(ed note: Added video of old Markey ad: “The bosses can tell me where to sit, but they can’t tell me where to stand.” – C)
For a time “The 17″ voted as a block and drew strength from one another, standing up to Thomas Finneran. I worked with them on access to justice issues in 2003-2004. At times one ‘member’ or the other of the 17 was stuck in a leaky office in the basement, or stripped of staff.
As of now, all of them are either in leadership, state senators, or co-opted/beat down with some level of ‘leadership’ position that pays a little more. I do not see any group that works together in the Massachusetts House to have any independence or work for issues that are truly ‘democratic” with capital “D” or small D. Moving ALL “cram it down their throats” alleged discussions of the budget out of public view into Room 328 and eliminating cable coverage of the Massachusetts House helped bludgeon the members into submission in my opinion.
Massachusetts has plenty of house cleaning to do itself, and the abject nature of democratic politics and the so-called Democratic Party in Massachusetts has a lot to do with the abysmal voting numbers and swelling ranks of unenrolled voters. The Massachusetts legislature also voted itself immune to all “Freedom of Information Act” rules, laws, and requests and is largely not subject to procurement oversight. I think all of this is part of why the last 3 Speakers of the Massachusetts House have left under indictment. Too much consolidation of power and too little oversight.
All of this causes me to fondly remember when Markey was a Representative, and after going head to head with the Speaker who dominated the House during his term reportedly famously said, “You can tell me where to sit, you cannot tell me how to vote.” There is a wonderful old campaign video of his I wish I could link you to! He actually had a desk in the hallway and no office for a while, to my recollection at least. So my support for Markey has deep roots.
I volunteered on Ed Markey’s 1976 campaign for Congress and still have his original button that I wear at all our reunions. His brilliant TV ad in response to leadership throwing his desk into the hallway was : ” The bosses may tell me where to sit. No one tells me where to stand.”
Remember
For those who don’t, here’s a reminder from the September 26, 2004 Boston Globe:
One little primary. That’s all it took to send a flock of chickens scampering full speed toward support of marriage equality.
If we want a progressive agenda, the path is simple. It’s called a Democratic primary win.
Here is a link to the 1976 campaign video.
With some assistance from the editors, I’m sure this can be embedded in the thread-starter.
Great idea! I will ask Tom
I would count it a victory if many of the 17 who stood up to Finneran are now in leadership themselves. PLEASE remember that the Mass. Dem Party does not make legislative rules. I blame the rise of unenrolleds on the fact that they can choose a primary and very few people see participation in a party as enough of an incentive. You want more Dems (and yes, maybe more GOPers)? – Close the primaries!
I attribute – not “blame” the rise in unenrolled voters not to “closed primaries” but to disgust with both political parties. From talking to folks, they see the legislature as looking out for itself and its members – and the sort of thing where a legislator or former legislator doubles or triples at UMASS as expected carnal behavior. Also, most of us do not feel heard, listened to, or like our input matters. I still remember the phoney baloney “budget hearings” where input was ignored, the Platform Hearings where input was ignored – and watch the Democratic Party’s state platform be ignored routinely and without any shame by elected legislators and other officials – and resolutions get ignored too. As much fun as it was to assist in getting a resolution passed to “bring back civics” I expected it to be ignored. So becoming unenrolled is a way to vote with one’s feet and say “I am sick of all of you.” With elections decided by an 8% voting rate Christopher I see no “glee” or motivation in open primaries. I see global disgust. And Brian Dempsey’s open disrespect for those who elected him and for honest government is all of a piece, and fits right in. Closed primaries would not bring back unenrolled voters into voting or participation – that would be seen as one more sign of insiders not caring a hoot about the ordinary citizen or voters.
And dare I tell you Civics is not required or one of the subjects tested to get your diploma – or even a class that is available, still? It has been almost 30 years now in this state since Civics was taught as a basic part of preparing future citizens to understand their government.
