Hey, there! Log in / Register

No surprises in Massachusetts

ABC and WCVB called Massachusetts early for Biden and Ed Markey, Democrat Jake Auchincloss is winning over the Republican to replace Joe Kennedy.

BU News Service: Resplendent Ed Markey is hopeful about America’s future.

WCVB reporting that Question 1, which would open up certain kinds of diagnostic data on newer cars, is winning, while Question 2 on ranked choice voting is losing.

Also losing: Perennial candidate Roy Owens, this time making his annual election the one for the 7th congressional district, where Ayanna Pressley will be re-elected. Next door, in the 8th district, Steve Lynch is winning over an independent.

Unofficial Boston numbers show Biden with 82% of the vote in the city. In Boston, Question 1 is winning, as is Question 2.

Topics: 

Ad:

Comments

Laughing at the slate of MassGOP losers getting their asses handed to them!

up
Voting closed 13

How is it that the MA GOP has competent governor candidates but can't seem to come up with more than a few other functional adults?

Has Trumpism damaged the party in MA beyond repair?

And what happened to Richard Tisei? He seems to have been pushed aside by the idealogues.

up
Voting closed 26

Lost his last three campaigns (Baker's lt gov against Patrick/Murray in 2010, Congress against John Tierney in 2012, Congress against Seth Moulton in 2014).

up
Voting closed 13

I always think back to the Phoenix's endorsement in the 2012 Tisei-Tierney race- that Tisei was basically a dream candidate for them against a guy whose family/ himself had likely committed crimes while in office- but the 'R' behind Tisei's name was too much for them

up
Voting closed 12

Until you remember the last three speakers of the Mass House going back to 1991 all resigned due to indictments--all Democrats.

up
Voting closed 56

Good times.

up
Voting closed 8

cybersecurity issues being told by the auto industry there were galling to me. (I was surprised to see that the TV ads required disclosure so you could tell it was all industry-funded: GM, Ford, Nissan, etc. That was some consumer-friendly goodness right there. When did that happen?) I bought my current old bomber from a dealership, but rely on a local independent auto mechanic for all my repairs, as I have always done.

A bit surprised Question 2 might prevail. I voted for it, but I figured most people would go, "Too complicated."

up
Voting closed 39

Seems like a non-partisan no-brainer to me, but this is the US in 2020, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

up
Voting closed 39

Thanks.

up
Voting closed 16

I see two things at play. First, there is the idea that the new voting system will be overly confusing and could theoretically lead strange results.

Second, and more importantly, there is the fear of change. Somehow (and remember, I was a yes voter) the yes campaign failed to prove that this was something needed. The default is the status quo. My rule of thumb is to vote no unless someone can convince me to vote yes. I'd say that before the campaign actually started, I would have voted no, because I saw the system working, but I was convinced that RCV could be a moderating force.

up
Voting closed 17

Imagine two polarizing candidates the state is split on and one third person nobody that really no one wants to vote but is the only other person on the ballot. Let's use Trump/Biden because it's an easy example.

I you're voting for Trump, Biden is probably your last pick and likewise for Biden voter. So your rankings look like this

Trump Voter :
1. Trump
2. Other Guy
3. Biden

Biden Voter:
1. Biden
2. Other Guy
3. Trump

If Trump and Biden split the votes and other guy gets just 1% you hit less than 50% majority for Biden and Trump but other guy got all the second place votes. We end up electing the other guy who nobody really wants who really only woukd have got 1% of the votes today. Is that better than what we have now?

That's at least my understanding of how it works and maybe I'm not exactly right which leads me to the second reason I voted No if I'm confused by it, then most likely many others will be too. I may not be the smartest person in the state but I'd put myself at least in the middle somewhere.

up
Voting closed 11

In your scenario, let's say 1m people vote for

1 Trump, 2 Other, 3 Biden

and another 1m people vote for

1 Biden, 2 Other, 3 Trump

and a handful of people have either

1 Other, 2 Trump, 3 Biden
1 Other, 2 Biden, 3 Trump.

In this case, both Trump and Biden have just under 50% of the first-place votes. So, take the candidate with the fewest number of first place votes (Other), and for those ballots, look at their second-place votes, and assign them to either Trump or Biden accordingly. At this point, one of them will have more than 50%, and will be declared the winner.

