Hey, there! Log in / Register
Dissatisfied with the Redistricting Committee plan? Your public comments here!
By Anonymous on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 1:19pm
As a resident of Boston for twenty-eight years, I’ve had Stephen Lynch as my representative in Congress for ten. During that time:
- He neither supported nor opposed the Affordable Care Act for over a year until the final hour when he joined Rep. Bart Stupak of the anti-choice caucus to offer his vote in return for including anti-choice legislation in the health care bill. This, when federal law, the Hyde Amendment, already prohibited the use of federal funds for abortions.
- He voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which saved or created over a million jobs, many of them in our communities that kept cops, firemen and teachers on the job (and in their homes); their kids in college, and helped drive consumer demand in a recovering economy.
- He voted to invade Iraq based on a specious argument that Iraq was behind 9/11, and other fraudulent intelligence. My friend died in Tikrit, survived by her son and husband. My neighbor died in the same engagement. Over 4,483 Americans died in the war, the most recent last Friday, Nov 4 2011. Lancet says there were 601,027 violent deaths in Iraq due to the US invasion. The US had no valid cause of action in Iraq. My representative acted in good faith in voting to invade Iraq. It is just as clear he was not up to the task of evaluating the case for war.
These are the three clearest examples I can think of as to why Rep. Stephen Lynch does not represent me effectively in US Congress.
I have good reasons to believe that his position as an incumbent will enable him to continue to be elected in the new MA8 district as long as he runs.
THEREFORE, I hereby petition State Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, Senate Chair, and Rep. Michael Mora, House Chair, of the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting to take West Roxbury out of the new MA8 district and instead, put it in the abutting new MA4 with incumbent Rep. Barney Frank, or the new MA7 with incumbent Rep. Mike Capuano.
Take West Roxbury out of new MA8
Put West Roxbury in new MA4 or new MA7
If you live in West Roxbury or adjoining neighborhoods and you want out of new MA8 with incumbent Rep. Stephen Lynch, please put a comment below and include sufficient information about where you live so that the redistricting committee can consider your request. I will submit this post to the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting in a few days.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I agree, Lynch is terrible and an embarassment
but I don't think that is cause for districting you and me into Frank or Capuano land. As much as I hate being in the narrow, middle finger, how can "I hate the not-so-distinguished gentleman," make a compelling argument to stick somebody else with him?
Feel free to submit my statement, though. I live in the wedge of Roslindale that will be included in the 8th with West Roxbury (between Washington and Belgrade).
why not make a good match between voters and reps in democracy?
There are many voters who Rep Lynch would represent quite well. I'm suggesting that the redistricting process take that into account.
So you're in favor of
So you're in favor of gerrymandered districts that protect incumbents. This has already been done in Massachusetts and across the country, and is widely believed to have contributed to the polarization of politics in Congress. With sure-thing seats for both parties, the extreme reigns, and moderates have no chance. Thanks a lot.
How about a law ...
... requiring that re-districting not split political entities (and maybe not even neighborhoods) unless these are so large that some splitting is unavoidable.
Conflation
Sorry, but it's gamesmanship of the highest order that has caused the extreme polarity in Congress and not a matter of constituencies. The constituencies were relegated to a purely spectator role once money become the predominant force in winning an election. You could redistrict any way you want these days and still get the same results you want by simply putting the biggest money behind a candidate to represent that area. Alienate all of the voters into not voting (8% approval ratings for Congress will do that for you) and focus on turning out the 21% that will always vote for anyone who carries your party's affliation. You will win when turnout drops below 40%. It's that simple these days because of two extremes that have nothing to do with which people are in which district: apathy and money. By those two means, our democracy has been gamed to the benefit of the plutocracy.
I didn't say that NotWhitey, you did... "So you're in favor of"
.
how about no?
Democracy is better served when districts have competition for elected positions as opposed to districts where a given candidate, faction or party has a "free ride" to a position.
Where did these maps come from
As a resident of JP, The shading in this map looks like I am in the new MA 7 (Capuano) but the Maps from the redistricting committee makes it look like I, too, got stuck with Lynch, who, for the reasons you eloquently outlined and a host of others, doesn't adequately represent me.
interactive redistricting map
Here you go: interactive redistricting map
Incumbents don't *own* districts
Stop it now.
Don't like the current rep? The boundaries don't take effect until the 2012 election ... support someone you like.
You have zero chance of
You have zero chance of getting them to change the districts.
Also, if the other reps are going to vote the way you want them to, it's way better for you to be in Lynch's district. Maybe you'll be able to influence his votes. Or vote him out of office.
adamg, I really wouldn't allow content like this to be posted.
You have zero chance; I wouldn't allow content like this
You have zero chance of getting them to change the districts.
Why?
adamg, I really wouldn't allow content like this to be posted.
Why?
Because they spend a huge
Because they spend a huge amount of time planning the districts in such a way that everyone has an appropriate distribution of population and minorities, and this is the way they made it work. ]
Also, because in every district some people disagree with their representative. That's why no one gets elected with 100% of the vote. In a given district, if less than a plurality of voters likes a certain representative, they get voted out of office. Democracy, ladies and gentlemen.
And because universalhub isn't (or shouldn't be) a forum to advertise for ludicrous legislation.