AP has the best takes on state politics on BMG in awhile. Keep them up!
All closing primaries will do is make sure the remainder of independent minded legislators get voted off of Beacon Hill by the party insiders who dominate closed primaries in other states. Letting the unebrolled vote in Democratic primaries forces our leaders to appeal to them and helps them win the general. A closed primary would by nothing but Clintons, Coakleys and Boncores. What a disaster that would be.
Instead of wasting money on Liz Warren donate to PM. Instead of wasting money on the DCCC and DSCC donate to Our Revolution which has already succeeded in primarying a DINO with a progressive at the state level in MA. Far more energy at an indivisible meeting than the local DTC, far more energy at the People’s Summit than any state convention. Meet the voters where they are-it’s what the smart churches are doing. MDP is like my church, gotta jump through every hoop and ladder just to take communion and get baptized. It’s time we become low church evangelists for our party!
Also in many ways these folks are failing upward. I am grateful for our progressive senate but it is shameful that their main argument is “I can be myself there/I can do more good there”. How about banding together to do something now in the House? There are supposedly 40 of them, here times all the Republicans. Surely they can be a kingmaker on some votes.
Maybe if Sean Garbelley stood up to DeLeo every now and then, he’d be in the upper chamber instead of stuck where he is. Ditto Marjorie Decker who is eyeing Sals seat when the Capuano domino falls in 2020. Or Barber eyeing Jehlens. These two have the same voting records as a Paula Brodeur or Denise Garelick in the burbs, representing seats that used to belong to real fighters who’ve either moved up or cashed out.
The irony is their actions help re-elect Baker who is DeLeos best friend on the Hill, but who Joe Unenrolled erroneously thinks is a check.
Jconway – spot on.; I wish I saw the equivalent of a
Rushing 17 bloc but there is nothing like it. Not even a whiff.
I need to push back on this, as you need to maneuver within the world of possibilities. I don’t think the House leadership is so stupid to repeat the Markey desk move, and it really isn’t an effective strategy unless your desired outcome is a seat in the US House of Representatives. Garballey pushes the envelope as far as it will go without becoming totally marginalized by the leadership. The current state of the Massachusetts House of Representatives cannot be laid at the feet of Arlington and West Medford voters, nor should Arlington and West Medford be expected to pay the price of legislative animosity in order to be the squeaky wheel.
We can’t blame the progressives who are trying to work within the system, we need to challenge the progressives who sit around and do nothing while their entrenched representative runs unopposed in every election cycle.
But I WANT people to pick a side! So many of them have their preferences anyway and I don’t have a lot of patience for the too cool for parties attitude. There’s nothing that inherently keeps closed primaries insidery. It’s just as easy procedurally to register with a party as to register unenrolled. (VERY surprised you downrated my earlier comment, BTW.)
It’s taught, but I agree not nearly enough, and yes, it gets neglected as a result of not being MCAS-tested.
Party Platform…….what a joke. I attended the convention and wondered why there was all the fuss about another platform that the elected representatives would ignore. I also noticed a number of representatives absent from the convention They need us to GOTV and campaign funding drives….but after that, we’re just tossed aside. .
Was my comment THAT offensive or out of line? I don’t usually get THREE downrates, especially from two of the three who did:(
Not “offensive”, Christopher, just dead wrong and needing to receive feedback to say you were dead wrong and continue the discussion as to the harm done by DINOs, insiders, craven electeds, and business as usual. I am 100% convinced based on my data set and 50 years experience that insider politics would be made more entrenched and voter disgust amplified by closed primaries. Further, the abuse of the grassroots party regulars by the elite insiders is part of why unenrolled voters are a majority and part of why nationwide the Democrats have not been able to win special elections. This is not a Massachusetts only problem. I happen to believe that the nation may be ripe for new parties because the two party entrenched system is so unresponsive and in the small “d” sense, so undemocratic. Anyone who advocates for closed primaries and strengthening the strangle grip of party insiders on the party “apparatus” will get a downgrade from me. Not personal. Based on the opinion and information I have.
