The convention was there funnelled into the more painful procedure of per-plank amendments plus resolutions. In the end, this may have worked OK or better. There was a vote to reject casino slots, after all. Of course, that could have been added to the older, better previous platform as well.
Amusingly enough, Walsh managed the plethora of proposals, proponents and opponents well, He did a much better job on the votes than on the initial platform one. On several, when it was unclear which side would win, he went through voice vote to hands up to stand up. He should have done that with the whole-platform vote and satisfied the delegates.
He was very efficient in calling the question when there were only proponents of an amendment or resolution to speak, pushing the sausage makings into the casing quickly. After his initial clumsiness, he got the hang of it.
To Sabutai's comments, a larger question is whether the new attitude of the party big shots is to shy from strong positions. Does their idea of attracting and keeping voters mean not risking offending anyone? Considering yesterday's very vocal feedback from delegates, did Walsh and his minions learn that a progressive state wants a progressive platform?
There are other messy details when considering our local party too. For one, it's far from the majority of voters. Almost exactly half of Massachusetts registered voters are unenrollled in any party. If the Dems represented what most Bay Staters believe, that would not be so.
Moreover, both pols and voters include many DINOs. For politicians, that makes sense. If the party in power, strongly in power by number of elected officials, is Democrat, calling themselves that gets them a better chance at being on the ballot, getting party money and getting elected or re-elected. Yet we have seen many, particularly House members, who are so conservative or worse on fundamental issues that you have to ask how they can align with this party.
Like many states, we have areas, particularly suburban and exurban ones, that are far more conservative than the population centers. Most of those states elect Republicans to many of those districts though.
The buzz around me on the convention floor echoed that of some of the speakers. They wanted some leadership, reflecting Patrick and Obama's progressive stances at least. A typical comment was that if you can't say progressive things in a progressive state's party platform, where can you?
Cross-post: This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.
“If the Dems represented what most Bay Staters believe, that would not be so.”
<
p>Dems may well represent what most Bay Staters believe, as evidenced by actual election results, which are ultimately more important for governing than party registration numbers. These days, the “cool” thing is to be unenrolled because then you can feel that you are “above” the percieved pettiness and insidership of party politics. You can say you vote for the person not the party. To be honest, if all I were going to do is vote rather than be a political activist I might take that route myself. One way to remedy this if it is something that chould be remedied is to close our primaries and make people choose a side. Right now there is no downside to being unenrolled because you can still vote in the primary, which is more likely in our state to be contested on the Democratic side.
To have a progressive platform. Also the fact that the vague language encourages DINO’s which in my opinion weaken the part not strengthen it. Still I am not sure we are focused on the underlying issue that struck me as I was reading this thread. That is you need to ask who wrote this platform was it John Walsh? was it the committee of State Committee members and a few former Politiacl Leaders? or was there a third party involved who wanted to soften the tone for their own benefit?
<
p>I don’t Know the answer maybe someone does but we did accomplish to strengthen the document substantially witht he amendments passed and this may set the tougher tone many were looking for.
<
p>I will suggest to anyone and for many who have been around the block a few times the Chairman did a fine job considering the amount of tension in the Hall and the unusual circumstance we found ourselves in.
<
p>Their are no clear rules of how to accomplish what we did yesterday I can not find any of the rules in the charter or in prior platforms. Yes Roberts rules do deal with certain issues but no the specifics of what took place. So John as well as most of us found ourselves on new ground and considering that fact I think it went as well as anyone could have imagined. With the exception of the results of the first vote.
<
p>to repeat my earlier post do we need to define and set rules in order to do this in a more orderly fashion in the future yes I think we do even as an amendment of the Charter to accomplish such. I would volunteer to look at the process and develop rules for the future.
<
p>Such as how many signatures we need to move and issue.
<
p>How the vote should be conducted
<
p>How we move to suspend the rules and for what reasons
<
p>when in doubt how to challenge and how to determine a proper outcome.
<
p>Worth wild thinking about but considering the short time table we had I think it was a real accomplishment and a well run convention.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
I was surprised to discover prior to the convention that aside from empowering the convention to adopt a platform, there is nothing in either the charter or bylaws outlining HOW that is to be done.
Regarding the platform fight, I noticed two trends:
<
p>
<
p>I believe very strongly in the big tent — but we need some tentpoles to hold the roof up. One thing that several people mentioned to me was ho hard it will be for people to run against entrenched incumbents on the charge that they do not adhere to the party platform.
…that in a hall full of people, some of whom are delegates, some not…an decision this important is left to a voice vote. Platforms are really not important, except to the people that care about them. Meaning that there is a significant part of the activist base that does care what we stand for and by making it look like the fix was in…the Party suffers. John Walsh will need our help next year getting the Governor re-elected. Why not the activist base have their day on the platform? Why make it that much harder to get excited about the next four years? Especially after it looks like our leadership on all corners on Beacon Hill are doing their best to resurrect the opposition from the Republicans.
The problem with the idea that we should have voted to reinstate the old platform was that it was not up to date. There was nothing in it about Global Warming. There was no energy plank at all. Several other issues were unaddressed. And the rules of the party – for better or worse – are that you need 250 signatures for a specific amendment. Thus, if we had accepted the old platform, we would have not been able to amend it at all. As it was, all the progressive amendments went in by voice vote and very quickly.