And then there were two... (Boston, Harvard: places, rain, party)

[id77]

Originally Posted by mdovell

https://dorchester.comunicas.org/202...active-voters/

23% of voters voted for her. That isn't good at all. Maybe for a primary but not general election. 77% did not vote for her or voted for the other candidate.

Hyping this up isn't a good thing. Yes a woman of color is now the mayor of Boston but the same would have been for the other candidate and frankly only 37% of voters voted. I don't get it folks

The fact that just over 71% of registered voters in Boston don't even bother to vote is a much bigger condemnation of the voters than it is of Wu.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by mdovell

https://dorchester.comunicas.org/202...active-voters/

23% of voters voted for her. That isn't good at all. Maybe for a primary but not general election. 77% did not vote for her or voted for the other candidate.

Hyping this up isn't a good thing. Yes a woman of color is now the mayor of Boston but the same would have been for the other candidate and frankly only 37% of voters voted. I don't get it folks

Talk about salty..

This is a major reach of a viewpoint. If everyone had to vote there’s no doubt Wu would’ve smacked AEG upside the head even more forcefully.

The turnout was the same as most mayoral elections so just save it.

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by mdovell

https://dorchester.comunicas.org/202...active-voters/

23% of voters voted for her. That isn't good at all. Maybe for a primary but not general election. 77% did not vote for her or voted for the other candidate.

Hyping this up isn't a good thing. Yes a woman of color is now the mayor of Boston but the same would have been for the other candidate and frankly only 37% of voters voted. I don't get it folks

This article is old and thus inaccurate.
Instead of 127k voters the voters were 142,703 more than the last open election and in fact the mayoral election with the most votes casted ever in Boston (granted the population is also higher than in the past).

Nothing to do with Wu, really the problem is just that people in the US vote way less in local elections. In fact the vote way less in any election that isn't a presidential one.

I do find interesting that many more people voted the second turn rather than the first one and I don't get it.
Wouldn't more people want to vote when they have more choices rather than when they have less?
What would the results have been if roughly 140k people voted the first turn instead of 110k? And this isn't restricted to only certain areas, skimming quickly through the data it seems every precinct had more votes the 2nd time around.

[id77]

Originally Posted by Lampert

This article is old and thus inaccurate.
Instead of 127k voters the voters were 142,703 more than the last open election and in fact the mayoral election with the most votes casted ever in Boston (granted the population is also higher than in the past).

Nothing to do with Wu, really the problem is just that people in the US vote way less in local elections. In fact the vote way less in any election that isn't a presidential one.

I do find interesting that many more people voted the second turn rather than the first one and I don't get it.
Wouldn't more people want to vote when they have more choices rather than when they have less?
What would the results have been if roughly 140k people voted the first turn instead of 110k? And this isn't restricted to only certain areas, skimming quickly through the data it seems every precinct had more votes the 2nd time around.

It's one of the great American cycles in our system: stay home during the primaries because they think the primaries don't matter (and forfeit your opinion on who's running in the election), then stay at home during the election because you don't like the choices selected from the primaries.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Talk about salty..

This is a major reach of a viewpoint. If everyone had to vote there’s no doubt Wu would’ve smacked AEG upside the head even more forcefully.

The turnout was the same as most mayoral elections so just save it.

Not salty. I'm just saying that low turnout is bad anywhere. It's hard to feel good otherwise. Turnout was lower than with Walsh. If it gets lower by the same amount it could just be a quarter next time. Maybe put in a local ballot measure next time.

[WestieWhitie]

Turnout was low because things haven’t gotten bad compared to other cities - crime is low, jobs are plentiful, property taxes are reasonable and housing isn’t completely insane compared to places like NYC and SF. We’ll have a lot more people voting in the next election, after we get overrun with heroin zombies and with all the lab space coming online combined with comrade chairWuman’s grand plan involving zero new residential construction we get to a point where a six figure pharmabro can’t afford a studio.

Originally Posted by mdovell

Not salty. I'm just saying that low turnout is bad anywhere. It's hard to feel good otherwise. Turnout was lower than with Walsh. If it gets lower by the same amount it could just be a quarter next time. Maybe put in a local ballot measure next time.

[Space_League]

Originally Posted by Lampert

This article is old and thus inaccurate.
Instead of 127k voters the voters were 142,703 more than the last open election and in fact the mayoral election with the most votes casted ever in Boston (granted the population is also higher than in the past).

Nothing to do with Wu, really the problem is just that people in the US vote way less in local elections. In fact the vote way less in any election that isn't a presidential one.

I do find interesting that many more people voted the second turn rather than the first one and I don't get it.
Wouldn't more people want to vote when they have more choices rather than when they have less?
What would the results have been if roughly 140k people voted the first turn instead of 110k? And this isn't restricted to only certain areas, skimming quickly through the data it seems every precinct had more votes the 2nd time around.

Theres a strange dynamic with local politics. Some people argue that policy should be as localized as possible, to give people on the ground with the most direct impact a bigger influence. This is kind of a libertarianish stance, but one that's easily rejected even though it sounds good. It's easily rejected because local politics are the most corrupt politics. But that's only the case because people don't pay attention to local politics and it takes less weight to tip the scales on local matters. Maybe if people paid more attention to local than national politics, it wouldn't be the case.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Space_League

Theres a strange dynamic with local politics. Some people argue that policy should be as localized as possible, to give people on the ground with the most direct impact a bigger influence. This is kind of a libertarianish stance, but one that's easily rejected even though it sounds good. It's easily rejected because local politics are the most corrupt politics. But that's only the case because people don't pay attention to local politics and it takes less weight to tip the scales on local matters. Maybe if people paid more attention to local than national politics, it wouldn't be the case.

Outside watching CNN, Fox, and networks I don't think most people pay close attention at the national level either. I also don't believe for a minute that local politics is more corrupt than at the national level in this day and age. Even if by chance instances of individual local corruption are exposed at greater frequency it's usually small potatoes in the grand scheme. All one needs to do is look at how many people get elected to offices in DC and leave FAR wealthier than when they arrived. That is, if they ever leave. I believe things are much more manageable at the local level, when people participate, than they are at the federal level. In the not so distant past Boston politics was much more participatory and, while there were instances of corruption, we also had a very active and vigorous media and activist community with their noses deep into many substantive policy issues. What's put forth as activism and investigative journalism these days is generally a corporate ruse.

[Urban Peasant]

Originally Posted by Lampert

This article is old and thus inaccurate.
Instead of 127k voters the voters were 142,703 more than the last open election and in fact the mayoral election with the most votes casted ever in Boston (granted the population is also higher than in the past).

Nothing to do with Wu, really the problem is just that people in the US vote way less in local elections. In fact the vote way less in any election that isn't a presidential one.

I do find interesting that many more people voted the second turn rather than the first one and I don't get it.
Wouldn't more people want to vote when they have more choices rather than when they have less?
What would the results have been if roughly 140k people voted the first turn instead of 110k? And this isn't restricted to only certain areas, skimming quickly through the data it seems every precinct had more votes the 2nd time around.

That is a warning that democracy in our Republic is faltering. Just like a perk or benefit your company offers you, if no one takes advantage of it, the company will take it away. If people do not vote or voice their opinion but instead let others do the voting for them, then one day someone will boldly say we don't need voting anymore, we just need someone to lead us and enact laws for us. That, my friends, is known as a dictatorship.

[WestieWhitie]

Local politics are training wheels for bigger and better things down the road - comrade chairWuman will pocket mere millions in Boston before she jets off to DC where she can pocket tens and even hundreds of millions.

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Outside watching CNN, Fox, and networks I don't think most people pay close attention at the national level either. I also don't believe for a minute that local politics is more corrupt than at the national level in this day and age. Even if by chance instances of individual local corruption are exposed at greater frequency it's usually small potatoes in the grand scheme. All one needs to do is look at how many people get elected to offices in DC and leave FAR wealthier than when they arrived. That is, if they ever leave. I believe things are much more manageable at the local level, when people participate, than they are at the federal level. In the not so distant past Boston politics was much more participatory and, while there were instances of corruption, we also had a very active and vigorous media and activist community with their noses deep into many substantive policy issues. What's put forth as activism and investigative journalism these days is generally a corporate ruse.