Overall, it was really interesting. I enjoyed seeing how the process works (never mind how there's no reason whatsoever that we're still using the electoral college system instead of popular-vote-by-phone or similar).
It was kind of intriguing to me to think about how really pointless the process is when you're talking about a district that's made up of Somerville, Cambridge, and most of Boston. Basically, we spent four hours trying to choose delegates from a pool of big-name politicians who have considerable media coverage in terms of which candidates and issues they support. Yes, there were some no-name candidates who made it impressively far (and I voted for a few of them, mostly because I like to support the less-connected political newcomers, as long as they have a solid platform), but in the end, we were voting over and over to narrow our decision between Major Politician A and Major Politician B. Remember, the reason we're choosing delegates in the first place is because we're trying to choose someone who we think is most likely to continue to support Barack Obama at the DNC. Sure, in smaller districts, there might be issues with the chosen candidate changing their support, but I just don't see this happening in Boston where we have all the press coverage to look back on, in addition to the major candidates all being people with political aspirations aside from just running for delegate.
My highlights, in no particular order:
Roy Owens ran for delegate, and got eliminated in the first round. Someone explain to me what the hell he was doing supporting a progressive candidate. Google the guy, and granted many of the hits will be things I've written or have been quoted as saying to media sources, but he's blatantly anti-GLBT rights, not-subtly anti-immigrant, and, well, just isn't progressive. He enjoys running for things though, and one of the beautiful things about this country is that people like him are allowed to get on the ballot and allowed to preach homophobia. And the smarter and more compassionate folks are allowed to wonder openly about what on earth is up with him.
Representative Capuano was banging on the lectern with a red stapler to get people's attention. (If you don't understand why red staplers are funny, I'm really not sure what it is that you see in this blog, but welcome nonetheless.)
The process involves electing two male and two female delegates. First of all, what the fuck? Is this the 1600s? Why not also sort them on the ballot by race? Or age? Second of all, I am genuinely curious what laws apply in terms of how one's gender is determined in this process. Are they going by legal sex? (Ignoring the fact, for the moment, that there is absolutely no reason for a society to even have a concept of legal sex). When the process is taking place in Boston, do the laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression apply? Which would mean, of course, that any candidate could self-identify his/her gender, provided that s/he consistently identifies this way in everyday life, as the laws specify. In the same vein, would the caselaw of using sex discrimination laws in other jurisdictions to fight the same discrimination apply similarly? Or, since this is a federal process, would federal law be able to trump local law, similarly to how the Passport Agency cites the DOMA? I can't find any information either way indicating whether they're going by legal sex or by current gender presentation.
Since this is One Smoot, I do also want to point out that, at one point, several members of the audience asked Representative Capuano to please read the numbers of votes (written on a chalkboard on the stage) out loud, since the numbers had gotten progressively harder to read as the board had been erased and reused several times. He stated that he would not do so, since it would be unfair, as he had not been doing so all along. I don't understand this logic at all, but isn't this an ADA violation? The political process is required to be accessible, and it's certainly not an undue hardship to ask him to read four or five names and vote counts out loud when requested to do so. I realize that the people asking him to read it probably had normal vision (I couldn't read it after the board had accumulated enough chalk dust, and I have normal vision). Still, it's an ADA violation to respond to a simple request for accommodation by asking the person why they need the accommodation, or assuming the reason they need it. I know specifically that if someone in a setting asks to use an elevator that requires staff to activate it, it's illegal to ask why they need it or to say that it's "only for the disabled" or similar action that indicates that the person is taking it upon themselves to assess the person's disability.