OK, I believe in robust primaries within the parties to strengthen them and make them more responsive. If you lean left work with the Dems; if you lean right, the GOP. Then the two winners go head to head in a battle of ideas with a clear winner. I’d be more open to more parties if we had IRV. Again, the grip only tightens if voters let it. In my experience primaries would actually benefit the base more than DINOs/RINOs, which granted has its drawbacks as well. I realize nobody can control the ratings another commenter gives, but usually that many downrates on the same comment is the treatment someone gets for trolling or being obtuse so I was a bit taken aback.
My reason for the downrating was two fold and not personal in the slightest. Just a strong disagreement. You hold to two conflicting ideals.
The first, that any progressive activity must be done the proper way through the MDP and it’s arcane channels. You insist it is welcoming to all but anyone who points out that their local DTC is shitty, that the MSC is always poorly organized and a waste of time, and that participating in either is really hard for newcomers gets a polite lecture from you on why the way things are is the way things should be. Second, that the MDP has zero power or relevance to affect the legislature and their sins shouldn’t reflect the MDP.
It’s rather circular.
Either the MDP is the end all be all of activism and it’s worth jumping through all the hoops or it’s a completely useless organization to participate in. It cannot be both simultaneously.
And I would argue the way to reform it is to make it incredibly easy to participate in and make it incredibly relevant to lawmakers. Right now it is neither. No Democratic Speaker should be allowed to boycott it, that shows you how irrelevant most of the leadership thinks it. I won’t say who, but a prominent state senator told me that the platform the MDP passes might as well be toilet paper to the majority on Beacon Hill. If I were in your shoes, I would find that sentiment incredibly demeaning to all the time and sweat equity you and your colleagues have given to the MDP and I would work like a madman to give it clout. And clout comes through numbers, and numbers come from new blood coming in. I think you will only get that if you work with the outside groups and learn from their best practices.
The truth is I have been one to do my share of pointing out that some local committees don’t do much. Unfortunately my own city committee has been one of them, but we are finally slowly working on that and I am running for chair in a special election this fall with the goal of turning the committee around. I have rolled my eyes a bit when it sounds like someone didn’t put in the slightest effort, but I’ve also tried to explain processes as well (including a whole diary about entry-level participation at your suggestion not too long ago). I also haven’t been shy about pointing out DSC flaws and I can already see some improvements with our new chair. I never said the party was the only vessel for progressive activity, just that when the rubber hits the road in terms of an actual election we are ultimately a two-party system and anything else is likely to be unsuccessful. I am upset by the attitude your describe in your last paragraph and advocated for an enforcement mechanism on the platform, which can really only be withholding resources since by law voters, including unenrolleds get to decide our nominees. I suppose I do get/sound a bit defensive at times, but I think that comes from my own feelings of helplessness in this regard too – sorry about that. The DSC is itself a 400+ member big tent with many members quite loyal to some of the legislators others of us complain about. It tends to move at a pace of other large institutions, which is to say not very fast. If you have specific suggestions as to how to make the party more efficient I’d be happy to hear them, but with no guarantees I will agree.
I greatly appreciated your primer and actually shared it with some people heading to the convention. Put something slightly easier to understand on the website with maybe an internet graphic and you’re in the 21st century. Actively working with those organizations I mentioned to coordinate joint activities is a great way to be relevant with the progressive grassroots and get them to work with the official organ of the party more often. Anything that makes participating simple and easy.
My brother, a lay pastor of a church plant, just went to a weeklong conference for his denomination in Anaheim along with his wife and kids. They had a blast! There was 24/7 childcare and age appropriate activities for the kids teaching them about their roles and even worship sessions for kids led by kids. A lot of lay speakers were able to talk and make resolutions that people voted on. It was in an air conditioned and handicapped accessible hotel with ample food and bathroom access and they used all the conference rooms for breakout sessions to discuss different ideas in the denomination. How to’s on Church Planting, Mission Work Abroad and in the Inner City, Young Adult Education and Involvement, Social and Community Justice, Environmental Stewardship, etc.
Imagine if we had DTC planting or reviving 101’s, Canvassing 101, Candidate Training, Youth Activities, Youth Led Sessions, Active Communal Acitivites, Childcare, Air conditioning and handicap access, somewhere friendly and down home and not a huge arena. I think there’s a lot of best practices we can learn from growing organizations whether they are churches, corporate groups, TED talks, or even other organizations attracting more active and engaged participants. Think outside the box.
I smiled at your second paragraph because the other side of my life is the United Church of Christ and we have those discussions too. Child care is worth trying, but I’ve seen that not taken advantage of too. Your final paragraph seems to pretty closely describe a Democratic Campaign Institute, which we are finally bringing back in January 2018 in Lowell after a few years hiatus, though we have had smaller trainings all along. I’m pretty sure our conventions have all been air conditioned and party rules require that all party activities be accessible. Obviously we do need space to accommodate the size of convention. New Hampshire conventions fit into a high school auditorium, but if we cut way back on convention size I’m sure we’d get complaints of exclusivity from that angle too. There is in fact a fair bit of cross-pollination among like-minded groups and in Lowell we are working on enhancing that locally too.
Yeah my wife’s been to a few annual conferences in the UMC that sound awfully like people’s experience in the MSC. The church where she’s working is a joint ABC/UCC congregation and it literally takes a committee to change a lightbulb.
For all of my friends who think ranked-choice voting is panacea, consider all this hacking of the electoral system. Add to that a voting outcome that depends on a machine tallying some sophisticated recalculation based on ranked choice ballots. This can only lead to further erosion of confidence in our voting system.
The way to solve all the problems described is to make several electoral reforms.
Reform 1: Move the state primary from September to June. The September primary is an incumbent protection act. When we vote the week after Labor Day, challengers have a difficult time getting the attention of vacationing voters. Nobody pays attention to state politics in July and August (except for the geeks reading this post).
Reform 2. Admit we are a one party state. If a sleepy Democratic party is tantamount to election, and the incumbents have a structural advantage, put viable candidates in the mix for the general election where there is more participation. The best method for doing that would be the “Top Two” primary system used in California. In heavily Democratic districts, the net result is likely to be two Democrats on the ballot for the general election.
We run many of our local elections in this manner. Why not expand this common sense approach to expanding voter participation to our state elections as well.
I’m less concerned about hacking as making voting too complicated. I know people who don’t vote in Cambridge elections because it’s too hard to research and rank dozens of candidates.
I would find it difficult to vote in Cambridge. I have several friends who are elected officials (council, school committee) in Cambridge, and I would certainly want to vote for all of them. This approach leads to strategic voting at its worst. You need to guess how well your chosen candidates will do in the election so you can strategically rank your choices to get one of your preferred candidates “over the threshold” and into office.
Plus, Cambridge’s system places some level of randomness into the vote count. Let’s say my first choice is someone who has more votes than needed to get elected in the first count. Will my vote be applied to my first choice candidate, or will my vote be surplus and moved to my second choice?
There is a precinct lottery to determine the order of the count. Robert Winters offers a description of the process on his excellent web page.
And technically it’s a single vote for a single seat. The Chronicle, canvassers and even some incumbent candidates routinely get this concept wrong. It’s not nine votes for nine seats but one vote for one seat. Each councilor technically represents the whole city but is elected by a ninth of it. In theory this is supposed to ensure a proportional number of women and people of color. In practice, it has left some neighborhoods and community groups out in the political cold-sometime for decades. A mixture of wards and at large with two runoffs like Worcester and the top at large becoming Mayor like Worcester would be far better. Robert and I have long disagreed on this, though he is a font of knowledge.
