appetite for the convention, too, but I’m going, in order to
<
p>
<
p>There’s an old typing exercise that I never thought would ever mean anything, but this weekend, it will:
<
p>”Now is the time for all good [people] to come to the aid of their party.”
I’ll be joining several other PHENOM (Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts) members who are also delegates in making clear our opposition to the evisceration of the education section, particularly the gutting of clear and specific suport for increased funding for public higher education. Many of us will be voting NO on the draft platform in favor of the existing one.
<
p>A question, though: Can amendments, such as the proposed “Safe Schools” amendment, be approved even if the draft platform is rejected? That is, can we add, for example, the “safe schools” amendment to the existing platform instead of the draft platform?
the other constituencies at the convention, too.
<
p>If people vote no on the watering down of the issues they care about, but vote yes on everything else, then it’s going to be a really, really lousy day — and a spotty platform.
<
p>I, for one, don’t think education should be watered down, or health care, or civil rights, or our commitment to strong unions, the workforce or the environment.
Though I do admit that my highest priority is this education section, which I feel has come up shorter than the other sections in the draft platform.
<
p>It certainly is not the only section to have taken a hit; the entire document has been diluted, and I’m preferring to stick with the existing platform for its clarity and specificity.
According to the ruling from James Roosevelt, the current platform is replaced if a new platform, or “any part thereof” is approved. The boldface is the problem — it seems to imply that if 1 out of X planks of the platform is approved, then the Chair has the right to declare that the whole thing has been adopted.
<
p>In other words, if 9 out of 10 planks are rejected by the convention, even after amendment, then the Chair can declare that this abominable draft is adopted, with one plank as approved by the convention, and nine planks as approved by the Platform Committee.
As I understand it, a new platform is offered to replace the current platform in its entirety. I could not find in either the charter or the bylaws of the MDP a specific method for amendment, just that the convention is empowered to adopt a platform. The question on the main motion is subject to any motion provided for in Robert’s Rules. If the question is divided only those with affirmative votes can be considered part of the new platform. In other words, if the education plank is approved, but healthcare is not, the new platform will address education, but not healthcare. In that sense the “any part thereof” point is correct. The chair cannot, however, declare passed something that clearly did not pass.
<
p>Rather than divide the question amendments would need to be offered one at a time, which is doable if you’re OK with adjourning late into the evening. It is, however, very tedious and the chair and parliamentarian must be very disciplined about only one primary amendment being offered at a time. I would say that “any part thereof” becomes the only approved part, so that if only one plank is agreed to (say education), then that becomes the ONLY issue addressed by the new platform. I assume nobody would favor this scenario. If it looks like this will happen I hope somebody calls the question and the platform is voted down. That way, we at least still have the more comprehensive previous platform. Unfortunately, I don’t believe the rules allow for amendments to the current platform to be offered as main motions from the floor.
In my post that David referenced I have more details. The document that interested readers should review is the Covention Rules which are on page 21 of the Delegate Guide.
<
p>Christopher was looking for a specific method for amendment:
<
p>
<
p>As to the main motion:
<
p>
<
p>There is a quorum requirement.
<
p>
…that the platform is presented as a divided question right from the getgo? That would definitely make a difference. It also sounds like that any rejected planks will automatically revert to current language on the equivalent topic. If I’m correct that sounds much easier. It sounds like with some planks amended, some approved, and some rejected we could end up with a hybrid of current language, proposed language, and amended language depending on the issue.
My understanding is that there’s the process to handle amendments to any plank, with prerequisite requirements for signatures and a copy in the hands of all delegates beforehand, and then a single, up-or-down vote on the resulting platform, as it stands after that process.
I got the word that the above is probably not correct. I don’t have the definitive answer, so I’ll expect to go and see what happens when it happens, I guess.
Demredsox, I wonder why you or any Democrat thinks
<
p>
<
p>Your statement has me rethinking my fantasy here and wondering why not, Is it not the convention that votes to endorse? Why should we not be concerned with a Democrats stands on the platform if they are seeking our acknowledgement and support? Isn’t this the very reason for a platform to candidates who believe as we do to run for office and seek our support? Isn’t the purpose of the platform to suggest to any voter what we hold as important? Are these not our goals? The more and more I think about this process I am forced to wonder if this isn’t just window dressing and for many it holds little or no value in real life but is a veiled attempt to pacify the party activists with something they can point and look to when an elected Democrat fails to honor our wishes? Why have a platform at all if it is not worth the paper it is written on?
<
p>These are important questions that just maybe this current dilemma has brought to light. Maybe we need to look at such things as do we actually stand for any statement whether it is in the old Platform or the new iteration. Do our elected officials who wear the Democratic Label when they put their name on the ballot stand for what we stand for or do they just do it to get elected. Why are we so unwilling to raise this issue to continue the fight for what we believe in, when we put this much effort into the process if we are not going to ask elected Democrats what their view is on it and why if they do not support a stand then why are they running as Democrats.
<
p>I have found some statements in past and present platforms as far reaching yet none I felt the inability to support. This obviously is not true for some Democrats yet clearly they majority in the party have supported the majority otherwise how would we account for the advances we have achieved. Now do not get me wrong this is not the latest attempt at a constitution or a Declaration of Independence I am not suggesting we are in the same ball game but are we not in the same park. I believe we are, and that many of the groups that have come together to support our party with money and volunteerism would not do so if it were not for the issue they hold as important.
<
p>I think the fight brewing for this Saturday is about this very issue. It is our very identity and it is to say to Candidates that these are what we hold as important and what you need to understand in order to receive my/ our (activist majority) support and endorsement short of that are we selling our party out just to claim that the office holder is a Democrat so we win. How big a fraud is that and how do we say to other Democrats that we ask for their support on an issue like gay marriage, or health care for all, even to protect our environment, social justice, and for opportunity through improved education for our children, if we will not stand up for these issues in a clear and simple statement in our platform
<
p>No I think this is a critical fight we face it is the future of our Party it is our justification for standing firm and to expect that those we have and will support will and should hold the same high ideals we do. The Platform is important even if it just sits in a draw because it reflects what is in our activist hearts.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion