I was sitting with my SD 15 delegation on the left side (PetronDE I think SD 17 was on the right, right?) and I agree that the parliamentary procedure wasn't by the book. On the Rule 43 final vote, I felt that the room was evenly divided in a voice vote (seemed that was from my seat; that's why I wondered about the right side) and that there should have been a standing vote or even a roll call. So what about the inconvenience, the rule was really important and we had already debated the rule for nearly an hour: it deserved a definitive, clear vote. Our SREC committeeman tried to ask for one right after Shapiro said the nays had it, but he was never recognized (and those that were subsequently recognized were ruled out of order b/c Shapiro had conveniently moved on to the Platform debate). I felt that this was unfair. I think maybe the leadership didn't want even the Rule 43 compromise to pass (even though it was supported by many delegations, addressed the RINO problem with accountability by adding the monetary incentive, and took out the legally questionable parts of the proposed rule going into the convention).
On a lighter note, I enjoyed meeting MAF and LurkerNoMore! -- I'm sorry I didn't make it to the dinner: I was a little overwhelmed with all the activity in my SD caucus, which finished too late for me to get the necessary info.
IMHO, two truths of most organization: (1) no one is irreplaceable; and (2) people in power think they are irreplaceable.
Note: if I had not made the motion, several others would have attempted, and there was even one attempt (ruled out of order) while Rule 38 was debated.
I am NOT an expert on Roberts Rules; therefore, except for obvious errors, I would not have noticed.
I agree that platform should have been voted on plank by plank (or at least in groups). I only had a chance to read throughly the areas I am most concerned with, so did not notice inconsistancies regarding free-trade and CFR. I do not recall if anyone rose to argue against the blanket approval/dis-approval of the platform on that basis.
My first convention too. I intend to return.
The rules committee chairman railroaded her agenda through at times declaring that there could not be any other reasonable opinion than hers. (NOTE: I was not for either of the proposed rules 43 and 44 in their email forms.) This was simply an abuse of power on her part.
Then we had Milton "Goebbels" Rister hiring kids to distribute his propaganda. Let's see, only 2 committee members backed the closed primary rule but somehow got a 24-6 vote to have the SREC select the chairman of the commitees. This is simply increasing the influence of the grassroots.
The change to rule 43 actually only required the candidates to put no comment on the platform which judicial candidates could have easily done, to be considered for SREC funding. It did NOT require adhearance to the platform, but was intended to just get the candidates to read it. In reality, the SREC gathers information on the candidates positions today before granting party funds. I will agree that for clarity purposes, the proposed changes could have been better worded.</soapbox>