Mayor Caulfield is quoted in the article citing the $41,000 that the city has *saved* (has to be downplayed when we're talking about an already-budgeted item) by not holding a primary this year.
Patrick Murphy, who has been a consistently outspoken advocate of holding a primary, is also quoted:
The article devotes a few paragraphs to the expense borne to cities by fringe candidates, but it does not make a single reference to Fall River, where something fairly significant happened two weeks ago: Incumbent Mayor Robert Correia, a former member of the Fall River Statehouse Delegation as well, was ousted in a primary in a strong anti-incumbent climate created by controversial municipal decisions to slash essential services (i.e. fire and police) while maintaining more expensive legal and administrative positions. The general election has now been narrowed down to the 1st- and 2nd-place votegetters from the primary; either way, Fall River will see regime change, as ensured by this primary.
"They are just resigned to the fact,’’ said Patrick Murphy, a candidate for the Lowell City Council who lobbied to keep the primary. “There doesn’t even seem to be any hope for greater involvement. How do you put the price of democracy into a cost-benefit analysis?"
That won't happen here, as we're not having one.