To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

2004 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts

← 2002 November 2, 2004 2006 →

All 10 Massachusetts seats in the United States House of Representatives
  Majority party Minority party
Party Democratic Republican
Last election 10 seats, 100.0% 0 seats, 0.0%
Seats before 10 0
Seats won 10 0
Seat change Steady Steady
Popular vote 2,059,984 435,239
Percentage 79.81% 16.86%

The 2004 congressional elections in Massachusetts was held on November 2, 2004, to determine who would represent the state of Massachusetts in the United States House of Representatives. Massachusetts had ten seats in the House, apportioned according to the 2000 United States Census. Representatives are elected for two-year terms; those elected were served in the 109th Congress from January 3, 2005 until January 3, 2007.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    4 015 419
    3 651
    2 917 001
    37 533
  • ✪ Why the UK Election Results are the Worst in History.
  • ✪ Charles Krauthammer – AEI Annual Dinner 2004 | ARCHIVES
  • ✪ Constitution Day Lecture: Kelly Ayotte, Former United States Senator for NH
  • ✪ Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained - Christina Greer
  • ✪ 25. The "End" of Reconstruction: Disputed Election of 1876, and the "Compromise of 1877"


Hello Internet The UK had an election we need to talk about because after the debates finished, the people voted and the ballots tallied the results were this: But parliament ended up looking like this: Which isn't, exactly, representative. And by not exactly, I mean at all. Red earned 30% of the vote and 36% of the seats, which is sort of close, but the rest is madness: Orange earned 8% of the vote but got one eighth of that while Yellow's 5% just about doubled, and purple earned 13% and got squat. Meanwhile blue's 37% of the people booted to 51% of the seats in parliament. The blue boost is even bigger when you consider that 51% of the seats gives basically 100% the control. How'd this happen? In the UK -- national elections aren't really national, they're a bunch of local elections. The UK is divided into constituencies, each of which elects one member of parliament (M.P.) to represent them. This local / national divide is where the trouble begins. Imagine a parliament with just three constituencies, and it's easy to see how it wouldn't always align with citizens. Some people think this sort of result is fine -- “it's all *about* winning local elections,” they’ll say. “Each M.P. represents their constituency.” And while the imbalance in this example is dumb, but it's the same problem in the real election and this same argument is given, but there are two more problems with it in reality land. 1) Few citizens have any idea who their MP is, they just know what party they voted for -- what party they want to represent their views on the national level. And pretending like it's a local election is a bit disingenuous. -- in practice it's an election for now the nation will run -- not really for who is going to represent a tiny part of it. and even if it were 2) The individual constituencies are worse at representing their citizens than parliament. Indulge this spreadsheet-loving nerd for a moment, will you? The difference between what a party earned at the polls and what they got in parliament is the amount of misrepresentation error. If we calculate all the errors for all the parties and add them up we can say the Parliament as a whole has 47% percentage points of misrepresentation error. That sounds bad looks like a utopian rainbow of diversity compared to any local election because the local elections have *one* winner. Out of the 650 constituencies 647 have a higher representation error than parliament. These are the only three that don't and they're really unusual for having so many of a single kind of voter in one place. Most places look the The Wrekin which is dead in the middle a mere one-hundred and one points off. Note that the winning candidate didn't reach a majority here. Which means more than half of constituencies elected their MP with a minority of voters. The worst is Belfast South at the bottom of the list. Hilariously unrepresentative. Less than a quarter of the voters get to speak for the entire place in parliament. This is the the lowest percentage an M.P. has ever been elected by. So when people argue that the UK election is a bunch of local elections 1) people don't act like it, and 2) It's even more of an argument that the elections are broken because they're worse on this level. These local elections are unrepresentative because of the terrible 'First Past the Post' voting system -- which I have complained mightily about and won't repeat everything here -- go watch the video -- but TL;DR it only 'works' when citizens are limited to two choices. Voting for any party except the biggest makes it more likely the biggest will win by a minority -- which is exactly what happened. That citizens keep voting for smaller parties despite knowing the result is against their strategic interests demonstrates the citizenry wants diverse representation -- but that successes is the very thing that's made this the most unrepresentative parliament in the history of the UK. People happy with the results argue the system is working fine -- of course they do. Their team won. Government isn't a sport where a singular 'winner' must be determined. It's a system to make rules that everyone follows and so, we need a system where everyone can agree the process is fair even if the results don't go in their favor. If you support a system that disenfranchises people you don't like and turbo-franchises people you do -- then it doesn't look like you sport representative democracy, it looks like you support a kind of dictatorship light. Where a small group of people (including you) makes the rules for everyone. But as it is now, on election day the more people express what they want the worse the system looks which makes them disengaged at best or angry at worst and GEE I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY. This is fixable, there are many, many better ways the UK could vote -- here are two that even keep local representatives. And fixing voting really matters, because this is a kind of government illegitimacy score -- and it's been going up and may continue to do so unless this fundamentally broken voting system is changed.



United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts, 2004[1]
Party Votes Percentage Seats +/–
Democratic 2,059,984 79.81% 10
Republican 435,239 16.86% 0
Independents 85,732 3.32% 0
Totals 2,580,955 100.00% 10

District 1

Ma01 109.gif

Incumbent Democratic Congressman John Olver ran for an eighth term in this staunchly Democratic[2] district rooted in western Massachusetts. Facing no opponents in the general election, Olver was overwhelmingly re-elected to another term.

