We do vote, and we vote for the mayor. You still don't understand machine politics: it's not that the city is completely unresponsive (like some suburbs I've lived in), but that's it's only responsive to its base and doesn't address larger systemic issues.

For example, I live in relatively well-to-do Jamaica Plain. If I call the Office of Neighbor Services and say "there is a big pothole outside my house" not only will there be: a live person to take my call, but they will be considerate and listen to my issue and even dispatch a road crew to come patch that pothole probably within 2 weeks. Seriously, they are *good*.

But, is the road crew contractor repairing that pothole a major campaign contributor? Probably. Will there be a police officer (and there has to be an officer) watching them getting paid overtime? Probably. Will I have to call again about that pothole a year from now because the street itself doesn't get repaved and the snowplows will pull that temporary asphalt right up? Probably.

But they filled my simple request quickly and politely. And that is why people vote for the mayor. It's not stupidity, it's that he does a job that's good enough for most people. Is he slowly destroying the city? Of course, but I'll probably have moved by then.

You obviously don't understand how machine politics works. Voters are not dumb:

1. individuals allied with the incumbent receive substantial benefit and thus vote for the incumbent
2. those who are not allied are systematically disenfranchised

It's not a matter of dumb/smart, it's a matter of organized/unorganized. Those who are organized (the incumbent) wield significant power to ensure that those without power have difficulty organizing (and thus threatening their power).

1. millions of dollars were spent
2. some people are worried about longterm sustainability but things haven't been around long enough to draw any conclusions
3. random Mary Joe Citizen (someone who sells software out of their house and a student) doesn't like it

Local governments have taken the lead in U.S. broadband policy. Hundreds of communities of all sizes are making decisions about how to best deliver universal, affordable access to high-speed information networks. Many are offered seemingly attractive arrangements with no upfront cost to the city. They do themselves and their households and businesses a disservice if they do not seriously explore the costs and benefits of a publicly owned network.

1. High-speed information networks are essential public infrastructure.
2. Public ownership ensures competition.
3. Publicly owned networks can generate significant revenue.
4. Public ownership can ensure universal access.
5. Public ownership can ensure non-discriminatory networks.