RagnarBaratheon1998 t1_iycn6yz wrote
What an idiot. Had such a promising life in politics ahead of him if he just didn’t break the law
Peeeculiar t1_iycny0p wrote
Fall River will absolutely reelect him once he's out of prison (assuming no local bylaws prevent that.)
ben70 t1_iyctzsd wrote
Buddy Cianci would like a word with you.
Peeeculiar t1_iycv3k7 wrote
That may be one of the last things ever heard by more an a few people. ;(
ben70 t1_iycw18q wrote
Oh, come on!
He took a few bribes for construction jobs - he wasn't a hitman! That's damned near what every City Clerk does!!
CoolAbdul t1_iyepg11 wrote
He beat somebody in the head repeatedly WITH A FLAMING FIREPLACE LOG
ben70 t1_iyes0cc wrote
If you can substantiate that, the US Attorney's office wants to hear from you. They...had nothing.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_iyf21xk wrote
>If you can substantiate that, the US Attorney's office wants to hear from you. They...had nothing.
Huh? In 2002, it was a lot of phantom charges that they couldn't prove, but this was his 1984 charge for assault where they had a victim/witness with injuries to match the account and full willingness to testify and prosecute.
There's only 2 reasons he wasn't in prison for that: the fact that he plea'd nolo on it and his status.
ben70 t1_iyf95gg wrote
,His 1984 charge,
He was born in 1991, you dope
Unless he's such a mastermind that he managed to work a heist before he was born, you need to state a mistake.
Throwaway1231200001 t1_iyek9af wrote
I don't know, Buddy actually did shit to revitalize the city before crippling it on future pension payments and extortion.
ben70 t1_iyep3uq wrote
You mean, the unions? They do that. Extra points when they have un funded mandates.
TheGrandExquisitor t1_iydo45m wrote
Hell, they reelected him after he had been impeached!
Mass towns love a crook.
torniz t1_iye1hfd wrote
Because the courts effectively gave each and everyone of his supporters 2 votes that could be assigned to him. You should not be allowed to run as a candidate for the office while the ballot has a motion to recall you on it.
TheGrandExquisitor t1_iye1qjz wrote
The thing is, they did recall him, and then re-elected him! If he hadn't been recalled, fine...sucks...but makes sense.
This doesn't.
torniz t1_iye2gdx wrote
I know. I live in Fall River, and know full well everything that happened in that election. The ballot had 2 items on it: 1) Should Correia be removed from office, and 2) who should be elected mayor if he is recalled. To boot, there was a 3 way race with no run off for the mayor’s office, which split the anti Correia vote, allowing him to get elected again.
The courts set a precedent several years back when Flanagan was up for recalled and he challenged a BoE ruling that he could not appear on the ballot as a candidate for mayor in the same election in which he was up for recall.
TheGrandExquisitor t1_iye2x49 wrote
Ugh. Gross.
Sad thing is, this dude will come back soon enough. Probably as a back room "advisor." Or he may just go for a comeback. He and Lt Gov Driscoll can for president together.
WinsingtonIII t1_iyf15ej wrote
The issue here is first past the post. If this election had used ranked choice voting or another method requiring over 50% to win, he never would have won. He was recalled, but then won a plurality of only 35%: https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/03/13/fall-river-mayor-wins-recall-election
So the issue is that the voting system allows someone with 35% of the vote to win simply because there were a lot of candidates in the race. No way would he have won under RCV as he was never going to be the 2nd choice candidate of the 61% of people who voted to recall him in the first place.
somegridplayer t1_iyf59cr wrote
Camara and Scott-Pacheco were spoilers for Correia. He still would have won.
WinsingtonIII t1_iyfdhr9 wrote
He would have won over 50% in an RCV system after 61% voted to recall him? I find that hard to believe.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_iyf47sj wrote
That doesn't really accurately describe the will of the people. 66% of voters voted to remove him from office.
The same election idiotically included him as an option on the 2nd question of who who the next mayor should be and there were like 5 candidates. He got 35% of that vote, a few hundred more than the next closest answer and was removed/re-elected on the same ballot.
At the end of the day, it's true to say that 2 out of every 3 voters who participated in the recall did not want him staying in office. It's dishonest to frame it as Fall River embracing a crook.
All you can really infer from that election is that a) there should be some overhaul to a process that allows a recall election to have the incumbent be on a replacement question and b) ranked-choice voting almost certainly would have prevented this.
Even then, this was before the 2nd set of charges about bribery, which actually might matter to people. The SnoOwl stuff was a more tenuous case and didnt really breach the public trust.
TheGrandExquisitor t1_iyf4htx wrote
Naw, I stand by it. MAPOLI is pretty much just a criminal mob half the time.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_iyf4w5e wrote
There was a streak of a bunch of house speakers being indicted, but in this case, the assertion that the town happily re-elected him as a criminal is just plain false.
TheGrandExquisitor t1_iyf55n7 wrote
35% did. And the rest couldn't get their shit together to stop it from happening.
Dude, we have cities where councilors rep wards they don't even live in.
MA has always been fine with corruption.
somegridplayer t1_iyf4vop wrote
To be honest, if someone else Portuguese runs, he's screwed.
TheGodDamnDevil t1_iycx8ew wrote
Politicians can have a little law breaking as a treat.
CoolAbdul t1_iyep8rw wrote
From what people say he's been no good since he was a little kid.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments