I read on MassLive that the party is considering offering candidates two chances to get 15% of the convention delegates in order to make the primary ballot. My first thought is that the system is fine as it is — I’m not interested in a candidate who can’t do the grassroots work of showing up at caucuses in order to reach that threshold. But I’m very interested in reactions here.
The article: Massachusetts Democrats Propose Rule Change
Please share widely!
Ryan says
To my knowledge, there’s only been one candidate in recent memory who failed to get 15% of the votes for ballot access. That to me speaks to a system that works. The natural inclination of many people attending the convention is to grant people access; any candidate who fails at that 15% almost certainly isn’t a serious candidate.
No one is entitled to get on the ballot if they run in a party, just by showing up. By running for a party, you are first running to represent that party and must abide by its rules. If they are uncomfortable with the process, they are welcome to face none of the added steps of running as a Democrat and instead run as an independent, only needing signatures to get on the ballot.
thinkliberally says
It’s worth noting that Gabrieli made it on the ballot in ’06 by the hair of his teeth (.6% I think?). He did it not because of any “grassroots” effort, but because I think party officials feared the publicity debacle if he’d failed to get on the ballot by .6%. As I recall leading up to that convention Jon Keller claimed to have a smoking gun (which turned out to be nothing of the sort) of a Patrick campaign email trying to keep Gabrieli and Reilly off the ballot.
I only write this to note that it might be worth revisiting rules to prevent this kind of thing happening. Given the choice between that and the scenario from 2002 where everyone helped each other get on, the latter seems preferable.
I have no sympathy, however, for candidates (who shall remain nameless) who show up to a convention having done no work, and act like they are owed a spot on the ballot. So that’s the tough line to navigate.
Ryan says
he did absolutely nothing to deserve to get on the ballot, only declaring his candidacy very shortly before the convention to begin with, walking in there and expecting to get on the ballot by the virtue of being him — and saying that, the party still bent over backwards to ensure he got on the ballot anyway.
Kinda proves my point.
thinkliberally says
I believe he got in a week before the caucuses, and spent the next three months focussed on signature drives, and working towards his 15%. He made the mistake of not getting (m)any Gabrieli-committed delegates elected at the caucuses, so had to rely on the add-on process and pitching the undecideds. I won’t say he did no work. He obviously didn’t do enough work. If the work he had done had been enough to get him 14%, or 13%, or even 12%, do you think it would have been right that he not be on the ballot? Reilly was in the low 20s. As Bob points out in his promotion note, 15 seems somewhat random.
Trickle up says
eventually, but made the mistakes that you say.
Had he failed to win 15 he would not have been entitled to go forward, and I do not mean that in a purely formal sense.
Here’s the thing about arbitrary rules: they are arbitrary. Do you think 10 percent would be better/fairer/wiser/less “random?” (12? 8? 18? What’s the magic number?)
Why? Make substantive arguments in favor of an alternative, i am all ears.
or we could just say, Anyone who wants can be on the ballot. Not.
hlpeary says
If the 1 ballot to get 15% rule were in place in ’82, John Kerry would not have been on the ballot for Lt. Governor. Also, when Congressman Capuano ran for Secretary of State, he failed to get 15% of delegates and did not make the ballot. When Tim Cahill. Mike Cahill, Steve Murphy etal ran for Treasurer…the convention had run way over time, delegates wanted to go home, they did not want multiple ballots to determine which candidates had reached the 15%…so they allowed a hands-up vote from the Chair, with the Chair determining the outcome: which of course was to let them all on the ballot…everyone went home happy…so much for rules.
hlpeary says
Let’s say no one gets 15% on first ballot…could happen…what if there are 6 or 7 candidates for a particular office…if no one breaks the 15% mark, would we let all Democrats across the state make the decision?
I think that would be a good idea anyway…conventions cost quite a lot, eat up candidates funds for no apparent benefit other than to stroke the local poobahs with parties, trinkets, videos, etc…if a person can collect 10,000 certifiable signatures from Democrats statewide, I think they should be on the ballot and let ALL Democrats statewide decide who they want to carry the banner into the final.
Ryan says
a genetic mutation formed in pigs and they grew wings?
judy-meredith says
flying pigs ineed….
judy-meredith says
n/t
stomv says
Had the 15 percent rule been in place in 1982, the candidates and the delegates would have behaved differently than they did, and the outcome is entirely unclear.
It doesn’t make sense to magically change one rule of a rule-based process back in time, and pretend that all of the actors in the game would have played exactly the same hand.
fenway49 says
for the analysis. Minus 1/4 because “poppycock” is rude. Plus 1/4 for use of “poppycock,” which is always humorous.
kbusch says
the 15% rule is a means of keeping the Democratic Party anchored. With open primaries and all, there is nothing to prevent, say, a candidate getting the nod of both the GOP and the Democrats.
marcus-graly says
You need to be a Democrat to get on the Democratic primary ballot. If you win the primary through a sticker campaign, there’s no such requirement.
A state elections official told me a story of someone running for county office in Dukes (ie. the Vineyard), who managed to get the nomination of the Democratic, Republican and Green-Rainbow parties, since the write-in requirement is only 25 votes there. Apparently it was quite a struggle to design a ballot that listed all three affiliations.
annewhitefield says
If you are selected at a caucus to support someone, then one ballot is enough. More ballots just leads to back room deals. And everyone should be dedicated to one candidate not two. Changing the rules now just smells bad. And after the Wolf ethics thing, I am all for being suspicious of motivations for changes or rulings that are done in the course of an election season and not otherwise…
kate says
I started to write a comment, but it got so long that I made a separate post. Please check it out. I am a voting member of the DSC so I have an obligation to make an informed vote on this on September 7. I’d like to hear your thoughts.
sue-kennedy says
voted their disapproval of the rules change. Hope the State Committee Members are listening. Too man members of the Acton delegation remember 2002 lasting till 11 pm, when the few delegates left standing just voted to affirm the Treasurer candidates. This prevented someone asking for a roll call vote and finding out there was no longer a quorum present. In that case none of the Treasurer candidates would have received 15% required for ballot access.
Be careful what you wish for.