Steven Adam ran as a write-in for the Republican nomination, but did not receive enough votes to make the general election ballot.[3]

Massachusetts's 1st congressional district election, 2004[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic John Olver (inc.) 229,465 99.02
Write-ins 2,282 0.98
Total votes 231,747 100.00
Democratic hold

District 2

Ma02 109.gif

This south-central Massachusetts-based district has a strong tendency to elect Democratic candidates,[2] and this year proved no different. When incumbent Democratic Congressman Richard Neal ran for a ninth term, he faced no opposition and coasted to re-election.

Massachusetts's 2nd congressional district election, 2004[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Richard Neal (inc.) 217,682 98.73
Write-ins 2,802 1.27
Total votes 220,484 100.00
Democratic hold

District 3

Ma03 109.gif

Though incumbent Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern faced a challenge from Republican candidate Ronald Crews. This historically liberal district,[2] which stretches from the western suburbs of Boston to the Massachusetts-Rhode Island border, has sent Congressman McGovern back to Congress with overwhelming margins of victory. This year proved to be no different, and McGovern crushed Crews to win a fifth term.

Massachusetts's 3rd congressional district election, 2004[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Jim McGovern (inc.) 192,036 70.49
Republican Ronald A. Crews 80,197 29.44
Write-ins 179 0.07
Total votes 272,412 100.00
Democratic hold

District 4

Massachusetts's 4th congressional district.gif

Congressman Barney Frank, a Democrat, has represented this strongly liberal[2] district, which extends from Quincy to the South Coast, since he was initially elected in 1980. In 2004, Congressman Frank faced a challenge from independent candidate Chuck Morse, whom he was able to defeat by a wide margin.

Massachusetts's 4th congressional district election, 2004[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Barney Frank (inc.) 219,260 77.74
Independent Charles A. Morse 62,293 22.09
Write-ins 486 0.17
Total votes 282,039 100.00
Democratic hold

District 5

Ma05 109.gif

This liberal[2] district rooted in the northern and eastern suburbs of Boston has been represented by Congressman Marty Meehan since he was first elected in 1992. This year, Congressman Meehan faced a challenge from Republican Thomas Tierney, but the Congressman won a seventh term.

Massachusetts's 5th congressional district election, 2004[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Marty Meehan (inc.) 179,652 66.99
Republican Thomas P. Tierney 88,232 32.90
Write-ins 305 0.11
Total votes 268,189 100.00
Democratic hold

District 6

MA-06 congressional district.png

This district, which covers some of the northern suburbs of Boston and the far northeastern portion of the commonwealth, has been represented by Democratic Congressman John Tierney for eight years. In his quest for a fifth term, Tierney was opposed by Republican Stephen O'Malley, but he was re-elected in a landslide.

Massachusetts's 6th congressional district election, 2004[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic John Tierney (inc.) 213,458 69.87
Republican Stephen P. O’Malley, Jr. 91,567 29.98
Write-ins 467 0.15
Total votes 305,522 100.00
Democratic hold

District 7

Ma07 109.gif

Democratic Congressman Ed Markey, the longest serving member of the Massachusetts House members, has continually been re-elected with large margins in this staunchly liberal[2] district based in the northern and eastern suburbs of Boston. This year, Congressman Markey faced off against Republican Kenneth Chase, whom he crushed.

Massachusetts's 7th congressional district election, 2004[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Ed Markey (inc.) 202,399 73.57
Republican Kenneth Chase 60,334 21.93
Independent James O. Hall 12,139 4.41
Write-ins 227 0.08
Total votes 275,099 100.00
Democratic hold

District 8

MA-08 congressional district.gif

This congressional district, based in Boston and some of its southern suburbs, is the smallest district in Massachusetts and has been represented by Democratic Congressman Mike Capuano since 1999. Seeking a fourth term, Capuano faced no opposition and easily won the election.

Massachusetts's 8th congressional district election, 2004[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Mike Capuano (inc.) 165,852 98.67
Write-ins 2,229 1.33
Total votes 168,081 100.00
Democratic hold

District 9

Ma09 109.gif

Democratic Congressman Steven Lynch, a moderate Democrat,[4] has represented this district rooted in south Boston since he was first elected in 2001 in a special election to replace the late Congressman Joe Moakley. With a solidly liberal[2] constituency, Congressman Lynch encountered no opposition in his bid for a third term.

Massachusetts's 9th congressional district election, 2004[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Stephen Lynch (inc.) 218,167 99.03
Write-ins 2,145 0.97
Total votes 220,312 100.00
Democratic hold

District 10

Ma10 109.gif

Opposed by Republican Michael Jones, incumbent Democratic Congressman Bill Delahunt sought a fifth term in this district based in the South Shore, Cape Cod and the Islands. Though more moderate[2] than the other districts in the commonwealth, the 10th district sent Congressman Delahunt back to Washington.

Massachusetts's 9th congressional district election, 2004[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Bill Delahunt (inc.) 222,013 65.87
Republican Michael J. Jones 114,879 34.08
Write-ins 178 0.05
Total votes 337,070 100.00
Democratic hold


  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h "Partisan Voting Index Districts of the 111th Congress." The Cook Political Report. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 June 2011. <[permanent dead link]>.
  3. ^ Massachusetts Election Statistics 2004. The Elections Division: Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
  4. ^ Koszczuk, Jackie; Angle, Martha (eds.) (2007). "Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D)". CQ's Politics in America 2008: The 110th Congress. Washington: Congressional Quarterly. pp. 499–500. ISBN 978-0-87289-545-4.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)

Preceded by
2002 elections
United States House elections in Massachusetts
Succeeded by
2006 elections

This page was last edited on 26 March 2019, at 18:02
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.