The Mass Scorecard
Presentation to
the
by
Jesse Gordon
(chair, Progressive
Democrats of Cambridge)
and
(chair, Progressive
Democrats of Somerville)
2003 Action Agenda
Amendment (passed 60%-40%)................ 2
2003 Action Agenda
Resolution............................................... 3
Proposed 2004 Party
Charter Amendment................................ 4
2004 Party Charter
Amendment Petition.................................... 5
Sample Mass Scorecard (Rep.
Jay Kaufman)............................ 6-7
Votes used on Mass
Scorecard................................................ 8-11
Votes not used on Mass
Scorecard.......................................... 12-13
Criteria for selecting
votes........................................................ 14
Frequently Asked
Questions..................................................... 15-20
2003 Platform Accountability Amendment
We propose to vote on an amendment to
the 2003-04 Massachusetts Democratic Party Action Agenda.
Under the “Longer Term” section of the
Action Agenda, entitled “Involvement and Outreach in our Political Process”,
after the opening statement, which reads: “We know that public cynicism and
disillusionment with politics creates a lack of participation, which is a
threat to our democratic system.
Therefore, we call for: ”
after which we propose to insert:
(1) “Promoting accountability to the
Party Platform and reinforcing the Party’s commitment to social and economic
justice, by publishing a ‘scorecard’ by March 1 of each year, indicating how Democratic
legislators voted on 10 fundamental issues from the current Party Platform.”
Signature Name Address City
(passed in 2003, 60%-40%)
The Platform Accountability Resolution
WHEREAS the Progressive Democrats of Somerville, who
authored this resolution, are a group of elected delegates, add-on delegates
and alter
WHEREAS we, and those undersigned, are committed to bringing greater strength to the Democratic Party and supporting the rejuvenation of the state party by emphasizing our core values and issues and,
WHEREAS we are committed to economic and social justice as called for in the Democratic Party Platform and,
WHEREAS many elected Democrats in the State Legislature fail to adhere to several areas of the party platform and,
WHEREAS one
example is Tax Policy, in which the party platform states that “provisions of
tax relief [should be] targeted to working families” BUT Democratic state representatives alone voted against tax relief
targeted to working families (the Earned Income Tax Credit) by a vote of 73-24,
on July 13, 1999, and
WHEREAS the party platform’s Tax Policy also states that “we emphatically reject state or federal tax policies that redirect…public resources into the hands of the few, or create windfalls for the wealthy” BUT when called upon to close loopholes in the capital gains tax Democratic state representatives alone voted 80 to 36 favoring loopholes, on April 30,2001, and
WHEREAS the party platform’s Education Policy states that “we believe education must be a top priority at all levels of government, and we reject policies that direct funds away from children and the programs in our public schools to finance political promises of tax reductions to unrelated purposes” BUT, instead of fully funding education, Democratic state representatives alone defeated a move to freeze the regressive Cellucci/Swift tax rollback by a vote of 72 to 44, on November 21, 2001, and
WHEREAS Article Six, Section five of the Charter of the Democratic Party says “… every Democratic committee member, every Democratic nominee, and every official elected as the Democratic nominee shall adhere to the national, state…platform…in all official statements and actions” BUT many Democrats are failing to do so, and
WHEREAS such demonstrated and prolonged disregard for the Party Platform continues to hinder our ability to elect a strong Democrat into the Governor’s Office and has contributed to four successive terms of Republican leadership.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Democratic
Party will produce a yearly progress report on “How Democratic are the
Democrats” by March 1st on all Democratic members of the
Proposed
2004 Party Charter Amendment
THE
PARTY CHARTER CURRENTLY SAYS:
ARTICLE
SIX: State Convention
SECTION V.
ADHERENCE
TO PLATFORM BY DEMOCRATIC OFFICIALS
The
most recent Democratic platform and/or agenda is the official
position of the Democratic Party. Every
Democratic committee
member, every Democratic nominee, and every
official elected as the
Democratic nominee shall adhere to the national,
state, and any
local platform, in that order of priority, in
all official statements and actions.
Failure
to do so shall not result in any removal or loss
of rights within the Party, but may be
publicized by resolutions or
other appropriate action of any Party
convention, conference,
committee, or caucus.
