Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

April 14, 2010

State Senate Unofficial Election Results (Middlesex, Suffolk, & Essex) – April 2010

Filed under: 2010 State Senate election — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:08 am

Candidate
Everett
Cambridge
Charlestown
Somerville
Allston-
Brighton
Chelsea
Saugus
Revere
Total
Percent
Total350029271614442474145934660911365100.0
DiDomenico, Sal259917347521241254228248423037.2
Flaherty, Tim68113478597129345471320409636.0
Simmons, Denise4290435266161109114810.1
Benzan, Dennis743715526333652299558.4
Albano, Michael919291983631313207546.6
Hill, Dan1327965812231661.5
Write-In/Other13342220.2

If you have additions or corrections, please provide them as a comment and the table will updated shortly. Numbers for write-ins and any information about turnout are also appreciated. You can also send them to me directly at Robert@rwinters.com.
These are unofficial vote totals compiled in April.

The results of the September 2010 Primary are here:
http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=925

- Robert Winters

18 Comments

  1. There was also a Republican Primary. It featured a blank ballot, with one sticker/write-in
    candidate running. Not surprisingly, the results will not be known for a few days in all
    likelihood. But Barbara Bush (yes, her real name) of Monument Square in Charlestown ran on
    stickers and needs 300 total votes to be placed in contention for the general election.
    I hope she succeeded, though any such campaign where the candidate’s name is not printed on the ballot is inherently an uphill battle, especially when Republican votes alone must accomplish the task.
    We shall see.

    Comment by Fred Baker — April 14, 2010 @ 1:48 pm

  2. I WONDER WHAT THE RESULTS WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THERE WERE INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING. WHAT A SHAME THAT A PERSON IS SELECTED TO RUN IN A FINAL ELECTION BY LESS THAT A MAJORITY. SOMEDAY IF WE WORK HARD IT MIGHT COME TRUE. THE WINNER LOST TO THE REST BY 5347 TO 3500. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE OF 1847 VOTES. OF COURSE THIS IS UNOFFICIAL AS OF THIS MOMENT BUT I SUSPECT IT WON’T CHANGE BY MUCH. I WONDER WHO THE FINAL CONTESTANTS WILL BE IN MAY, SEPT AND NOV. ONLY TIME WILL TELL.

    Comment by bob richards — April 14, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

  3. Just saw these numbers from Chelsea:

    Flaherty 454, Benzan, 365, Albano, 313, DiDomenico 254 and Denise Simmons, 61.

    Maybe it was Benzan that took victory from Flaherty. Can Sal possibly hold this seat 1-1 against Flaherty (or anyone?) in September???

    Comment by Alain — April 16, 2010 @ 12:33 am

  4. how do you justify saying anyone took election result away from Flaherty except all of them. maybe if we had instant runoff voting for races like this one and others involving more than two candidates, we might actually have a candidate that represents , at least, 50%+ 1 of those going to the election. spend some time working for I R V. contact Fairvote.org and get to work. by the way, i think that Flaherty would have won this election and be the senator if I R V was being used. from Cambridge if I R V was being used. it is too late for the next election but work to get ot on the state ballot and maybe someday.
    by, the way, why didn’t you use the name of other candidates instead of Benzan and the Chelsea vote. i wonder why. do you have an answer for me? Are you a person with only one name. please give real entire name.

    Comment by bob richards — April 16, 2010 @ 11:14 am

  5. Here’s what I wrote about this a while back (amended accordingly):

    This interim election to fill the Galluccio vacancy should not even be happening. Whoever wins the April primary will face no opposition in the May election and will be seated in time for summer recess and the fall reelection campaign season. This same seat will again be contested in the September primary (most likely featuring many of the same candidates) followed by an uncontested November election. This is a total waste of money with no benefit.

    Even more insane is the election method itself. There are 6 Democratic candidates who will be splitting the vote so completely that it will be virtually impossible for any candidate to get anywhere near a majority of the vote in a low-turnout April primary. The election promises to be a textbook example of how elections should not be conducted, but does anyone believe the Massachusetts State Legislature will ever change the method?

    Here’s the change they should make: Change the law for the filling of vacancies in State Senate and State Representative seats so that the first election is an open (nonpartisan) preliminary election followed by a top-two runoff. No election system is perfect, but this would at the very least produce a majority winner in a meaningful final election. Until Massachusetts seriously addresses the topic of electoral reform, state government has no business referring to itself as “progressive.”

    Comment by Robert Winters — April 16, 2010 @ 12:45 pm

  6. hey robert. why not just make all elections wide open with I R V as the method of electing a candidate that has 50% +1 of the votes in the election. i never thought of Mass. state govt. as being progressive. look who they periodically elect to state and federal positions.

    Comment by bob richards — April 16, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

  7. I would certainly not object to eliminating all primaries and using Instant Runoff Voting for all State Senate and State Rep. seats and other elected positions in Massachusetts. However, I don’t see the Legislature ever moving in that direction any time soon. For starters, it’s the problem of “better the devil you know” and they were all elected using the current broken system.

