If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WCVB Boston)   If your Massachusetts town needs a quorum of registered voters for a town meeting, it probably would be best not to schedule opposite a World Series game   (wcvb.com) divider line 16
    More: Silly, World Series, Massachusetts, special town meetings, college town, pump station, Daily Hampshire Gazette  
•       •       •

2167 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Oct 2013 at 2:29 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



16 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-27 12:06:19 PM
Just call the guy who scheduled the meeting out for obstruction; THEN everyone will show up to complain.

/ducks
 
2013-10-27 12:09:16 PM

UNC_Samurai: Just call the guy who scheduled the meeting out for obstruction; THEN everyone will show up to complain.

/ducks

You know, if the Sox lose this World Series, and don't win another one for a while after that, you know the whining about a "curse" will return. Dan Shaughnessey probably has the column already written
 
2013-10-27 02:04:59 PM
A World Series game played by the Red Sox, no less.  Good Lord, that was dumb.
 
2013-10-27 02:30:15 PM
Are you kidding? It's the easiest way to slip something nefarious by everybody, and nobody would know.
 
2013-10-27 02:31:45 PM

Trocadero: Are you kidding? It's the easiest way to slip something nefarious by everybody, and nobody would know.


MA laws are designed to prevent that from happening, lest the state be overrun by Republicans while everyone was watching the Pats.
 
2013-10-27 03:05:34 PM

ohsoferrety: Trocadero: Are you kidding? It's the easiest way to slip something nefarious by everybody, and nobody would know.

MA laws are designed to prevent that from happening, lest the state be overrun by Republicans while everyone was watching the Pats.


I don't know if you're joking or not, because Romney was elected the same year that the Patriots won the super bowl.
 
2013-10-27 03:27:43 PM

UsikFark: ohsoferrety: Trocadero: Are you kidding? It's the easiest way to slip something nefarious by everybody, and nobody would know.

MA laws are designed to prevent that from happening, lest the state be overrun by Republicans while everyone was watching the Pats.

I don't know if you're joking or not, because Romney was elected the same year that the Patriots won the super bowl.


Governor's race, year of the Super Bowl win

upload.wikimedia.org

After four years of Romney and five of Bush, when Deval Patrick first ran in 2006
upload.wikimedia.org

/probably unrelated, meant as a joke, but there's some truth to it
 
2013-10-27 04:10:53 PM
World Series  = World Championship of the USA

Amirite?
 
2013-10-27 04:12:26 PM

lunkhed: World Series  = World Championship of the USA

Amirite?


Hey, Toronto is free to win try for it.
 
2013-10-27 04:30:22 PM
I don't get the rescheduling thing. A meeting was offered to discuss a sewer station. 80 people showed up. What were these other 20 folks going to offer? Obviously they found a game more important. Put the sewer pump to vote! Some of those elevator stations reek to high hell. Especially if they are equipped with muffin mashers.
 
2013-10-27 05:00:11 PM

Trocadero: Are you kidding? It's the easiest way to slip something nefarious by everybody, and nobody would know.


Also my first thought.  Does that make us bad people or just more aware of how small town politics works?  Seriously.  I've seen bond issues voted down by an overwhelming margin passed the next month because less than 10% of the people showed up the 2nd time when the issue was reintroduced.

Town hall government has a serious problem when then 'town' gets too big and the majority of people can't be bothered to engage in the democratic process.  Of course, the idea that you could simply have a 're-vote' on an proposal that had already been soundly defeated is a different sort of failure, but more of a procedural one.
 
2013-10-27 05:02:58 PM

Trocadero: Are you kidding? It's the easiest way to slip something nefarious by everybody, and nobody would know.


That was my thought.
 
2013-10-27 05:07:44 PM

tuna fingers: I don't get the rescheduling thing. A meeting was offered to discuss a sewer station. 80 people showed up. What were these other 20 folks going to offer? Obviously they found a game more important. Put the sewer pump to vote! Some of those elevator stations reek to high hell. Especially if they are equipped with muffin mashers.


Hadley is a small town population-wise and still uses the "open town meeting" rules of yore. Having 100 people is *mandatory*. If it was put to a vote, I doubt more than 100 people would show up to cast ballots.
 
2013-10-27 07:14:14 PM
The Daily Hampshire Gazette reports that residents are expected to discuss a nearly $1 million sewer pump station upgrade

I would say their priorities were in the toilet but clearly they were not the one time they should have been or something
 
2013-10-27 07:30:06 PM

subfactorial: Trocadero: Are you kidding? It's the easiest way to slip something nefarious by everybody, and nobody would know.

Also my first thought.  Does that make us bad people or just more aware of how small town politics works?  Seriously.  I've seen bond issues voted down by an overwhelming margin passed the next month because less than 10% of the people showed up the 2nd time when the issue was reintroduced.

Town hall government has a serious problem when then 'town' gets too big and the majority of people can't be bothered to engage in the democratic process.  Of course, the idea that you could simply have a 're-vote' on an proposal that had already been soundly defeated is a different sort of failure, but more of a procedural one.


Yes and no. Circumstances change. Before Brown v. Board there was Plessy v. Ferguson (which were court cases, but CA passed Prop 8, and now it looks like that wouldn't happen if you tried it again).
 
2013-10-27 07:50:15 PM

Trocadero: Yes and no. Circumstances change. Before Brown v. Board there was Plessy v. Ferguson (which were court cases, but CA passed Prop 8, and now it looks like that wouldn't happen if you tried it again).


Sure sure, but there's a *lot* of time and social change in between those decisions (the first one anyway, the other is hypothetical at this point).  What I'm talking about is more along the lines of "let's call a special session the day after we lost, barely achieve quorum, and jam a bunch of crap through."

So I'm not arguing that once things are voted on that they should be settled for all time.  That's just silly.  Just continuing to hold 're-votes' until you get the decision you want is what I'm saying is undemocratic.. ironically involving a abundance of voting.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report