Over at Blue Mass. Group, Carey Theil rebuts pundits who say that people didn’t really know what they were doing when they voted to ban dog racing. (See my geographic analysis of the vote here.)

One interesting question is whether it’s fair for the entire state to vote on what could be framed as a local economic issue. Theil says yes, but he links to a Brockton Enterprise editorial with a different view, titled “Raynham feels betrayed on dog racing ballot question by distant voters“: 

Several [local residents] said the question to ban dog racing at the state’s tracks shouldn’t have gone to a statewide vote, but rather should have been decided by voters in the towns surrounding the tracks…

“Who cares about dog racing out in Worcester or Springfield? It should have been left to the district that the park is in and a 25-mile or so radius. I don’t think it should have been done the way it was done,” said [Paul] Rocha, a 48-year Raynham resident and former track employee. “The town is going to feel the pinch.”

But a statewide plebiscite that affects only a few communities isn’t unprecedented: In 1994, the entire state abolished rent control through a referendum question, even as the only three cities that would be affected (Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge) voted to keep it by solid margins.