    Even more of an obstruction is the fact that having either an Instant Runoff system or a top-two runoff with preliminary election (like they do for the Mayor of Boston) is that it might actually make most elections competitive. In lopsided Democratic districts, you might see two strong Democrats face each other in the general election. Most of the state legislators like having uncontested general elections, though few of them will ever publicly admit it.

    My suggestion is simply that they start by reforming the method used to fill a vacancy. If that proves acceptable or maybe even popular, then we can look at the bigger picture.

    Comment by Robert Winters — April 16, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

  8. i have been working on I R V for years and advocating in many districts around the country. success has been very positive. i guess i would take something in the meantime but would rather see I R V legislation filed in this state. an attempt was initiated last year but they had to pull bck as the strategy wasn’t sufficient and could have set things back as opposed to making positive steps. i have also been involved with fairvote for a while now. they have been fairly successful nationwide but of course in the more liberal communities and states. even the republican party uses I R V to nominate it’s presidential nominee, i understand. maybe even the democratic party might do the same some day. how about even the Cambridge Democratic City Comm. for it’s nominees to the city mgr for the election commission. by the way, any info on that issue now that the election is over.

    Comment by bob richards — April 16, 2010 @ 8:01 pm

  9. so, who is Alain anyway.

    Comment by bob richards — April 16, 2010 @ 8:26 pm

  10. I don’t know who Alain is. I tried to send him a message asking for more details, but the mail didn’t go through so I suppose he’s using a fake address. That’s no-no, so I may flush future messages unless a proper address is provided.

    That said, it’s just as fair to say that any candidate who received more votes than Sal’s margin of victory over Tim was the spoiler. However, you really can’t blame any candidate for running and trying to win. It’s the election system that’s at fault.

    Comment by Robert Winters — April 16, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

  11. my comment to Alain and response to you is why did he pick out Benzan as opposed to any or all the others as a spoiler.

    Comment by bob richards — April 17, 2010 @ 9:52 am

  12. On the Cambridge Chronicle site, I found someone named Alain Dante who wrote:
    (1) “Yes – Denise Simmons is a true class act in a profession that doesn’t have many. I was proud to vote for her today – the true progressive in the race.”

    and
    (2) “Why should Denise not run? This is America – you can do what you want. Blame the voters in Cambridge if you want – they wanted to vote for her.”

    and
    (3) “Yeah, everyone knows why Bay Windows wrote a nice puff piece for Flaherty. Because his paid-consultant, Dorie Clark, is connected there. Money still makes the world go around, I guess. There’s only one REAL progressive in this race – and it’s Denise Simmons.”

    I’m not disagreeing with anything Alain says, but he or she does appear to be a Denise Simmons supporter. In this context, I don’t fault Alain for taking offense at the suggestion that Denise Simmons somehow should be held responsible for Sal DiDomenico winning the primary. Furthermore, the notion that “Cambridge lost the seat” is absurd. Sal DiDomenico was born and raised in Cambridge and graduated from CRLS. He and his parents continue to organize the Feast of Saints Cosmas and Damian in East Cambridge. Sal is as Cantabrigian as they come.

    Comment by Robert Winters — April 17, 2010 @ 10:18 am

  13. now i know why he put the loss of flaherty on benzan. thanks for the possible source. i remember when CapUano first ran for Rep. there were, i think, 11 candidates in that race. he won with about the same % vote that Sal has. life happens. Sal got very few votes though, considering his long time connection to Cambridge and his Parents continued presence and his work for Anthony.

    Comment by bob richards — April 17, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

  14. Sal DiDomenico is a child of East Cambridge – deep within what is now Anthony Petruccelli’s State Senate district. I guarantee you Sal would have done very well in many of those precincts.

    The Cambridge portion of the Middlesex, Suffolk, and Essex district was much more fertile turf for Tim Flaherty and, to a lesser degree, Denise Simmons.

    Comment by Robert Winters — April 17, 2010 @ 2:45 pm

  15. i see that none of the district Sal ran from was in E. Cambridge. that explains the reason for the low #s. Tolman has the Mt. Auburn Section. Voila.

    Comment by bob richards — April 17, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

  16. so, robert. what % of real registered voters in the M S E senatorial district actually went to the polls in the recent elections.

    any word yet on who got appointed to the election commission. what’s happening with that anyway. is mgr holding off until after the may election or what.

    Comment by bob richards — April 22, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

  17. The turnout in several parts of the district was in the 15% range. It’s likely it was around that in most places except, perhaps, Everett, but I don’t have numbers for registered voters for each town let alone each precinct.

    I suspect there will be official word on the Democratic Election Commissioner appointment in this coming Monday’s City Council agenda. The “organizational meeting” of the Cambridge Election Commission is also this Monday, April 26. That’s when they choose roles like Chair and Secretary, so my presumption is that the composition of the Commission is all set. The latest agenda shows the same members as before, so my guess is that there has been no change.

    Comment by Robert Winters — April 22, 2010 @ 1:34 pm

  18. Update:
    Barbara Bush now has more than enough signatures for the election in the Fall.
    There WILL be a Republican candidate in November. Wish her luck.

    -FRED BAKER
    Former Chairman of the Cambridge Republican City Committee
    http://www.cambgop.com

    Comment by Fred Baker — April 30, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress