IF we get an Open Convention

General Discussion
1

I would like to open discussion on a proposal for an Open Convention.

They should allow two rounds of votes after the candidates do their speeches and present their arguments for why they should be the pick. The first would be a NON-BINDING ANONYMOUS vote as to who the candidate should be. The second round would be a BINDING TRANSPARENT vote.

Constraint: To vote in the binding vote, you HAVE TO vote in the first non-binding anonymous vote. Why? Because DNC leadership might see such a vote as challenging the choice that they want to prevail, and send out the threat that anybody participating in the first anonymous vote would get kneecapped in their political careers (<gtin>possibly even in their private professional ones too!</grin>) So by requiring all have to vote in the first that vote in the second, you prevent the possibility of that threat being made and participation in the anonymous vote being suppressed.

The point of the anonymous vote? If a majority of delegates say in their heart of hearts they feel candidate/ticket X is the strongest one (hopefully on an electoral basis!), it would give them a lot more courage to vote for that candidate in the second-round transparent vote.

If there is a significant discrepancy between the two votes, it would indicate: “Sorry guys; I’d love to vote for candidate/ticket X, but I’m being threatened…”, and we will then know that the interests of representative government were not served. I think many not wanting to send that terrible message would stick by their first choice.

Another possible outcome that would show that the interests of representational government are being served might be that there is a majority for a plausible candidate in the anonymous non-binding round, and on the second round the lead of that candidate grows since delegates might say, “what the hey -let’s do this!” and they then throw their minority vote on the anonymous round over to the leading candidate on the binding vote round.

The all important question on it should be: “Which slate do you feel has the best electoral chance of winning?”

An additional question can be: “Which slate would be most likely to garner the greatest number of Senate and House wins?”

Paper ballot details:

  • a warning in red+bold should state that the selection of more than one choice will invalidate the selection

  • an instruction can be added that an abstention can be indicated by making no choice

  • if an error is made during marking of the ballot, it can be cross-cut shredded on the spot and a new one provided

2 Likes
2

Mod(s): we could use a “Convention” tag; that will be coming up a lot!

3

The current state of America with a contingent of Dems not staging a walkout to Independent if we are not getting an Open [Pre-] Convention:

house_burning

“Sometimes the highest form of action is inaction.” Looks to me like The Owners of the DNC are running out the clock to give no replacement slates (other than Harris?) a chance to run. They don’t want their deals worked out with Biden/Harris to be upended by a new slate. Bring on the 2016 rinse+repeat! Many of us will be sitting out what will probably be our last real Election Day if you offer us no real choice. Spare us the blame; YOU are now offering NO CHANCE for a candidate who could garner enough electoral votes to stand up to this cult.

You don’t care? Nor do we.

To the Dem Congress members who believe a threat to walkout to Independent if there is no Open Pre-Convention won’t work: you’re fools to stay in the Party if they won’t allow an Open Convention. I’m sure disaffected donors would fund your fight as Independents, for having tried to get the Dem Party to change…

1 Like
4

Why would they stage a walkout? All their funding and donors are tied with the PARTY. Please start operating in reality

5

That isnt how delegate voting works.
Second voting is only taken if the first is contested.
And to change the voting procedure, you would have to appoint a commission, who recommends shit and then they pass that on the floor. its gonna just delay everything.
And trust me, you DO NOT want anonymous voting.
I believe Superdelegates were removed from voting in the first round after 2016 because they hold too much power and influence.

1 Like
6

It’s an emergency; they need to act fast. That’s a pretty simple rule change:one additional non-binding anonymous vote before the conventional one! NON-BINDING!! What would they be afraid of??
They can get that voting procedure sanctioned in the next week or two, while they are not giving Biden a deadline.

They don’t? Great, we’ll have a candidate chosen based on those who can intimidate the most delegates.

<tease>Do you work for one of the Owners of the DNC? Or perhaps the Harris campaign??</tease>

7

Because they could get funding from disaffected donors; the ones who paused to Biden. With a red wave coming because of their inaction on getting a candidate who is electorally more favorable than Trump, they can go sell vegetables on the side of the road. With 2 years of funding, they could fight the fight in Congress as Independents and then transition to the private sector.

Remember: I was saying they need to set a deadline and threaten Biden to do that -the exact same way he is threatening back people who are only courteously pointing out polling facts to him. At this point, he probably shouldn’t even have the launch codes. But I guess we can take solace that nothing will happen after 8 PM in the evening…

8

Updated the first post to explain why a pre-Convention meeting should be held in Philadelphia:

IF we get an Open Convention… (link)

[Vote on a rule change to support a non-binding anonymous vote before a transparent binding one; agree on protocols for the Open Convention…] Delegates unable to attend in person can stream and virtual vote…

9

Dude like I said, its not about non binding vote. Anonymous voting is a whole different thing. The whole procedure for voting would have to be changed. And Superdelegates wont be able to vote anyway after the 2016 rule change.
Plus, you don’t do a second round unless the first one is divided. Its NOT just one rule change.
I thought they had a committee meeting this Sunday?

1 Like
10

Allowing a non-binding anonymous vote before the binding transparent one is a “whole procedure”? Come on!

If they were going to meet to have an early roll call, they can meet beforehand [in Philadelphia, I would recommend; people unable to be in person could tie in virtually…] to sanction the non-binding vote.

Do you disagree that having an anonymous delegate vote, a mere temperature check of the sentiments of other delegates, uninfluenced by career intimidation and reprisals, is a bad idea??

11

anonymous is a bad idea. And I already explained WHY it will be a whole procedure change. Voting is not by secret ballot for it to be anonymous. It is a roll call vote. That would have to change. And like I said, they only go to a second round IF the first round is divided. And I don’t think adding superdelegates into 1st phase is a good idea - again because of 2016 and WHY we changed that rule in the first place. There are multiple things that would have to change for a round of voting that makes no actual justifiable sense.

1 Like
12

No! I did NOT suggest that (reread the original proposal…) They just vote on the second transparent round, having been first informed by what the consensus is. They can choose to dig in on the transparent binding round if they happen to feel the consensus is wrong.

A single vote; no “multiple things”.

“no actual justifiable sense”; I said: a mere temperature check of the sentiments of other delegates, uninfluenced by career intimidation and reprisals…

13

No I am saying accoridng to the current rules, they only go to a second round if the first one is divided., You would have to change multiple provisions to change that. I am not sure you understand how rules are changed at the convention. When there are implications on other rules because of one thing, all those things have to be changed. Like I explained in my previous comment

1 Like
14

The anonymous round is completely autonomous from the existing transparent binding round; it has NO impact on the conventional roll call, other than to inform the delegate voters.

You keep saying it changes the procedure of existing roll call votes; it’s a SEPARATE VOTE that has no legal consequences. Its timing is just situated in time prior to the real vote.

If the DNC sent out an anonymous survey to delegates the day before the Convention, outside the premises of the Convention, and shared that info with delegates going to the Convention -are you saying that would require a change in the rules at the Convention itself? Having the consensus taken right before the official roil call is just the same thing. Maybe since it’s a new procedure happening AT the Convention, it is technically a procedural change that requires it be voted on by the delegates. Fine; have it be voted on [in Philadelphia] before the Convention…

15

Ahh… ok. I thought you meant having the anonymous vote on the floor of the convention. On the floor it requires change in the whole procedure rules. Anything they do BEFORE the convention, well, convenes officially is not part of the process. So they can do that. They don’t even need an amendment for it.

But they are already sort of talking to everyone anyway. So if they ask someone, do you back Biden? anyone who gives a non committal answer is out - they know that. Same for if they ask -do you prefer replacing Biden with X, Y or Z. So I am not sure what value it will add, but sure, you can do that if you like.

Although doing a semi official survey kind of makes it influencing the votes doesn’t it?

1 Like
16

It would just have to be done in such a way to insure:

  • anonymity of the voters; and

  • the people voting really ARE the delegates…

1 Like
17

yup. Agreed

1 Like
18

What made sense to me is that at an Open Convention the President on Slates would choose their VP; I’m hearing the delegates will choose the Pres+VP separately; which is it??

19

For the gearheads in the house; feel free to post other approaches here -NOTHING PROPRIETARY!!

You’d be looking for something off-the-shelf from open source, so it could be put together AND THOROUGHLY TESTED by the Convention.

[TESTED: I’m talking to YOU, Crowdstrike and Microsoft!]

Of course, there could simply be a room outside the Convention with a drum and folded paper ballots. But for it to work, EVERYONE would need to be required to enter a ballot. Otherwise you’ll have leadership (The Owners) wanting a lobbied pick going: “If we see you voting in that anonymous round, your career will be mud!” Without required participation, a delegate would not be informed about what the consensus is prior to a final transparent and binding roll call.

That’s an advantage to a secure remote approach with tech; The Owners can’t see who’s submitting their views, so there could be no intimidation.

Do it the low-tech way: it’s safer, but it requires enacting a requirement to cast a ballot. Do it the high tech way, you could have someone’s identity revealed if a bug was later found in the balloting software.

[<joke>If you go twith he low-tech drum approach, be sure to provide cotton gloves, to prevent the recording of fingerprints…<\joke>]

20

maybe before that you should focus on how you are going to get them to agree to this anonymous round thing. The same people who say

wouldn’t be happy about allowing such a vote to begin with.

And it still doesn’t change the fact that just because you make it anonymous, they will still vote their conscience. Most of them will still go wherever the wind is blowing in the sails of the establishment. Most of them might genuinely think that the lobbied candidate is better for them. They will be more concerned about winning their own elections than the presidential one. No one has to actually threaten them for them to know that.

Have you thought that part through?