There seems to be some
There seems to be some confusion about this whole democracy thing. Democracy does not mean that each and every blessed soul gets to have his/her own particular prejudices spoken for in Congress. In a democracy, we all get a vote. That's it. If you don't like the results, try again next time. Democracy does not entitle you to anything. John Kerry represents you, and so does Scott Brown. If you disagree with either on an issue, you are free to call them and tell them so. Do you?
see this?
See this?
The Special Joint Committee on Redistricting encourages public comment and participation in the redistricting process. Your input is an important part of the process when creating new legislative districts. The Committee appreciates you taking the time to add your comments to the public record.
You're welcome to do so. If you don't want to that's fine too.
Would it matter?
Sorry to sound a bit like Chris D. here, but I don't have a lot of money compared to those that do. I have no leverage. I wanted a public option in the medical insurance reform bill. I told all of my elected reps as much...and it was "negotiated" out while they patted me on the head.
Look at the "We the People" website the White House setup for taking public petitions for action. Tens of thousands pushed for taking marijuana off Schedule I (highly addictive drugs) and were told "thanks for writing! No.". Tens of thousands asked the White House to strongly oppose enacting legislation that would setup a national firewall on the internet censoring our access to sites the government deems too "dangerous"...again, "thanks, but no".
Scott Brown was elected by 28% of the eligible voters in the state. Not only does he have no compulsion to answer to me personally, but he doesn't even have a compelling reason to answer to ANY of us.
Well i'd guess that Martha
Well i'd guess that Martha Coakley lost with fewer that 28% of eligible voters. Some countries have mandatory voting, the US doesn't. Therefore elections are decided by those people who take the time to go to the polls. That's the way it is. If you think that somehow the election laws should be revised to reflect the views of both voters and non-voters why don't you explain how that would work.
BTW, how do you know that some of the non-voters would not have voted for Scott Brown or Martha... if they voted.
Quincy was moved in Lynch's
Quincy was moved in Lynch's district. If Keating decides to stay and run, Lynch will get my vote over Keating.
Sorry, but Ward 20 ain't going to Capuano
There's two reasons why:
First, it's too, well, white. The stated goal is to get a majority minority (which is technically impossible, since the minority, if a majority, becomes a majority) Ward 18, western Milton, Randolph- that's a growing non-white area. West Roxbury, though getting diverse, is still whiter than the rest of the area.
Second, it's too conservative. Of course, this shouldn't be a reason, or at least they should use a phrase like "community of interest", but that's what it is. In the Brown-Coakley special, Ward 20 had the fourth best turnout for Brown, percentage-wise. The top 2 wards are going to Lynch, and the third is, well, "diverse."
Look, I feel for you, sort of. I've been a Lynch guy since '01, and I'm heading to Capuano land. Truth is, everything you give Lynch grief for came before elections, he was opposed, and he won. That's how democracy works. But to say that boundaries should be changed because you don't like the guy is crazy, since that happens in all 435 districts and for all 100 senators. You don't like your rep, convince people to vote for someone else or move.
Interesting info Waquiot
I like where I live.
The Congressman who represents my interests does not do it well. He is not a leader, he follows. He doesn't even do a good job advocating the values he believes in. And he makes a lot of bad decisions.
It perfectly reasonable to make an argument during redistricting. And who knows, maybe Rosenberg and his co-chair n the house will have to make other changes and the one I'm requesting matches up well with them.
At the very least, other people not pleased with Rep. Lynch's performance in office may think more and talk more about it.
Thank you for the info you shared about how Ward 20 votes. Do you have a link so I can look at it myself?
Here's the link
From the City of Boston Election Department
Where are online maps available that clearly show streets' names
Where are online maps available that clearly show streets' names at the borders of Boston City Council Districts?...
Is anyone going to offer a defense
of Stephen Lynch's record in Congress? If not, what has he done that you disagree with?
Like his background, and his unorthodoxy
Okay, I'll bite.
I've been a supporter since '01. I was between Lynch and Pacheco- pro-union Democrats who aren't from the party's left. What cinched it was that someone (I'm assuming Jacques' campaign) dropped news of his arrest in 1979 for attacking some flagburners protesting U.S. policy in Iran. Seriously, who thought supporting the government of Iran was a winner even before the fateful election day?
Look at Lynch's background. He worked in the trades, then put himself through undergrad and law school. Then he fought for the union. That's how he gets my support until proven otherwise.
What has he done while in office. He opposed TARP while supporting ARRA, showing again he supports Wall Street over Main Street. He opposed Obamacare in the end, but because it will end up being a cash grab for insurance companies. A lot of people will be eating crow when Lynch appears in a Michael Moore documentary about how health care reform went so, so bad.
He doesn't always toe the party's line. That's not a bad thing. Think about Snowe and Collins in Maine. Do you like them? Do you think "moderate Republicans" are good? Well, some on the right call them RINOs. Being a conservative Democrat, I like the likes of Lynch, Stupak (lost reelection) or Montana's Brian Schweitzer.
You and I don't see eye to eye on political issues. Sad thing is that I'll be represented by your guy and you will be represented by my guy. It's still better than that Bachmann Republican who lives in San Francisco (they like the city, what can they say) or the socialist represented by the right's fav Minnesotan.