TO WHICH WE PROPOSE TO ADD THE FOLLOWING:
PLATFORM SCORECARD
a.
The Democratic Party shall annually implement a "scorecard" of
legislative roll call votes for votes which
directly relate to the Party Platform.
b.
The scorecard shall include at least 10 votes, and a score
indicating the percentage of votes in which each
legislator voted
in accordance with the party platform.
c.
Legislators shall be provided a means to add comments explaining
their votes.
d. The selection of votes to include on the
scorecard, and their
interpretation regarding the party platform,
shall be determined by
a subcommittee of the Public Policy Committee.
e.
The public release of the scorecard shall be completed by March
1 of each year, except 2004 in which the public
release shall be
completed by August 1.
2004
Party Charter Amendment Petition
We
support a vote to add the following to Article 6 Section 5 of the Party Charter:
PLATFORM
SCORECARD
A. The Democratic Party shall annually implement
a "scorecard" of legislative
roll call votes for votes which directly relate to the Party Platform.
B. The scorecard shall include at least 10
votes, and a score indicating the percentage of votes in which each legislator
voted in accordance with the party platform.
C. Legislators shall be provided a means to add
comments explaining their votes.
D. The selection of votes to include on the
scorecard, and their interpretation regarding the party platform, shall be
determined by a subcommittee of the Public Policy Committee.
E. The public release of the scorecard shall be
completed by March 1 of each year, except 2004 in which the public release
shall be completed by August 1.
Signature Name Address City
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
|
2003 Mass Scorecard for State Representative Jay
Kaufman PLEASE
NOTE: THIS IS A DRAFT WEBSITE NOT READY YET FOR PUBLIC USE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democrat
representing Fifteenth Middlesex |
|
|
Office:
489 |
|
|
Phone:
(617) 722-2552 |
|
|
E-mail: Rep.JayKaufman@hou.state.ma.us |
|
|
Website: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/member/jrk1.htm |
|
|
Fundamental Issue in MassDems'
Party Platform |
Summary of related issue put to
vote |
This Rep's vote on this issue |
Party platform on this issue |
|
Jul 10, 2003:Veto
override of $200K reduction to blind job program |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2003:Veto
override of federal school breakfast supplement |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
|
Jul 10, 2003:Veto
override of $900K for disability & mentoring aid |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
May 6, 2003:3-year
moratorium on charter schools |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2003:Allow
municipal meals tax, in addition to state meals tax |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
|
Jul 14, 2003:Exempting
two-way bilingual programs from English-only rules |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
Jul 8, 2003:Veto
override of $10M cut in the uncompensated care pool |
Kaufman:
NO |
Platform:
YES |
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2003:Veto
override of "Turning 22" mental disability program |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
May 1, 2003:Defeating
corporate tax disclosure |
Kaufman:
NO |
Platform:
NO |
|
|
|
May 1, 2003:Extending
corporate tax credit 5 years |
Kaufman:
NO |
Platform:
NO |
|
|
May 5, 2003:Requiring
workfare for mothers of 2- to 6-year-olds |
Kaufman:
NO |
Platform:
NO |
|
|
Jul 16, 2003:allowing
parents on welfare to go back to school |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
Apr 30, 2003:Borrow
$300 million to offset the budget deficit via bonds |
Kaufman:
NO |
Platform:
NO |
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2003:Raising
the income tax to 5.95% to offset the budget deficit |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
Jul 10, 2003:Veto
override of Mass Correctional Legal Services |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
|
(No
votes on which to base response) |
|||
|
Jul 8, 2003:Veto
override of reduced fees for blood lead level testing |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
|
(No
votes on which to base response) |
|||
|
Jul 16, 2003:Early
retirement for cases of MWRA-work-related cancer |
Kaufman:
YES |
Platform:
YES |
|
|
(No
votes on which to base response) |
|||
|
Percentage of votes in 2003 in
accord with Democratic Party Platform: |
94% |
||
Massachusetts House of Representatives
-- Vote Descriptions
|
Veto
override of $200K reduction to blind job program Platform indicates
YES based on Part I:
Families & Children Vote number 251 on Budget Veto
Override on |
"Override Gov. Romney's veto of a Budget Line Item which
reduced by $200,000 the funding for the Ferguson Industries for the Blind,