Cambridge is an STV-PR system which is technically different than an IRV race. IRV is for a single seat race. With the reintroduction of slates to the political landscape, PR now actually functions the way it was supposed too but I cannot argue it is still far too complicated for the average voter to understand. Even in a city full of PhDs
Pablo, you’ve swayed me to this reform. A non-partisan jungle primary basically would codify into law what the majority of Massachusetts voters already believe. That they occasionally want a Republican Governor, and otherwise vote Democratic no matter their party registration. I think the conservative critique that the GOP would be shut out wouldn’t happen at the statewide level, and it might be the kick in the ass they need to spur them out of their delusion the majority of Massachusetts voters are closet conservatives. It would likely spur many Massachusetts Democrats out of their complacency as well. It would make third parties relevant by removing the spoiler effect and giving them a real opportunity to advance to the next round in some districts over the GOP.
Looking at some past races we see how this arguably benefits a lot of stakeholders currently hurt by the status quo. In the 2016 First Suffolk & Middlesex Senate Special, it is likely that Edwards, Chang, and Livingstone supporters would have coalesced around the top progressive Livingstone while Rizzo voters would’ve gone to Boncore making it a real race, instead of a victory for Boncore with just 25% of the vote.
In 2014 Governors race it is likely that the Berwick supporters Evan Falchuk* was courting might have come to him in the first round as an anti-Coakley protest rather than stick with a candidate they didn’t like. They could have done this without throwing the election to Baker**. Similarly, Fischer would’ve been on the same ballot as Baker in that round and been soundly eliminated along with Scott Lively giving Baker more room to move to the middle in the general.
Where the GOP might object is that it’s less likely we get a Scott Brown or Gabriel Gomez in the final if the second round is a de facto all Democrat primary, but this does not mean they are shut out from the process. Had Republicans strategically voted for Lynch over Markey in that particular race, they might have gotten a marginally more conservative Senator than the current incumbent. Brown would’ve been in third after Capuano or Coakley judging strictly by their primary totals, but his endorsement arguably becomes meaningful to either candidate. Additionally, it is likely that this spurs higher primary turnout on the Republican side to ensure they make the cut.
I think the CA and LA rules are if the top vote getter doesn’t get 50%, so this would not have affected the most recent special election in Arlington. We know Prince Bill would cite costs of added elections as the main barrier to this reform. It is the reform likeliest to pass and work in the real world, even if IRV works better on paper. It’ll increase competition, increase primary turnout, and decrease incumbent protection. It’ll make third party’s relevant and help them actually compete in elections they can win, while making their endorsement vital in races where they can’t. It’ll force Republicans to work harder in their primaries and nominate more moderate nominees appealing to unenrolled voters.
*worked for him in 2016, but not for that campaign
**Mo Cunningham showed statistically that Falchuk drew evenly from either main party candidate and was not technically a spoiler. No doubt that perception hurt candidate recruitment efforts. Other MA third party leaders we worked with on ballot access issues confirmed the same problem.
Never mind Falchuk, with a top two primary we might have ended up with a Berwick – Coakley final.
In the case of the Arlington special election, we had a Democratic primary with:
Cindy Friedman 7,075
Sean Garballey 6,309
Mary Ann Stewart 511
The general election will be
Cindy Friedman (D)
Ian Jackson (Green-Rainbow)
Under a “top two” system, you would have Jackson on the first primary ballot, and a final race between Friedman and Garballey, not Friedman and Jackson. Much better outcome.
Note that in California, the top two candidates advance to the general election, even if they get more than 50% in the primary.
Thanks for correcting my Arlington example. I figured I should’ve looked that one up rather than going by memory! And didn’t Berwick get third? Certainly a possibility in any event. The only other downside is if if our races get super negative and expensive like the California ones and divert money that could be spent on national races.