(Unless there are equal numbers of "1 Other, 2 Trump, 3 Biden" and "1 Other, 2 Biden, 3 Trump", in which case, the usual tie-breakers are used. This is *exceedingly* unlikely in the real world).

up
Voting closed 8

This is not at all how it works. (Face palm).

All you need to know is that it allows you to rank your second choice. Why would that be anything but good?

But if you want to understand why your example is wrong, here's why: if no candidate gets 50% of the vote, then the candidate who received the LEAST 1st place votes is eliminated, and because she's been eliminated, the people who put her as their first choice are now voting with their second choice, (Biden or Trump). So you are not going to have "Some Other Guy" winning with RCV.

Yes, the majority of the electorate does not understand how RCV works. The problem with the Prop2 boosters was they tried to explain the workings to the electorate. (People are stupid!) They should have said, "who doesn't like to be able to express more preference?" and left it at that.

Referenda are a terrible idea. We pay salaries to have a government of informed representatives. They are too cowardly to move on good ideas and instead hide behind popular ill-informed votes.

up
Voting closed 16

From my understanding of RCV, the first candidate who would be eliminated would be Other Guy, since he'd have the least number of 1st choice votes. With him gone, the election falls to the last two, which isn't any different from what we have now.

I agree that RCV can be more elaborate, but I don't believe that should be a strong reason to reject it, especially since a voter can still do what they used to do and just vote for a single candidate.

up
Voting closed 6

I also voted yes on Question 2.

But in my opinion the reasoning behind your question is why it lost.

Supporters tend to think, "Why would anyone be against this?", not understanding that a lot of folks can't be bothered to know what it's about.

The better question is, "What can we do to educate people about RCV so they can make a good decision?"

In my congressional district, where we had about 90 people(*) running in the Democratic primary for what's now Jake Auchincloss's seat, we had a lesson in how the votes get divided among candidates with similar positions, and we would likely have had a different outcome under RCV.
(*) - a slight exaggeration

Thus, we had enough voters thinking about that election that Question 2 did well in my town (I have not checked the district as a whole).

up
Voting closed 9

I wanted it because just look at the primary for the HP rep last time.

Incumbent - 35%
Challenger - 25%
Challenger - 25%
Challenger - 15%
Challenger -10%

And the incumbent wins but most people wanted him gone. This is why ranked choice voting was needed.

up
Voting closed 13

Because of the assumption that supporters challengers 3 and 4 would automatically list challengers 1 and 2 and so on so that challenger #2 (or 3) would win.

Then, I decided that people were taking a simplistic approach to the electorate, that perhaps supporters of challenger 1 would be less likely to vote for a challenger of a certain race, or that supporters of challenger 2 truly though the candidate was the best, but didn't really like challenger 1, so they would throw their support behind incumbent because though not as good as challenger 2, incumbent was decent enough.

That said, in the last Hyde Park primary, the winning candidate got a majority, but in both this primary and the one before, I could see having ranked preferences. Ranked preferences, though, do not portend a result.

up
Voting closed 10

RCV is inappropriate for a system where we elect individuals rather than parties. It is a way to take the worst parts of a parliamentary system and apply them to a representative republic.

I have enough trouble finding someone to vote for as it is. The problem with RCV is that many people like me won't rank anyone other than a first place. So as you decline in the numbers of voters who are actually being counted in the vote you will end up with a minority of the voters actually being counted, so the "majority" winner will have a less than majority of true number of voters, thereby being a "minority" (or actually a plurality) "winner". Everyone in favor of RCV assumes that voters will rank all candidates, but there is no requirement to do so. That's why in every race in the US where RCV has occurred, the winner won with less than 50% of the original vote total.

The people who supported this initiative in this election tried passing this off as a way to make the primary system "fair". But, those were all Democrats and since the party rather than the Commonwealth is in charge of the rules for their primaries they are free to use RCV in their primary systems. This initiative was a bald faced lie in how it was proposed and promoted. It should have lose and it did. But like every bad idea in Massachusetts it will come back and they won't lose again.

up
Voting closed 11

I voted no on RCV.

Why?