which employs blind individuals as well as providing them an opportunity for
socialization and a chance to mingle with peers, learn daily living skills
and gain a feeling of independence. Relevant platform
section: PART I: FAMILIES & CHILDREN, DIVERSITY & COMMUNITY: Persons
with Disabilities: ""We reaffirm our support for The Am |
|
Veto
override of federal school breakfast supplement Platform indicates
YES based on Part I:
Families & Children Vote number 252 on Budget Veto
Override on |
Override Gov. Romney's veto of a Budget Line Item which elimi Relevant platform
section: PART I: FAMILIES & CHILDREN, DIVERSITY & COMMUNITY: No Child
Left Behind: "We believe that young people are our most precious
resource, and we see inherent worth and promise in every child. Ours is truly
the Party that seeks to “Leave No Child Behind.” We endorse, therefore, the
goals established under The Children’s Defense Fund initiative of that name,
to ensure every child a healthy start [which includes CDF's support of school
breakfast programs]." |
|
Veto
override of $900K for disability & mentoring aid Platform indicates
YES based on Part I:
Families & Children Vote number 254 on Budget Veto
Override on |
Override Gov. Romney's reduction of a Budget Line Item which
cut: $99,000 for Special Olympics Massachusetts; $304,000 for Work, Inc. and
$500,000 for Best Buddies Massachusetts [two programs for job training of
people with disabilites]. Relevant platform
section: PART I: FAMILIES & CHILDREN, DIVERSITY & COMMUNITY: Persons
with Disabilities: “We believe state assistance should be made more readily
available for community-based care, and should not be inappropriately biased
toward institutional settings.” |
|
3-year
moratorium on charter schools Platform indicates
YES based on Part II:
Education |
"Would require 3 yr moratorium and empower commission to
study feasibility of charter schools Relevant section of
platform: PART II: EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND OPPORTUNITY: Full Funding:
""We call upon the state to change funding of Commonwealth Charter
schools to ensure that funds are not drained from established public schools.""
" |
|
Allow
municipal meals tax, in addition to state meals tax Platform indicates
YES based on Part II:
Education Vote number 122 on Section 100 on |
"Any city or town shall be authorized to impose a local
excise tax upon the sale of meals, of 1% of the total price thereof. The
local excise tax imposed shall be paid by the vendor in the same manner as
the excise tax due the commonwealth. All sums received shall at least
quarterly be distributed, credited and paid by the state treasurer to each
city or town. [Provides a new revenue source for cities and towns to pay for
schools and other local services]. Relevant platform
section: PART II: EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND OPPORTUNITY: Full Funding:
""We believe education must be a top priority at all levels of
government, and we reject policies that direct funds away from the children
and the programs in our public schools to finance political promises of tax
reductions or to other unrelated purposes. We support just and equitable
funding mechanisms that provide for vibrant public schools in all
communities.""" |
|
Exempting
two-way bilingual programs from English-only rules. Platform indicates
voting YES based on Part
IV: Economic Growth, Jobs & Security Vote number 266 on Budget Veto Override
Section 209 on |
Gov. Romney vetoed budget section 210, which says. “Section 4 of
MGL chapter 71A is hereby further amended to add:— “Foreign language classes
for children who already know English, 2-way bilingual programs for students
in kindergarten through grade 12 and special education programs for
physically or mentally impaired students shall be unaffected.” [MGL chapter
71A requires English-only classroom teaching. Section 210 would exempt “2-way
classes” in which some students are native English speakers and some are
non-native English speakers. A vote to override would continue to allow that
type of bilingual education although foreign-language classes without native
English-speaking students would still be disallowed.] Part II: Education,
Training, And |
|
Veto
override of $10M cut in the uncompensated care pool Platform indicates
YES based on Part
III: Health Care Vote number 170 on Budget Veto
Override on |
Override Gov. Romney's veto of a Budget Line Item which elimi Relevant platform
section: PART III: HEALTH CARE, ACCESS & CHOICE: Access and Costs: “We
remain committed to extending proper coverage to each of the hundreds of
thousands of residents still uninsured, and to aiding the even greater number
who are underinsured, or at risk of being so.” |
|
Veto
override of "Turning 22" mental disability program Platform indicates
YES based on Part
III: Health Care Vote number 253 on Budget Veto
Override on |
Override Gov. Romney's veto of a Budget Line Item which elimi Relevant platform
section: PART III: HEALTH CARE, ACCESS & CHOICE: Mental Health: “Our
Party supports the full implementation of mental health policies which will
provide emergence care, family support, and appropriate housing to our
citizens with chronic mental health disorders. “ |
|
Defeating
corporate tax disclosure Platform indicates NO based on Part IV: Economic Growth
|
Would study corporate
tax disclosure, defeating measure to implement it. |
|
Extending
corporate tax credit 5 years Platform indicates NO based on Part IV: Economic Growth
|
Would extend corporate tax credit 5 years Relevant section of
platform:PART IV: ECONOMIC GROWTH, JOBS & SECURITY: A Healthy Business
Environment: "We support tax incentives for business when accompanied by
commitments to good corporate citizenship and enforceable terms assuring
continued investment in |
|
Requiring
workfare for mothers of 2- to 6-year-olds Platform indicates NO
based on Part IV:
Economic Growth Vote number 80 on Section 487 on |
[Welfare] recipients not qualifying as exempt,[Welfare]
recipients not qualifying as exempt, and whose child of record is under the
age at which full-time school attendance is mandatory, may meet only 10 hrs of
the work requirement through education and training programs. Relevant platform
section: PART IV: ECONOMIC GROWTH, JOBS & SECURITY: Supporting the
Transition from Welfare to Work: "We are committed to ensuring a safety
net to members of our families in times of need. We recognize that for some,
that transition may take a lifetime." |
|
Allowing
parents on welfare to go back to school. Platform indicates
voting YES based on Part
IV: Economic Growth, Jobs & Security Vote number 368 on Budget Veto
Override Section 528 on |
Override Gov. Romney's veto of a program to allow parents with
young children who are on welfare to go back to school in lieu of working to
meet the requirements of the federal Personal Work and Responsibility Act of
1996. PART IV: ECONOMIC
GROWTH, JOBS & SECURITY: Supporting the Transition from Welfare to Work:
"We seek to help welfare recipients successfully find and keep jobs. We
advocate increased job training and educational opportunities, and we must
ensure that support systems in child care, transportation, and health
insurance are in place to enable people to work and to advance into more
highly paid jobs. We are committed to ensuring a safety net to members of our
families in times of need. We recognize that for some, that transition may
take a lifetime. We support measures that reduce, not increase, the number of
children living in poverty." |
|
Borrow
$300 million to offset the budget deficit via bonds Platform indicates NO
based on Part V: Fiscal
Responsibility Vote number 62 on Amendment to MGL 29
on |
The state shall issue and sell bonds of the Commonwealth in an
amount [up to] $300,000,000. All such bonds shall be payable not later than Relevant platform
section: PART V: FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, TAX EQUITY, & PUBLIC STEWARDSHIP:
Tax Fairness and Responsible Budgeting: "Budgets should be fiscally
responsible and balanced without gimmicks." |
|
Raising
the income tax to 5.95% to offset the budget deficit Platform indicates YES based on Part V: Fiscal
Responsibility Vote number 64 on Section 470 on |
Taxable income shall be taxed at the rate of 5.95 per cent for
tax years beginning in 2003, for Part B income. [Increase in the tax rate]. Relevant platform
section: PART V: FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, TAX EQUITY, & PUBLIC STEWARDSHIP:
Tax Fairness and Responsible Budgeting: "We believe that taxes should be
fair and based on ability to pay, and that budgets should be fiscally
responsible and balanced without gimmicks." |
|
Veto
override of Mass Correctional Legal Services Platform indicates YES based on Part VI: Safety &
Justice Vote number 258 on Budget Veto
Override on |
Override Gov. Romney's veto of Budget Line Item 0321-2100,
$500,000 for the Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services (MCLS). MCLS
provides the only legal aid to indigent incarcerated individuals. Relevant platform
section: PART VI: SAFETY, JUSTICE & CRIME PREVENTION Legal Services: “We
support publicly funded legal services to provide legal representation and
advice on issues such as housing, employment, domestic violence, health,
elder law, public benefits, and immigration. We urge full state and federal
funding of such services. “ |
|
Veto override of reduced fees for
blood lead level testing Platform indicates YES based on Part VIII: Environment
Vote number 176 on Budget Veto
Override on |
"Override veto of exception of fees charged for the testing
of blood lead levels. The fees would be limited based on the fees in 2002.
