Monday, June 5, 2006

Convention transparency

After the 2002 convention fiasco, we Dems spent four years working through the McGovern-Dukakis process to reform approval and endorsement of primary candidates. On the plus side, voting on the floor was smooth and efficient. But what was the net result?

  • All candidates gained the ballot.

  • Counting fewer than 5000 votes still took so long that the convention lasted into the evening.
  • Each of the gubernatorial candidates is a credible candidate; I will support the winner after September. So, what's wrong with the outcome?


    The problem is that the process is dishonest - or looks dishonest. Votes delivered by power brokers to give razor-thin margins of approval matter more than the rest of our votes.

    A fair and above-board process would have the following features:

  • No counting of votes until all votes are recorded.

  • No changing of votes once voting closes.

  • All challenges during the convention must be made in view of the convention by identifiable delegates.

  • After voting has closed, the only admissible challenge is teller accuracy.

  • Counting must take place in public view of the convention.
  • The tallying should be complete in fifteen minutes. And then we could get on with convincing the electorate.


    Originally posted on Blue Mass Group.

    No comments: