Hi Allen, I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
While it's true that items technically received a vote, the core concern of the article was not the absence of voting. As the transcript and firsthand accounts show, microphones were abused, during key moments, points of order were dismissed, and delegates were denied the chance to debate or amend the rules before being locked into an unverifiable clicker system.
Respectfully, saying “the convention spoke clearly” assumes the process allowed them to speak at all. When the method of voting can’t be independently verified and opposition voices are silenced or cut off, the legitimacy of the outcome - no matter how well-intended - is undermined.
Also, I want to clarify that while I did participate, the reporting is grounded in transcribed evidence, direct quotes, and verifiable events. Disagreement is welcome, but dismissing concerns as mere disgruntlement risks ignoring the genuine breakdown in party trust that many delegates experienced firsthand.
Thanks again for engaging. Transparency matters, and so does this discussion.
Things should have been run better but the issues got a vote and the convention spoke clearly for each item. Their will was made known. I wish it was done better with more time given to discuss but you can't argue that things were rammed down people's throats like a decade ago when the real establishment and lobbiests were in control.
This review is written by a disgruntled participant not an unbiased observer.
And disappointed we should all be to continue to work for better. But recognizing the progress we have made is important. We have had several grassroots friendly chairman and many grassroots officers. There acrimony will not advance our cause.
Hi Allen, I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
While it's true that items technically received a vote, the core concern of the article was not the absence of voting. As the transcript and firsthand accounts show, microphones were abused, during key moments, points of order were dismissed, and delegates were denied the chance to debate or amend the rules before being locked into an unverifiable clicker system.
Respectfully, saying “the convention spoke clearly” assumes the process allowed them to speak at all. When the method of voting can’t be independently verified and opposition voices are silenced or cut off, the legitimacy of the outcome - no matter how well-intended - is undermined.
Also, I want to clarify that while I did participate, the reporting is grounded in transcribed evidence, direct quotes, and verifiable events. Disagreement is welcome, but dismissing concerns as mere disgruntlement risks ignoring the genuine breakdown in party trust that many delegates experienced firsthand.
Thanks again for engaging. Transparency matters, and so does this discussion.
- Jeremy
Editor, CobbProb
Things should have been run better but the issues got a vote and the convention spoke clearly for each item. Their will was made known. I wish it was done better with more time given to discuss but you can't argue that things were rammed down people's throats like a decade ago when the real establishment and lobbiests were in control.
This review is written by a disgruntled participant not an unbiased observer.
It was poorly run. Democrat tactics were used. Highly disappointed!
And disappointed we should all be to continue to work for better. But recognizing the progress we have made is important. We have had several grassroots friendly chairman and many grassroots officers. There acrimony will not advance our cause.