Unopposed elections are cheap. Highly contested elections are expensive. You really can’t have greater democracy in Massachusetts and simultaneously reserve resources to ship out-of-state.
As for the Coakley-Berwick-Baker thing, changing the rules would lead to changed outcomes. A strong Democrat may have seen an opportunity to place second in an open primary, where second in a party primary takes you off the November ballot, so the contestants could also change.
The problem I see with this is if you have 2 Republicans and 4 Dems running in a 60-40 Dem leaning district. Lets say the 4 Dems split the 60% evenly and each end up with 15% and the 2 GOPers split the 40% evenly and end up with 20% each. Now you have a top-two general with both Republicans in a district that prefers a Democrat by comfortable margins.
That is a theoretical possibility, but the probability of two Republicans and 4 Democrats evenly dividing their respective votes is very low. However, if this happens, you will generally get a correction in two years as the outcome is unlikely to repeat. If a Republican prevails in a predominantly Democratic district, the Republican is not likely to gain a strong primary challenger from the GOP, and Democrats should be strategic enough to (at least) partially coalesce in the next cycle.
Not to mention that Republican would still need to be moderate enough to win over sizable amounts of unenrolled voters and some Democrats to even get to this point-and certainly to remain viable going forward. I’m fine with that since it forces both parties to compete for all voters in both elections which should reduce the likelihood of right wing extremists on their side and musical chair advancement on ours.
And switching to a French style jungle primary at the presidential level would be even more fun*. You certainly wouldn’t have Trump in that scenario, and it’s less likely a Sanders and third party supporters would feel butt hurt about backing Clinton in the final.
*and far less constitutional-Le sigh
Um, I’m not an expert on French election procedures, but didn’t Marine Le Pen advance to the final round in the recent election?
Where she was resoundingly defeated by everyone elsewhere coalescing around Macron. If Johnson, Stein, and Bernie are eliminated in a first round runoff, Trump loses. The idea is the first round is where you vote your passions and get them out of your system, hence the high finishes for LePen and Melenchon. The second round is when you choose a President.
IRV at the presidential level would of course have the same effect in a single election, I just don’t see it getting adopted in the US. Live runoffs are easier for voters to comprehending and the CA reform has largely lead to higher turnout without entirely shutting the GOP out.
The issue now is that we only have competitive elections in low turnout specials after retirements and if the field is crowded the winner can win with a minority of the vote. This would solve both problems by making both rounds competitive raising turnout and ensuring the winner of the last round has a real majority.
While Pablo is lcorrect that third parties are less likely to make it to the general under this system, it seems they are more likely to attract higher levels of support in the first round which would meet their viability threshold and possibly increase their kingmaking power. Any downsides would be mitigated by the upsides.
I prefer IRV to mitigate the minority of the vote issue, but I don’t think there is anything inherently depressing turnout in the current system. Besides, if the top two candidates end up being of the same party, won’t many voters abstain because they see them as two sides of the same coin, especially if they are both of the party opposite the voter’s preference?
That’s not how it’s played out in CA or LA. Sanchez made a play for conservative voters, as did Howard Berman in the Berman-Sherman showdown. Both coming from the center right on some foreign and economic questions. It didn’t work for them, but it may have worked in some congressional races.
Joe Bel Edwards wouldn’t be our only Deep South Democratic governor without the jungle primary. Republicans split and he ended up being the anti-Vitter candidate and picked up a lot of support. That’s also how David Duke got defeated in 90′. Thad Cochran actually had to campaign for black votes to win his runoff a few years ago and owes his seat to them. It makes for strange bedfellows and far higher voter turnout for both phases.
So in 2010 maybe turnout is slightly higher for Brown in the primary phase since right leaning voters want to put him over the top. In 2013 maybe right leaning voters defect to Lynch in a Lynch-Markey primary. In 2014 maybe third party voters go for Coakley after round 1.