I’ve fallen behind in reading and writing about the city council race. And responses to my survey were not plentiful. As I wrote before, I’ve been disappointed, not only for the tepid response to the survey, but the fact that both council and mayoral races involve a series of quite important issues for the direction of the city - what to do about housing, how to improve education, taxation and economic development - that are both ever present, but never properly debated. The news media dissects the horse race, and the voters who are bothered to follow the race split along tribal lines(progressive vs. middle-of-the-road, old Irish Boston vs. new minority Boston) more than for any particular thing they want their city government to do.
Hopefully the platform overview here will help some Bostonians make up their mind in the voting booth tomorrow. One of the things that’s struck me is how the substantive disagreements between candidates center around a few left-center distinctions: rent control vs. market prices; dismantling the BRA vs. keeping it; busing vs. neighborhood schools; Biolab vs. no Biolab. Yet these issues don’t always line up neatly. A conservative machine politician like Ed Flynn is esposing a Catholic socialism and soak the rich platform. Progressive stalwart Arroyo is worried that neighborhood schools will bring back racial segregation in full force, but supports an elected school board, which also pre-dated the busing crisis of the 70s. Liberal candidate Matt O’Malley and bread-and-butter councilor Stephen Murphy are close on residency, yet apart on the Biolab. In general, it’s surprising to see so many candidates leaning toward the left side (rent control, say) when there’s been little traction for them in the council before. Are at large candidates now noticeably more progressive than district candidates?
This was compiled from a number of sources, but I’d recommend the following:
- Globe’s city elections section: best one stop overview of the candidates and their platforms.
- "Inside politics" blogs at the Phoenix and the Herald
- Universal Hub’s Campaign Notes
- MassMarrier’s dissection of the "Progressive" craze
- Bay Windows has been interviewing both at-large and district candidates
Also, a few candidates responsed to my survey:
- Michael Flaherty, current councilor-at-large
- Michael Cote, 3rd district candidate, challenger to Maureen Feeney
- Gibran Rivera, 6th district candidate, challenger to John Tobin
I could give my endorsement, but perhaps it suffices to say that I’m leaning toward the liberal bread-and-butter candidates like Flaherty and Connolly because they are practical and versed in the particulars of city governance and its problems. The progressives have failed to win me over, Arroyo because his platforms are heavily invested in grand social-transformation rhetoric that strikes me as missing the point of what city councils can and should do, Yoon because his seemingly more practical solutions are at closer examination often fudged and vague - I predict that he’ll pull a victory and that many supporters will be disappointed when Yoon’s actions don’t live up to the narrative they’ve built of him.
Finally, bullet voting has become mystified but it boils down to this: you can vote for 4 at-large candidates but don’t have to vote for 4. To the extent that you have a favorite one or two but care less about options 3 or 4 and think that # 3 and 4 have a chance of beating #1 or #2, it can make sense to only vote for the one or two. The "bullet vote" has no special power; it’s just an attempt to deny the other candidates a vote.
No comments have been added to this post yet.