Dem Convention: Cracking down on no-shows

So, where were all of the delegates?

Yesterday, I noted that Senator John Kerry might have had a chance of getting the 85% he was hoping for if more of his committed supporters--specifically elected office-holders--had attended the convention and cast their votes in his favor. I was wrong. Looking more closely at the numbers, challenger Ed O'Reilly got 579 votes, which would have been good enough for more than 15% even if all 3,500 delegates had voted (he would have needed just 525). So O'Reilly was going to be on the ballot regardless of any missing delegates. But the fact that there were over 900 no-shows at the convention is troubling.

If the delegation from the Worcester and Middlesex district was any indication, those of us from the small towns took our responsibility to the party more seriously that Democrats in larger cities. All four of Lancaster's delegates were in attendance; all three of Westminster's delegates were there; all three of us from Sterling showed up (although we weren't perfect either; we had four seats allocated to us and only filled three of them at the caucus). In fact, Bolton seated four delegates even though they are only allocated three seats; because there were no-shows from other towns the Bolton alternate was seated. In contrast, just five of Fitchburg's 25 delegates attended; only one of Clinton's 13 delegates were in the arena, and amazingly, just one of Leominster's 28 delegates bothered to make the trip.

I would estimate that only 40% of the delegates allocated to the district were in attendance Saturday. Frankly, that's embarrassing. Though I don't have numbers from the other 39 districts, since a total of 74% of all of the delegates voted, our district must have been one of the worst attended of all. (Anecdotal evidence suggests that other delegations also had attendance problems. David S. Bernstein at The Phoenix reported that there was a paucity of delegates from Boston as well.)

Certainly some of the delegates who missed the convention had excellent reasons to do so. For instance, Representative Hank Naughton of Clinton was training with his Army Reserve unit. But I suspect that many other absentees missed the convention for less urgent reasons.

The Massachusetts Democratic Party should take steps to ensure that all conventions are well attended, including off-year elections such as this one. To increase participation, I propose two changes. First, the party should only hold conventions in even-numbered years. So called "issues conventions"--those in odd-numbered years--are sparsely attended and expensive. A bi-yearly convention schedule would make the one off-year convention more meaningful by increasing the number of issues to be discussed. It would save the delegates and the party money. The party could look at innovative ways to continue participation in odd-numbered years, such as holding a virtual convention or sponsoring and encouraging events at the district level.

The second change would encourage cities and towns to send delegates who are committed to attend the convention by penalizing those committees that do not fill their delegations. I propose that the party reduce the number of delegates allotted to a city or town by half the number of no-shows at the previous convention (rounded down).

For instance, the Clinton Democratic Town Committee is allotted 12 committee-level delegates (the 13th Clinton delegate is State Representative Naughton). Since 11 of the 12 delegates to the 2008 convention did not attend, the Clinton delegation to the 2010 convention would be reduced by 5 delegates (half of 11 is 5.5, rounded down to 5). Delegates would still be allocated on the basis of the town's turnout to the 2008 election as they are currently, but after the delegates are allocated the delegation would be reduced by the five delegate penalty.

Would that be harsh? Perhaps, but knowing that the delegation would be reduced in future years by no-shows would be a pretty strong incentive for city and town caucuses to elect delegates who will actually attend. If the local committees had been told before the caucuses in February that they would lose delegates to the 2010 convention--where all of the state offices will be up for nomination--if delegates missed Saturday's convention, how many more delegates would have attended? Would Democrats in Leominster send just one out of 24 committee-level delegates (the other four are either elected reps. or state committee members) if it meant losing 11 votes in 2010? No way.

In an effort to keep a set number of delegates in each delegation, cities and towns who field full slates would gain bonus delegates from those committees that are penalized. For instance, as a reward for filing a full slate Bolton, Lancaster, and Westminster would each gain a couple of the delegates Leominster gives back.

However it works out, the state party needs to find a way to make the off-year conventions as well-attended as the convention to nominate the slate of state-wide candidates.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 Democratic Convention

Dem Convention: Voting my Conscience

In the end, when they called my name to vote for the nomination for senator, I switched my vote to John Kerry. I had planned to vote for challenger Ed O'Reilly because I believe that the 3,500 or so delegates at the convention shouldn't invalidate the will of the 10,000 plus voters who signed the papers to put him on the ballot. I was not going to be part of any effort to keep O'Reilly off. But over the 18 hours leading up to the vote, I had a change of heart.

The doubts began to creep in as the O'Reilly party on Friday night. I arrived at the Doubletree Hotel right exactly at 5:00, the time the party was scheduled to begin. As I walked from the parking garage, I noticed O'Reilly people unloading huge signs from trucks and carrying them into the lobby. At 5:00. As the party was supposed to begin. I figured there was no sense in me heading straight to the event (since they apparently were still setting up) so I hung out in the lobby, checked my phone messages, admired the view of the canal from the patio, looked to see if they had free Internet in the business center (they did not) and then went on up about 20 minutes after 5:00. As I entered, I noticed there were about 40 other delegates mingling, and staffers still affixing signs to the walls. I was struck with the sense that the O'Reilly campaign wasn't particularly well organized. That impression was furthered as the candidate's most high-profile endorser, the Progressive Democrats of America, continued setting up their table, signs, etc. until well after 6:00.