Relevant platform section: PART VIII: ENVIRONMENT, PRESERVATION &
SUSTAINABLITY: Food Safety, Pesticides and Public Health: “We believe state
and federal regulatory agencies should pay especially close attention to
pollutants that have a direct impact on our families’ health, with a
particular emphasis on regulating mercury, arsenic, pesticides, and lead.” Relevant budget
section: SECTION 631. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the
contrary and with the exception of fees charged for the testing of blood lead
levels, fees charged by the division of occupational safety... shall be set
at a rate not less than twice the rate charged on July 1, 2002.”. " |
|
Early
retirement for cases of MWRA-work-related cancer Platform indicates
YES based on Part X:
Worker Rights Vote number 397 on Budget Veto
Override on |
Gov. Romney vetoed budget section 673, which says: “A person who
has been in the state retirement system for more than 35 years, with at least
10 or more of those years in the employment of the Massachusetts Water and
Resources Administration; who, in the course of his state employment was
exposed to asbestos or other hazardous materials; and who has been diagnosed
with an extraneously cancer related illness as well as an extraneously
cardio-vascular cardiac related illness, shall be eligible for early
retirement with surviving spouse benefits at a compensation rate equivalent
to his current salary, if the individual makes application for an early
retirement on or before December 31, 2003.” A YEA vote would override the
veto and fund the early retirement arrangement. PART X: WORKERS’
RIGHTS AND FUTURES: Occupational Safety -- "We support environmental
Right-to-Know laws about chemical and other potential dangers to worker
health. We oppose efforts to weaken workplace safety standards, or the
ability of OSHA or state-level agencies to enforce them." |
Following
are votes which do NOT count on the Mass Scorecard, with the reason for which
they were rejected. We include this section to demonstrate our vetting process.
|
Excluded because it addresses the same issue as rollcall #88. |
Expanding
charter schools program Platform indicates NO
based on Part
II: Education |
"Would study charter school moratorium,
killing measure to implement moratorium Relevant section of
platform: PART II: EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND OPPORTUNITY: Full Funding:
""We call upon the state to change funding of Commonwealth Charter
schools to ensure that funds are not drained from established public
schools."" " |
|
Excluded because it authorizes GUIDELINES, without authorizing
the actual sale of naming rights. |
Selling
naming rights on state forests and parks Platform indicates NO
based on Part
IV: Economic Growth Vote number 78
on Section
484 on |
The department of parks and recreation is
hereby authorized to develop guidelines and criteria on the subject of the public
sale of naming rights for state forests and parks or for facilities within
state forests and parks. Relevant platform
section: PART IV: ECONOMIC GROWTH, JOBS & SECURITY: Privatization
Accountability: "We assert and recognize... that it is the public sector,
not the private sector, which has the distinct capacity to deliver efficient,
high quality services in many areas." |
|
Excluded because the link to the platform on economic grounds,
while correct in the public view, is not the primary reason that most
legislators voted yea or nay. |
Pay raises
for Legislature leaders Platform indicates NO
based on Part V:
Fiscal Responsibility |
Additional compensation for the following
[legislators]: presiding officers, members of the majority and minority
leadership, chairmen, vice-chairmen, assistant vice-chairmen and ranking
minority members of committees -- shall be established by the joint rules of
the se Relevant platform
section: PART V: FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, TAX EQUITY, & PUBLIC STEWARDSHIP:
Investments and Tax Relief: "We believe surpluses should go to public
priorities like... the provision of tax relief targeted first to working
families. We reject emphatically state or federal tax policies that redirect
hard-won budget surpluses or other public revenues into the hands of a
few." |
|
Excluded because the core issue is privacy, which is not
addressed in the platform. |
Publicizing delinquent tax payers
on-line Platform indicates NO based on Part V: Fiscal
Responsibility |
Would require making delinquent tax payers public on-line Relevant section of
platform:PART V: FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, TAX EQUITY, & PUBLIC STEWARDSHIP:
Consumer Protection: "We support the protection of consumers and their
interests in all areas of the marketplace." |
|
Excluded because the connection to environmental impact
statements is too tenuous. |
Requiring
regulatory impact statements for new regulations Platform indicates NO
based on Part
VIII: Environment Vote number 75
on MGL
Chapter 30A on |
Requiring a ‘Regulatory impact statement’ for all new
regulations promulgated by state agencies. The statement shall:
[Would have the effect of making new regulations more difficult
for state agencies to implement, in a manner analogous to how environmental
impact statements make environmentally degradatory practices more difficult].
