The Davis Square Community

One of my earliest memories of Murtha is that he was one of the first 'hawkish' politicians to speak out, rather forcefully against the war in Iraq. Granted there were plenty of politicians speaking out against it before it ever happened, like our current President for example. But Murtha was a former Marine, and a Vietnam Vet, and was generally respected by the military community. In my opinion, his courage to speak out, made it easier for more centrist members of each party, to finally vocalize their objections to the war. (Some more info about Murtha here: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/17/murtha-vindicated/)

In fact when Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and the entire right-wing machine was lambasting him, I had a chance to ask Capuano about where he stood on the matter. You can see Capuano's response here (scroll up slightly, it's the 2nd to last question):
http://tinyurl.com/y9uynjd

Since Dems regained control of the House in '06, and Murtha made his push to become House Majority Leader I started reading more and more about him that implicated him in a lot of corruption scandals. That was disappointing, but I've never heard of Capuano being wrapped up in any of that.

I'd be curious to hear more about what type of "allegiance" you find troubling.

From:

serious-noir.livejournal.com

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/77297-Capuano-cornered/

From:

that wasn't a fun way to start my morning

From:

Thanks to everyone who came out and signed! Depending on the weather I may try again tomorrow. I'm considering asking the organizers of Tufts Community Day if they'll let me set up a table there. Just don't know how many registered MA voters I'd get on a college campus.

From:

OH, well, I guess my signature will be thrown out. I'm not an Independent or Democrat. That's sort of odd that they don't let the rest of us support him running. Kind of goes to show how messed up our "two-party" system is.

From:

cos

To qualify for the ballot in a party primary, you need signatures from people who are eligible to vote in that party primary. Why does that go to show how messed up our two party system is, though? You made a voter registration choice that deliberately precluded participating in Democratic primary elections for a reason, didn't you?

The weird thing about Massachusetts is not the "two party" system, but the fact that it's effectively a one party state - not because of any laws, but because so many people who live here prefer Democrats for almost every office, almost every time.

From:

It shows the fucked-up-ness in the idea of limiting the people you are allowed to support. If I believe that several candidates are similarly qualified to fill the job, or even just qualified to run officially for the job, it makes far more sense for me to be able to say so.

Everyone should be eligible to vote for the people they want to vote for. Being able to identify with a certain political style is sort of useful, but not when it limits people's freedom to vote.

From:

cos

I can't make any sense of what you're saying. Why didn't you register "unenrolled" if you actually believe what you're saying here? In which case you'd be able to sign nomination papers for any party's primary, and vote in the primary of your choice.

From:

I registered as a Green because I support the green party platform the most. But I also support candidates in other parties, too...

From:

cos

You made a choice - that you'd rather add to the Green party's registration numbers, and/or participate in Green party governance, than maintain your ability to participate in contests for any other parties' nominations. The fact that we have a system that allows you to make that choice doesn't mean it's necessarily "fucked up" - it's still your choice. If your priorities are what you described in your earlier comment (and especially if you don't actively participate in governance of the Green party itself), then you should re-register as "unenrolled", which allows you to vote in any party's primary. That, too, is a choice, and I can't say if it's the right choice for you, but it's the choice that matches the sentiments you expressed earlier.

P.S.
Personally, I think anyone in MA who really supports the Green party platform is better off being a Democrat anyway, because the only really practical movement to bring any part of the Green platform into actual policy, is within the Democratic party, and many more effectively-Green candidates get elected as Democrats than as Greens - and the contests that determine whether those effectively-Green candidates get elected, are Democratic primaries. So the more people who favor such candidates who choose to dis-involve themselves from the Democratic party, the fewer of those kinds of candidates will win Democratic primaries, and the fewer of them will get elected. In the meantime, the Green party will continue to accomplish approximately nothing in Massachusetts government. I used to be a Green activist myself, for several years, but switched to Democratic around 2003-2004 when I saw that all the real motion on getting the policies I wanted to actually happen was moving into the Democratic party, and the progressives within the Democratic party both needed my support, and could translate my support into much more effective change than the Greens could.

From:

The point is that it's moronic to make people make that choice (which I didn't actually know way back then anyway) in the first place. Limiting people's freedoms to vote is about as stupid as it gets if you want to actually have people vote and make it meaningful. But then, most people don't actually want a democracy, so I suppose it's not surprising.

From:

cos

Right, that's the part that makes no sense to me. I don't see what's undemocratic about giving you another choice. Would you rather be denied that choice, and forced to register unenrolled? (which is effectively the same thing as eliminating party registration) I mean, nobody's stopping you from voting for any candidate you like, for public office. What you're being prevented from doing, is participating in the election for Democratic nominee, which is not a public office, it's a party position - who then runs for public office in a general election where you're free to vote for him/her.

From:

The whole party thing is limiting my ability to vote for the candidates I like. That's the problem. Limitations complicate things and make it harder for people to actually vote the way they want. If you don't understand this, I don't think I can help you.

Suffice it to say, what would be a far more legitimate way of electing people would be to have one election, in which everyone can vote by ranking each candidate. And you limit the field of candidates by allowing a given person to run for only one position per year.

I'd also love to see some kind of qualification test be given, sort of like how we test people who want to be citizens, but with a wider variety of questions, and tasks, but that could easily be discriminatory, so it's something I'd suggest as more of a media thing, than as an official qualification.

From:

cos

Well, I definitely favor ranked voting, such as instant runoff. But that's completely orthogonal to the party issue.

If we held just one official election, parties would not go away. People would definitely continue to organize into ... well, organizations. Instead of the state-administered party primaries, we'd have more private methods (such as caucuses) to select party nominees. Parties would still select who they want to put forward for that "one election", the process just wouldn't be as accessible and transparent as it is now when the state administers the primaries. That's all.

There are of course still a lot of closed, opaque, backroom processes that winnow out who will and won't run, before most of us see it. Election mechanics cannot prevent that (though there are other things we can do to make it better). But having the state administer party primaries takes what used to be one of the most important of those hidden backroom processes and opens it up to the public in a big way. I think that was a huge step forward and I'd hate to see it eliminated.

From:

How do you feel about Kent Conrad, Senator of a state with population of 7 deciding the fate of your health insurance coverage options?

From:

cos

That's kind of weird and out of the blue. Care to explain how it relates to anything in the above thread?

From:

Oh it doesn't, I'm just sad about the committee votes yesterday on Rockefeller's, and then Schumer's public option amendments.

From:

cos

Oh. I'm actually kind of cheered up. I never expected the Baucus-Grassley proposal to amount to anything worthwhile anyway, but I'm happy we got 10-13 on the public option vote. Regardless of what happens in this series of voting, it's been obvious since July (and blindingly obvious since a couple of weeks ago) that whatever the Senate Finance Committee passes, if it passes anything, will be utter trash and not worthy of serious consideration. The strategy for winning on health care reform has to include ensuring that the Senate Finance Committee does not produce a bill which becomes law. That was true earlier this month, it was true all summer, and it remains true today. These amendment votes never had any hope of turning the Baucus-Grassley proposal into something worthwhile, their only value is in looking at how some Senators who happen to be on that committee vote on things.

From:

well then. consider me cheered. thanks.

From:

ethanfield.livejournal.com

Along this issue: Do I remember right that a year or two ago there was some talk of being able to allow multiple party endorsements for a single candidate in MA? i.e. If the Green Party decided they liked Mike Capuano and not to run anyone against him, they could endorse him and he'd appear on the Ballot as Mike Capuano (Democratic, Green) or some such thing? Whatever happened to that?

From:

a note: I believe you mean people must be registered as Democrat or be Unenrolled not Independent (they do not mean the same thing in this context). This is essentially the same set of rules as voting in the primary. (for example: if you are registered as a Republican, you cannot sign to nominate for nor vote in the Democratic party primary.) And actually, here it's even a bit more lenient as one can be enrolled in a "political designation" and still sign nomination papers, but I believe not vote in the primary.

from the Candidate's Guide to Special Elections (http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/guidespecialele.pdf):

"Primary nomination papers may be signed by registered voters in the district who are:
1. Enrolled in the same party as the candidate; OR
2. Not enrolled in any party; OR
3. Enrolled in a political designation.
The signatures of a voter enrolled in a different political party will be disallowed."

From:

meant to warn that link is a pdf

From:

Hm, actually I was quoting the information I got from the campaign, which definitely says "Anyone registered to vote in MA may sign, however only those who are enrolled as a Democrat or an Independent will count toward the 10,000."

Perhaps they have it wrong.

What do you suppose #3 above means?

From:

ha :) I wouldn't be at all surprised if whowever wrote it out for the campaign just wasn't paying attention. It's a common thing that gets confused. I believe Independent was an actual party in MA at some point so someone who is not registered in any party is called Unenrolled.

As I understand it a designation is basically something that isn't big enough to be a party. (The Green Party seems to fluctuate back and forth between party and designation depending on the voting numbers different years.)

The state elections commission website is organized terribly and the search is crap, but I eventually found some references:

From the City of Boston voter reg info (http://www.cityofboston.gov/elections/faq.asp) (which, yanno, actually has information!)
"I want to register as an Independent but that’s not one of the choices?
Massachusetts does not use the term “Independent.” Check the box for “No Party (unenrolled).”

Can an Unenrolled voter participate in Primary Elections?
Yes. An Unenrolled voter declares a party at the check-in table at your polling location. Massachusetts currently has three (3) recognized parties: Democrat, Republican and Libertarian. You will be given the ballot for the party you request. You will automatically revert to No Party (unenrolled ) status for future elections.

What is a Political Designation?
Political designations are created when fifty (50) registered voters file a form with the Secretary of the Commonwealth requesting that they, or any other voters, may change their registration to such designation (see MGL Ch. 50 Sec 1). Some of the more familiar political designations in Massachusetts include the Green-Rainbow and Socialist parties. Designations are often formed around a particular cause or ideology. Political Designation members do NOT participate in primary elections."

and, the impossible to find (and who knows how recently updated, lol) list of current parties and designations from the state is here (http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepar/paridx.htm).

From:

Well from now on I'm not going to bother asking people how they're registered (something that made me uncomfortable anyway). I'll just get as many signatures as I can and let the Elections Commissioners worry about weeding out the names that don't belong.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll edit the post.

From:

You should try to be honest and accurate. People appreciate that more than some folks imagine. :-)

From:

oh, and I apologize if my original comment sounded nitpicky/accusatory/negative-in-whatever fashion. not my intention. I, um, have a bit of a tendency to geek out a little about these things ;)

In relatively accurate and entertaining fashion, my husband has just declared me an "informatrix" ;)

From: