Hey, there! Log in / Register
People in Winthrop voted and people in Boston didn't, and that's how Joe Boncore won
By adamg on Wed, 04/13/2016 - 12:30pm
Mike Freedberg takes a look at the numbers in yesterday's special election for the state Senate seat Joe Boncore of Winthrop won:
Winthrop, which totals about 12 percent of the District’s population, saw about 4100 ballots. Boston, whose precincts take up moire than 50 percent of the District, registered barely 5,420. A town of 18,000 people almost equaled the vote of Boston wards home to about 110,000 folks!
And the smallest turnout of all was on Beacon Hill, home to state Rep. Jay Livingstone.
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
Winthrop is a hack town, 1
Winthrop is a hack town, 1 out of 10 adults living in Winthrop has a good wage Job either with the state or Massport, the majority of the voters in Winthrop are state hack workers under the DeLeo regime the speaker of the house and the former state senator, these people made sure that they can win to save their state jobs, it's is all it boils down to, self interest!!!
Voters favor their own interests?
Well color me shocked. And here I've been, voting for candidates who I thought would immanentize the eschaton. Boy is my face red!
Well, which is it, guy? Is it 10%, or north of 50%, of the entire population aged 18 and up? If you're going to make shit up out of whole cloth, you need to at least be consistent across one incredibly badly written sentence.
You honestly think all those
You honestly think all those people standing outside with signs in the last several days on the bridge between Eastie and Winthrop don't have a connection to a high paying State Job , they're obviously campaigning for this candidate for a reason.
Let's not kid ourselves.
WTF
Yes, and the people who pay lots of money into Super PACs also -- Surprise, Surprise -- have a vested financial interest in the bills those candidates will soon be writing.
Generally speaking, anyone who supports a candidate to enough give substantial time or money also has a vested interest in the laws and policies favored by that person.
Conversely, most people vote for the person who they think will help them the most personally.
It's been proven over and
It's been proven over and over in the past with local elected officials, this is public information..
Anyone can search a particular politician on the states campaign finance committee public web site and find out which constituent is funding a candidate , there you will find that same constituent or constituents family member on the State's public payroll!!
This is the most unethical aspect of local politics.
I don't understand.
Is your argument that public employees and their relatives should be prohibited from contributing to election campaigns (or that a contributor and their relatives should be barred from state employment for life if their chosen candidate is successful), or are you actually trying to say that the ONLY people who contribute to state officeholders' campaigns are public employees or their relatives?
These are the type of people
These are the type of people who couldnt survive a day on their own without having a nice secure high paying state job. It is astounding the list of names that are featured on the state payroll.
Okay then
Prove it. You make an assertion, you provide the research.
12.31% of Boston Voters voted?...
12.31% of Boston Voters voted?...
13.07% of Cambridge Voters voted?...
27.31% of Winthrop Voters voted?...
21.29% of Revere Voters voted?...
99% of life...
Is just showing up.
and 100% of elections are decided by the people that show up.
It's all about motivating your base
And Boncore did the best at it.
Back in the 1990s a friend was pondering running for state rep with a platform and style akin to what we have been seeing from a certain politician today. His whole goal would have been to get a bunch of people pissed at him so they would actually vote. (He didn't do it in the end.)
Here in Eastie, I voted
Here in Eastie, I voted around 7:30am and proceeded to get 8 phone calls, two voicemails, and a door-to-door canvasser all hellbent on getting me to the polls.
I'm really not sure what else they can legally do to motivate the base. After a certain point, the system is so broken and the voters so discouraged that an individual campaign is helpless to turn things around.
Early voting would help. I'm waiting to see where those 9 official locations will be before I get excited though. Single-day voting is disenfranchisement of the employed, full effing stop, and there is no excuse for it.
This is pathetic. It looked
This is pathetic. It looked like there were some good, independent-minded candidates running but this election was handed to Robert DeLeo on a silver platter. I have had enough of "special" elections.
Kinda crazy
The governor can appoint US Senator as a replacement, but with less than 6 months of term we have to pay for a primary, a general and then another primary and general in the fall. What a massive waste of time, money and effort. If less than 6 months remain until the next election or some reasonable amount of time, we should either leave the seat empty or have the governor appoint a replacement - perhaps with the consent of the legislative body they are to serve or something.
This is a giant boondoggle. Granted - it's all in a day's work for the pols and their retinues (with money changing hands) so I'm not holding my breath for this to change.
At the very least, we should restrict
the conditions under which a serving official is allowed to resign. IMO, death or serious illness should be the only criteria that warrant resignation and a special election to fill the vacancy. Leaving office because you decided to take a better job should not be allowed.
Involuntary servitude is prohibited
I don't know how you could legally prevent someone from resigning.
If a person willfully runs for office
and is elected into that office by the people, I wouldn't call that involuntary servitude. And I doubt that voters elect a candidate into office just to allow them to resign to take a different job.
The logical end of your proposal
State Reps that just stop showing up at the State House while still collecting their pay.
I mean, one could posit that they don't do too much, but their only real job is to debate and vote on legislation, so if the rep from Hicksville decides to get a 9 to 5 job at a law firm, if he could not resign he could just stop showing up, so he would not vote. I mean, if I took another job and my employer wouldn't let me quit, I'd ask them what they'll do when I stop showing up.
Modest proposal
You leave voluntarily before your term is up and you cede your state pension benefits.
That's all these turds care about anyways, retiring with a full ride and going to the private sector.
It's a shame that only 270
It's a shame that only 270 Eastie residents voted in this election, this tells you off the bat that the political landscape in Eastie has gone in the dumps. Blame the longtime residents who have sold their homes and abandoned Eastie all together.
It leaves a gap, seeing more of absentee new homeowner suburbanites who live elsewhere , who could care less what is happening in Eastie, as long as the investor suburbanites are collecting their rents. the die hard Eastie resident with political involvement is a thing of the past, you don't see much of those types of people these days. Now that the new Senator is from Winthrop how will Eastie be treated in regards to state funding for roads and social services, etc. stay tuned.
You read that wrong
That was the turnout in the precinct in East Boston right next to Winthrop, while in the next precinct over in Winthrop, about twice as many voters voted.
Still, when the turnout of registered voters in Boston is half that in Revere and Winthrop, say goodbye to representation (which is not a knock against the presumptive Senator.)
The most sane solution:
The most sane solution:
1. Switch to a ranked voting system
2. Determine all elections by instant runoff without a primary
3. Fill midterm vacancies with the runner ups from the last election
Confused
I don't understand.
"Runners up" from prior election would end up being a Republican in every single case, no?
Or, are you suggesting having them without party affiliation, so that the runner up might be another Democrat? (Or, UIP, Green, unenrolled, etc.?)
And it could have been
And it could have been avoided if a certain someone could have put off his corporate lobbyist ambitions for just a few more months instead of triggering a madly expensive and undemocratic special election. Selfish slimy git. But golly, why don't people trust their politicians, it is a mystery!
I voted because I didn't want Rizzo to win
There are many reasons why Rizzo didn't win his bid for Mayor of Revere again and it's those same reasons that as a resident of Revere I voted against him in the state senate election. No hack employee here. I work in Boston in the IT department for a financial services company. I exercised my right to vote as an American. Bye Rizzo!