Relevant platform
section: PART VIII: ENVIRONMENT, PRESERVATION & SUSTAINABLITY:
Environmental Law Enforcement: "We believe it is a basic responsibility
of government to ensure that all laws enacted to protect our environment are
obeyed and enforced." |
|
Excluded because the particular usage of the land being sold is
the core issue, not the general concept of selling conservation land. |
Selling
land currently under conservation protection Platform indicates NO
based on Part
VIII: Environment |
Would convey [sell] a certain parcel of land in the city of Relevant section of
platform:PART VIII: ENVIRONMENT, PRESERVATION & SUSTAINABLITY: Safeguarding
Natural Resources. "We support state assistance for communities to
protect, by purchase or conservation restriction, threatened parcels, with a
priority on riparian lands or wetlands, wildlife habitat, and urban and
semi-urban communities with little open space left." |
Our criteria for selecting votes are:
- Count only roll call votes -- no voice votes, no bill
sponsorships, etc.
- No omnibus legislation (such as vote on the entire budget bill,
because the purpose of the legislator's vote is unclear).
- No constituent service votes, nor any votes that apply primarily
to one locality (such as funding for a hospital or court in one
legislator's district, since the vote depends more on geography than on
one's stance on the issues).
- Count only one vote in a series of amendments, or only one vote on
any given topic (to avoid over-weighting one issue over others).
- No unanimous or near-unanimous votes (because they do not
distinguish legislators from one another, and likely have some other
political component hidden from the apparent vote).
- Count only votes that clearly address a platform issue, as
expressed in the platform, and as the core issue of the vote.
- Vet all votes by confirming with elected officials on a
confidential basis that the selected votes meet the criteria above, that
the descriptions and platform links are fair and accurate, and that the
vote is a fair representation of the legislator's view of the corresponding
section of the party platform.
Frequently Asked Questions
about the Mass Scorecard
Basics about the Mass Scorecard
- What is the Mass Scorecard?
- What is the purpose of the Mass Scorecard?
- How will the Mass Scorecard be presented?
- Why this method?
- Why voting records?
- Who are you?
- What is the relationship between the Mass Scorecard and the Mass Dems?
Background Information
- What is the party platform?
- What is the Issues Convention?
- What’s the party charter?
- What is the Accountability Amendment?
- What are the Progressive Democrats?
- What is CPPAX?
Press about the Mass Scorecard
- Why are some people against the Mass Scorecard and how do you respond to them?
- What’s the story with the Massachusetts Senate?
Process and Structure of the Mass Scorecard
- Tell us about the process you will use.
- How will the website be structured?
- How do voters compare one legislator to another?
- What about when a legislator is absent?
- What about Republican legislators?
- What about challengers in electoral campaigns?
- How will you decide on which votes to use?
Getting Involved
· How do I join the Progressive Democrats?
· How can I help build the Mass Scorecard?
· How do I support the website?
Basics about the Mass Scorecard
Q: What is the Mass Scorecard?
A: The Mass Scorecard will be the implementation of the Accountability Amendment which passed 60% to 40% at the Massachusetts Democratic Issues Convention in June 2003.
Q: What is the purpose of the Mass Scorecard?