Exactly my question. Too many "why's" and "what's", and too few answers.
Why change?
What's wrong with a plurality?
What actual need is there to create a supposed majority?
Why engineer a virtual "runoff" that uses preference data from a larger set of choices instead of having an actual runoff between the actual choices?
What happens if a voter doesn't rank some of the included choices on their ballot?
In addition to constructing a majority by substituting later-round choices for eliminated choices (increasing the numbers for other candidates), does it also construct a majority by reducing sample size?
[For example - The four top finishers in a race (in descending order of total votes) are candidates A, B, C and D. If a voter ranked only C & D on their ranked-choice ballot - when C & D are eliminated, what happens? Do A (&B) benefit by now having a smaller set?]

Why only single-winner races? Why single-winner races at all? Some form of RCV might make sense for a multi-position race, such as choosing up to four city councillors-at-large.

up
Voting closed 13

They will get much further in future efforts by being honest. I am sick of big companies trying to lie to us, and mislead us.

I would like to see Question 2 fail. Ranked choice voting isn't something I have a problem with when voting. I do have a problem with the options regularly provided as candidates. They're mostly well connected, well funded, and are indebted to their largest donors and organizers. There have been zero times when I've seen a ballot and thought, "WOW! These are all great candidates!". I would like if a ballot initiative added an option to vote for 'none of the above'. Imagine this;

For U.S. President
Biden [D] ( )
Trump [R] ( )
Jorgensen [L] ( )
Hawkins [G] ( )
None of the above (X)

Much better. The top two are failures. The next two aren't even getting fair media coverage.

up
Voting closed 24

As one of the options. For now I consider blank to be none.

up
Voting closed 14

I would like to see Question 2 fail. Ranked choice voting isn't something I have a problem with when voting.

...Then why did you want it to fail?

up
Voting closed 12

Just leave the spot blank if you really don't care. If None wins, they'd just appoint someone to the spot or hold another election. How is that any better?

If you want the 3rd party candidates to get more media, RCV is the way to achieve that since votes for them will actually matter.

up
Voting closed 19

Question 2 isn't prevailing though

up
Voting closed 19

Can stay poor and stay stupid. Screw.

up
Voting closed 39

You sound stable and enlightened.

up
Voting closed 30

I'm capable of voting in my interests.

up
Voting closed 20

The ad suggesting that you will be raped if you vote for Question 1 has got to go down as one of the most serious misreads in campaign advertising history. Wish the opponents of Question 2 had run an ad like that.

up
Voting closed 31

I thought it was pretty funny when the No on 1 guy showed up here and tried to defend it, too. Yuck.

Question 2 had some mildly aggravating crap in the voter booklet about how we shouldn't do ranked choice because something happened somewhere in California and Gavin Newsome and Jerry Brown didn't like that.

Wut?

Maybe the Yes on 2 people should have run an ad with Newsom's ex screaming ;-)

up
Voting closed 15

and steer you into an eighteen-wheeler, don't come crying to me. :-)

up
Voting closed 10

news flash, with or without Question 1, this could still happen.

up
Voting closed 40

Yeah, it's Wired, but..

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

Trusting that car makers are going to do the right thing about security on their own is laughable. What's worse is that we probably can't rely on automakers to keep the software systems of always-connected vehicles protected against security vulnerabilities for as long as most vehicles tend to stay on the road.

up
Voting closed 7

But you have to engage the cruise control autopilot first.

Like this guy plowing into an already overturned truck (nobody was killed, just a fun WTF to watch): https://www.thedrive.com/news/33789/autopilot-blamed-for-teslas-crash-in...

Or this guy, now eternally asleep at the wheel: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18627766/tesla-autopilot-fatal-crash-...

up
Voting closed 13

I think the best part is how the Tesla would have run the guy on foot over if he didn't jump out of the way. Tesla Murderbot.

up
Voting closed 14

are crazy but fun to watch

up
Voting closed 7

You do know that The Fate of the Furious is a fictional movie right?

up
Voting closed 14

For what cars you can buy in this country is precisely why somebody should have voted Yes on 1. Telling a car company what they have to do goes against my Libertarian instincts, but if government won't let Peugeots and Tatas (tee hee) into this country for sale, then it's only fair that they intervene in the aftermarket repair trade.

I'm still whipping my 2006 Corolla. Not an AUX or a USB port to be found.

up
Voting closed 11

They just have to meet our standards.