While the lack of organization was a red flag (if you can't organize a reception, how are you going to run a senate office) that didn't leave as negative an impression as the candidate himself. I wanted to meet the candidate, shake his hand, and try to get an idea of what he was about. Of course I wasn't the only one--everyone at the reception who wasn't already a committed supporter was there for the same reason--and I was willing to wait my turn. The problem is that my turn wasn't really my turn. I shook O'Reilly's hand, introduced myself, and someone tapped him on the shoulder. He left to speak with other gentleman before I could even start a conversation. A few moments later, O'Reilly noticed that I was still there, mentioned to the man that had interrupted us that he needed to get back to talk to me, and then was intercepted by another party-goer. After about 15 minutes of talking to this person and that, he finally got back to me. I took away the impression that he was flighty and had a hard time focusing on what I--or anyone else--had to say for even a short moment.

I was able to quickly compare O'Reilly to Senator Kerry as the Senator was heading into the hotel at the same time I was heading out. There were a handful of other people in front of the hotel and Kerry took the opportunity to talk with each one. When he got to me, he shook my hand, we spoke for about a minute, and he posed for a photo. The entire time, other people outside the hotel were trying to get his attention, but he remained focused on me the entire time. Whether he was genuinely interested in what I had to say or whether he had learned to appear interested through years of practice I can't say, but I came away from my encounter with Kerry with a much higher regard for him on a personal level than I did for O'Reilly.

Still, I arrived at the convention with every intention of voting for O'Reilly based on the principle that he deserved a spot, regardless of how bad a candidate he appeared to be. Then O'Reilly gave his speech, and I really had a decision to make. I realize that he was rushing to get his remarks in under 12 minutes, but he was loud, and shrill, and screaming, and angry. He sounded like he'd never given a speech using a microphone before. He didn't modulate his voice or soften his speech, even when speaking about his own background. He spent a good part of his speech ripping Kerry, instead of giving a rationale for his own candidacy.

Following his speech, I was left with a dilemma: On principle, I believe ballot access is a good thing. If I vote on principle, I'd vote for O'Reilly. But I was completely convinced that John Kerry would be a significantly better senator that O'Reilly. If I vote my conscience, I'd vote for Kerry.

I watched the crowds during the nominating speeches, and it appeared that O'Reilly might just have enough support on the floor to get to 15%, but I wasn't sure. When it was time to vote I was helped in my decision by the fact that the votes are called alphabetically by town. Two trends stood out to me: first, all of the top Democrats in our delegation (including Senator Bob Antonioni, Representatives Bob Rice, Hank Naughton, Steve DiNatale, and Jennifer Flanagan, Fitchburg Mayor Lisa Wong, and Register of Deeds Kathy Daignault) were no-shows at the convention. If that trend was applicable among other delegations, then a number of committed Kerry supporters were not in attendance to vote (I'll have more on this in another post). Secondly, nearly all of the attending delegates from Gardner and Fitchburg cast votes for O'Reilly. Doing the math in my head and noting that at there were still O'Reilly voters from Westminster still to vote after Sterling was called, it was clear that O'Reilly would do well above the 15% in our delegation regardless of how I voted. If that were the case across other delegations, then O'Reilly should be safe to hit the 15% threshold.

Taking all of that into consideration I voted my conscience and supported Senator Kerry. In the end, O'Reilly took 23% of the delegates. So I guess I got all of what I wanted. The principle of ballot access was upheld, and I was able to support the best man for the job.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 John Kerry Ed O'Reilly Democratic Senate Convention

Dem Convention: Party Pics

I drove up to Lowell this evening and attended three of the four convention welcome parties in town. I was going to write up my impressions of the parties, but I'm beat and I have to get up in six hours to head back up to Lowell again tomorrow. So here are some pictures instead.

I ran into Senator Kerry as he was walking into the Doubletree hotel, where many of the delegates were staying and where his opponent, Ed O'Reilly, was holding his welcome event. The senator has a reputation for being a bit aloof, but he was very cordial to me.

Ed O'Reilly was also cordial, but he seems to be flighty. He came up to shake my hand, was interrupted, and didn't get back to me for about 15 minutes. Other candidates I met seem to have developed the knack of blocking out the people around and giving their attention to the speaker. O'Reilly asked if I was supporting him tomorrow and I was frank: I was giving him my vote to try to get him on the ballot, but that I was most likely supporting Kerry in the primary. O'Reilly seemed fine with that. I think he just wants people to give him a shot.

To give you an idea how disorganized the O'Reilly event was, these banners for event co-sponsor "Progressive Democrats of America" were being set up a full hour after the event began.

Apparently, if I want a chance to be elected to higher office, I need to move to Barnstable County. I'd be a shoo-in.

Lt. Governor Tim Murray conducting a radio interview with a reporter from WCAP in Lowell. I was fascinated that they were using an earplug attached to an iPod to listen to the audio while using a cell phone as the microphone.

Once I corralled Mr. Murray, I tried to pitch my commuter rail shuttle proposal and asked him to encourage Governor Patrick not to veto the Wekepeke Dam money if it makes it into the final bill. I was slightly taken aback that Murray didn't know where the Wekepeke was, but I tend to assume that our officials know more about the issues which are important to me than I should.

I closed the night at the host party, where I met Congresswoman Niki Tsongas.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 Democratic Convention