A: Our mission is to provide information to the voting public about how legislative voting records relate to the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Our purpose is to expose voting records to the public, and to show the degree to which each legislator adheres to the party platform.
Q: How will the Mass Scorecard be presented?
A: This website (www.MassScorecard.org) will list each legislator and a set of votes which relate to the Massachusetts Democratic Party. We will sum up the percentage of votes for each legislator which are in agreement with what the party platform recommends. The scorecard itself will comprise a summary list of all the legislators with their percentage score. The details of how we select the votes and the related section of the platform are detailed below.
A: The basis for the Mass Scorecard is the Massachusetts Democratic Party Charter. In Article 6, Section V, entitled “Adherence to Platform by Democratic Officials,” the charter says:
“The most recent Democratic platform and/or agenda is the official position of the Democratic Party. Every Democratic committee member, every Democratic nominee, and every official elected as the Democratic nominee shall adhere to the national, state, and any local platform, in that order of priority, in all official statements and actions. Failure to do so shall not result in any removal or loss of rights within the Party, but may be publicized by resolutions or other appropriate action of any Party convention, conference, committee, or caucus.”
We are publicizing Democratic elected officials’ voting records as recommended in the party charter.
A: First, they’re unambiguous – a yes or no statement on a particular issue.
Second, there’s an official record maintained by the
A: The Mass Scorecard is a project of the Progressive Democrats of Somerville, the Progressive Democrats of Cambridge, and CPPAX (Citizens for Participation in Political Action). This coalition of progressive organizations prepared the Issues Convention resolution and undertook the work to get it passed. We encourage the participation in our coalition by other progressive groups, especially local chapters of the Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts. The technology behind the Mass Scorecard is adapted from OnTheIssues.org, which provides voting records on-line for federal legislators.
Q: What is the relationship between the Mass Scorecard
and the Mass Dems?
A: We intend to create the Mass Scorecard in conjunction with the Massachusetts Democratic Party and as an official document of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. The Mass Scorecard currently has no formal connection with, nor authorization from, the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
Background Information
Q: What is the party platform?
A: The party platform is the document which defines what the Massachusetts Democratic Party believes in. Few people agree with the platform 100%, but calling yourself a Democrat means you agree with the majority of it.
Q: What is the Issues Convention?
A: It’s where the Massachusetts Democratic Party gathers to decide on the content of the party platform, once every four years, most recently in 2001. In between, Issues Conventions amend the platform with an Action Agenda. The Issues Convention in June 2003 amended the 2001 platform, and hence the Accountability Amendment is part of the 2003 Action Agenda. Our coalition had numerous members who were elected as delegates to the Issues Convention.
A: The party charter defines the rules of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, as decided at the Issues Convention. While the platform provides guidance to legislators on how the Massachusetts Democratic Party expects them to vote, the party charter provides guidance for internal party matters.
Q: What is the Accountability Amendment?
A: Our coalition gathered the signatures of over 1,000 delegates to the Massachusetts Issues Convention, which allowed a floor vote on the following amendment to the Action Agenda: “We call for promoting accountability to the Party Platform and reinforcing the Party’s commitment to social and economic justice, by publishing a ‘scorecard’ by March 1 of each year, indicating how Democratic legislators voted on 10 fundamental issues from the current Party Platform.” The floor vote resulted in a 60% to 40% passage of the Amendment.
Q: What are the Progressive Democrats?
A: The Progressive Democrats of
Massachusetts are a still-in-formation organization which grew out
A: Citizens for Participation in Political
Action is one of the oldest progressive organizations in
Press about the Mass Scorecard
Q: Why are some people against the Mass Scorecard and
how do you respond to them?
A: Former Rep. Mickey Edwards (R, OK) published an article in the Boston Globe saying that the Mass Scorecard would help Republicans by pushing legislative candidates to the left. We disagree – we think that many independent voters will view the Mass Scorecard as a sign of the health of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, and will become more involved with electoral politics as a result. In particular, new voters and previously disaffected voters will view the accountability associated with the Mass Scorecard as a signal that the Massachusetts Democratic Party is addressing the desires of independent voters.