Migrate to Canada with a US car and you have to modify it, too, because they have standards for winterization and different emissions requirements.

up
Voting closed 11

A real libertarian would argue that you should be able to anything you want with your car, including read all the data it records.

The auto manufactures are the ones who denying your right to use your car as you see fit. They are the ones who want to be the sole deciders of what you can and can't do with the thing you own. (And they want this control to make money, not to make anyone safer.)

up
Voting closed 9

You can also argue that a business generally has the right to make whatever product how they see fit and a customer can choose to buy it or not, barring serious commons externalities like pollution.

In this case, I voted for right to repair... but I don't think its extremely clear cut one way or the other. Technological integration also begets tradeoffs (see iPhone)

But mostly there are no true Scottsmen :)

up
Voting closed 14

The best choice is usually obvious. Whenever big business throws a ton of money at a ballot question, it's prudent to vote against it. Whoever sends me the most mailings on expensive coated stock won't get my vote.

up
Voting closed 23

The pro-RCV campaign raised $9.8M and lost by 10 to a group that raised just over $3500.

https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_2,_Ranked-Choice_Voting_I...(2020)

up
Voting closed 21

So what happened to the alleged blue wave? Looks like bad man orange is going to pull this off!

up
Voting closed 55

But thanks for living the stereotype of "math impaired Trump voter" and "instant gratification driven Trump voter who fails the marshmallow test".

We needed someone for that role here.

Besides - didn't you hear? Vermin Supreme declared victory at 2pm so HE WAS FIRST! Must be true - get ready for that pony!

up
Voting closed 37

Resorting to name calling is beneath me.

up
Voting closed 15

Cupcake, name calling is what you just did, and it's all you got.

Show yourself out and take Orange Man with you.

up
Voting closed 6

Is really his name. How is that name calling?
Not sure where I'dput the pony though?

up
Voting closed 8

So much for that blue wave.

up
Voting closed 12

Keep an eye on Georgia, bright boy.

up
Voting closed 9

When you look at WBUR's town-by-town map for both President and US Senate, Billerica stands out as a bright red blotch surrounded by a sea of blue.

Sorting the tables by vote percentage shows that both Trump (63.2%) and O'Connor (61.7%) had their highest percentage of vote in Billerica, compared to every other Massachusetts city and town.

EDIT: A subsequent update to the WBUR map changed Billerica's status entirely, to light blue, for both races. I don't know what happened here.

O'Connor didn't come anywhere close to winning his home town of Dover, with 42.3%.

up
Voting closed 13

Now we know where to build the wall.

up
Voting closed 18

2016 had Billerica a solid red town as well as Tewksbury and Wilmington. Good to see those 3 towns flip to blue.

up
Voting closed 8

Within an hour after I posted this, WBUR's map and table changed to show Billerica as light blue in both the Presidential and Senate races.

I don't understand what happened here, as I'm pretty sure the original data were listed with 100% precincts reported.

up
Voting closed 9

I read several articles plus a few news stations saying Trump insisted on them being counted AFTER yesterday's in person ballots were counted. We would be blue regardless so I think that's where that came in

up
Voting closed 11

In Massachusetts or at least Boston, I know personally, absentee ballots are counted at the precinct the voter is from with all the other votes.

up
Voting closed 7

Real bummed about ranked choice voting getting shot down. It's something that benefits voters regardless of which party they're affiliated with. Apparently "you people are too stupid to understand how this concept works" was a strong enough argument for enough people to vote no.

up
Voting closed 30

Instant Runoff Voting is absolutely better than our current plurality system, but it's also the worst of all the major ranked-ballot systems: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

I'm hoping that we'll get approval or STAR voting in a few cities and then people will feel comfortable with it at the state level.

up
Voting closed 7

I just hope it doesn't go the way of the Death with Dignity results back in 2012, where a lot of people wanted a "better" system to vote Yes on, but instead it just went away. There's a lot to be said for getting something in place and then improving it as needed.

up
Voting closed 15

Of awful ballot defeats in MA consists of that, beer at the grocery store, and RCV.

I'm glad I didn't grow up in this state, and I'm glad that I get to have a Boston address. People everywhere else sound like such dumb trash to me.

up
Voting closed 16

Everybody remember to wave to Shiva as he is driving around picking up his signs so he can re-use them next round!

up
Voting closed 7