If only MA state government suddenly became a fraction as efficient as Singaporean government... The money has to be spent reasonably well - just having it doesn't help all that much.
That's very true. One of my friends who works in urban planning said she was very happy to have moved to Oregon for that reason. In her line of work, quality of governance probably affects her on a day to day basis.
I suppose my original quip was more an observation that Massachusetts manages to do well in spite of its government. :)
It's true. Also there was Scott Brown, if we're discussing state-wide elections.
(I'm going to take this slightly seriously from here; sorry if I'm over-geeking.)
Still, in the last election in Singapore--which, admittedly, was a wakeup call for the ruling PAP--they only got a hair over 60% of the vote. The political systems are very different, so I don't know that anyone collects the voting statistics this way, but I suspect that Democrats regularly get more than 60% of the aggregate vote for Massachusetts House and Senate seats. Partly this is because so many of the Democrats run unopposed, but that kind of just proves the point.
It would be interesting to see where that data's collected.
One problem--and I think it is a problem, actually--with the Republican governors going all the way back to William Weld, as well as Senator Brown, is that they essentially did no party building to speak of. The Republicans, as a party, are in disarray all over Massachusetts. I don't actually think it's good for governance that there's no serious political opposition party. And I say this as a supporter of the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
But with the Republican brand so identified nationally with the crazies who have hijacked it from the moderates who used to exist in New England, I suspect that something non-linear will have to happen for a serious opposition party to emerge in Massachusetts.
I didn't do the 2012 House elections. Forty Senate elections is plenty to give the flavor of the thing.
(For comparison, Singaporean General Election, 2011:
Votes for the People's Action Party: 1,212,154 Total votes, not including spoilt ballots [44,737]: 2,350,873 People's Action Party percentage of vote: 60.14)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
randomness![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-15 01:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-15 03:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-16 07:02 am (UTC)I suppose my original quip was more an observation that Massachusetts manages to do well in spite of its government. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-16 07:20 am (UTC)(I'm going to take this slightly seriously from here; sorry if I'm over-geeking.)
Still, in the last election in Singapore--which, admittedly, was a wakeup call for the ruling PAP--they only got a hair over 60% of the vote. The political systems are very different, so I don't know that anyone collects the voting statistics this way, but I suspect that Democrats regularly get more than 60% of the aggregate vote for Massachusetts House and Senate seats. Partly this is because so many of the Democrats run unopposed, but that kind of just proves the point.
It would be interesting to see where that data's collected.
One problem--and I think it is a problem, actually--with the Republican governors going all the way back to William Weld, as well as Senator Brown, is that they essentially did no party building to speak of. The Republicans, as a party, are in disarray all over Massachusetts. I don't actually think it's good for governance that there's no serious political opposition party. And I say this as a supporter of the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
But with the Republican brand so identified nationally with the crazies who have hijacked it from the moderates who used to exist in New England, I suspect that something non-linear will have to happen for a serious opposition party to emerge in Massachusetts.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-16 07:57 am (UTC)Votes for Democrats: 2,012,117
Total votes cast, including blank: 3,184,196
Democratic Party percentage of vote: 63.19
So not as totally lop-sided as I thought, or as the 36 to 4 majority would lead one to believe. First-past-the-post is a powerful thing.
(raw figures from http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/rov12.pdf)
I didn't do the 2012 House elections. Forty Senate elections is plenty to give the flavor of the thing.
(For comparison, Singaporean General Election, 2011:
Votes for the People's Action Party: 1,212,154
Total votes, not including spoilt ballots [44,737]: 2,350,873
People's Action Party percentage of vote: 60.14)
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-16 08:02 am (UTC)With the possible exception of their South Shore stronghold. (I guess that's one symptom of why MH rants about the place.)