Scot Lehigh published an op-ed in the Boston Globe concluding that the Issues Convention should be canceled rather than push the Democratic party from centrist to progressive. We conclude that the Mass Scorecard will make the Issues Convention a more meaningful venue to debate what the Democratic Party should stand for, and that that process would invigorate the Democratic Party as well.
Q: What’s the story with the
A: We made a mistake by leaving a pilot website on the Internet for too
long. We created a pilot, with meaningless sample votes, to illustrate how the
Mass Scorecard computer system would work, so we could demonstrate it to our
fellow Democrats and establish a process for creating the Mass Scorecard. We
intended it as a private website, but Google.com somehow indexed it (a
testament to their efficiency). It contained only 4 votes – not enough for any
rigorous analysis – while the final Mass Scorecard will include perhaps two or
three dozen votes. A se
Process and Structure of the Mass Scorecard
Q: Tell us about the process you will use.
A: We will develop a complete process for selecting the votes in the Mass Scorecard and for how those votes are presented, under the auspices of the Public Policy Committee of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. That committee includes state reps, state senators, and Democratic State Committee (DSC) members. The DSC as a body will vote on accepting or modifying the process. We will then select the votes to include on the scorecard, with that same group absent the elected legislators, since their votes are the ones being scored and they therefore might be seen as having a conflict of interest. Our coalition will then implement the scorecard according to the methods defined by the Public Policy Committee and approved by the DSC. An outline of the process appears below – this is a first draft subject to modification by the Public Policy Committee.
Q: How will the website be structured?
A: The website would have a legislator’s web page for each member of the
Massachusetts
- Each of the 11 sections of the Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform;
- How the platform would recommend voting about that issue (yes or no);
- How the legislator actually voted on that issue (yes or no).
- Pop-up pages including the
full text of the relevant section of the party platform, to a fuller
description of the vote, to the bill or budget section being voted on, and
to the
The bottom line of the legislator’s webpage would calculate
a percentage of votes which were in agreement with the platform’s recommended
vote. We would then do the same for each member of the Massachusetts Se
Q: How do voters compare one legislator to another?
A: We would list a summary page of all of the legislators with their
scorecard percentages, for direct comparison. The summary page would list each
Q: What about when a legislator is absent?
A: There are four methods to deal with absences.
- First, we will calculate the scorecard percentages based on the number of votes in agreement with the platform, divided by the number of votes cast. Hence a missed vote is neither counted for nor against a legislator’s scorecard percentage directly.
- Second, any legislator can
insert into the
- Third, we will allow
legislators to report to us how they would have voted, if they did not
take the opportunity to insert their vote into the
- Fourth, the scorecard summary page will include the number of votes that the scorecard percentage is based on.
Q: What about Republican legislators?
A: We will score Republicans in the same manner
as we’re scoring Democrats, with their votes compared to the Democratic Party
Platform. of course Republicans have no obligation to adhere to the Democratic
platform, and presumably their scorecard percentages will reflect a much lower
adherence rate. We think citizens will find the Republicans’ votes much less in
alignment with the
Getting Involved
A: First, sign up on our e-mail list. Second, join one of our coalition organizations or help us directly with volunteer labor. Third, write in support of the Mass Scorecard. Fourth, we accept donations.
Q: How can I help build the Mass Scorecard?
A: We are an all-volunteer coalition and could use your help. If you are interested in working on the Mass Scorecard, please contact us at MassScorecard@MassScorecard.org . If you would like to write a letter of support, send an e-mail to that same address.
Q: How do I join the Progressive Democrats?
A: The Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts is a membership organization -- if you are interested in joining, contact us and we'll send you a membership form. The annual membership dues are $25. The Progressive Democrats of Somerville and the Progressive Democrats of Cambridge have regular meetings -- Look for our next meeting dates on our websites at www.MassChange.org.
A: Citizens for Participation in Political Action is a membership organization with annual dues and regular meetings. If you are interested in joining, contact CPPAX@MassScorecard.org .
Q: How do I support the website?
A: The Mass Scorecard website is hosted by OnTheIssues.org, which is part of
the Speakout Foundation, a not-for-profit organization. The Speakout Foundation
accepts tax-deductible contributions as a 501(c)(3) corporation. You may send
donations to