One Vote

[silverscreenselect]

... really does matter.

A recount today in a Virginia Hose of Delegates race, originally won by Republican David Yancey over Democrat Shelly Simonds by 10 votes, resulted in Simonds picking up 11 votes to win by a single vote. The result must be certified by a three-judge panel tomorrow, but if it holds, would result in a 50-50 tie in the House and, probably, some sort of power-sharing arrangement. Two other recounts are also pending but are less likely to change the results because the margins of victory were larger (82 and 336 votes). In addition, in the district in which the Republican won by 82 votes, a Federal lawsuit is pending because 147 voters in that district were incorrectly assigned to another district. That lawsuit could result in a special election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... 7621494ade

[Bob78164]

The means the Democratic pickup in the General Assembly was 16 seats, bringing the chamber from a 66-34 Republican edge to a 50-50 tie. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

This election got even more bizarre. The Republicans successfully challenged one single ballot that was somewhat confusingly marked and previously counted for the Democratic candidate. The judges have now thrown that ballot out and the result, barring further changes, is now a tie. Under Virginia law, the tie will be decided by drawing lots.

So, essentially, a coin flip could well decide control of the Virginia legislature for the next two years.

[Bob78164]

This election got even more bizarre. The Republicans successfully challenged one single ballot that was somewhat confusingly marked and previously counted for the Democratic candidate. The judges have now thrown that ballot out and the result, barring further changes, is now a tie. Under Virginia law, the tie will be decided by drawing lots.

So, essentially, a coin flip could well decide control of the Virginia legislature for the next two years.

As I understand it, the ballot previously wasn't counted at all but now is being counted for the Republican candidate.

I haven't seen a picture of the disputed ballot, but based on the description I've read it does seem to me that all of the decision makers are trying to be fair. The voter marked both candidates and then drew a line through the Democrat's name. The argument is that the voter intended to vote for the Republican because the other votes on that ballot were cast for Republican candidates. Assuming that Virginia uses an "ascertainable intent of the voter" standard, I think either decision is reasonable, particularly if there's precedent for using votes in other races to ascertain the voter's intent in the race under review. --Bob

[Estonut]

This election got even more bizarre. The Republicans successfully challenged one single ballot that was somewhat confusingly marked and previously counted for the Democratic candidate. The judges have now thrown that ballot out and the result, barring further changes, is now a tie. Under Virginia law, the tie will be decided by drawing lots.

So, essentially, a coin flip could well decide control of the Virginia legislature for the next two years.

As I understand it, the ballot previously wasn't counted at all but now is being counted for the Republican candidate.

I haven't seen a picture of the disputed ballot, but based on the description I've read it does seem to me that all of the decision makers are trying to be fair. The voter marked both candidates and then drew a line through the Democrat's name. The argument is that the voter intended to vote for the Republican because the other votes on that ballot were cast for Republican candidates. Assuming that Virginia uses an "ascertainable intent of the voter" standard, I think either decision is reasonable, particularly if there's precedent for using votes in other races to ascertain the voter's intent in the race under review.

If a line is drawn through the Democrat's name, how can that possibly be interpreted to be the voter's choice?

[Bob78164]

This election got even more bizarre. The Republicans successfully challenged one single ballot that was somewhat confusingly marked and previously counted for the Democratic candidate. The judges have now thrown that ballot out and the result, barring further changes, is now a tie. Under Virginia law, the tie will be decided by drawing lots.

So, essentially, a coin flip could well decide control of the Virginia legislature for the next two years.

As I understand it, the ballot previously wasn't counted at all but now is being counted for the Republican candidate.

I haven't seen a picture of the disputed ballot, but based on the description I've read it does seem to me that all of the decision makers are trying to be fair. The voter marked both candidates and then drew a line through the Democrat's name. The argument is that the voter intended to vote for the Republican because the other votes on that ballot were cast for Republican candidates. Assuming that Virginia uses an "ascertainable intent of the voter" standard, I think either decision is reasonable, particularly if there's precedent for using votes in other races to ascertain the voter's intent in the race under review.

If a line is drawn through the Democrat's name, how can that possibly be interpreted to be the voter's choice?

That's why a picture would help. Did the voter intend to draw the line through the name to strike it out or as an underscore to emphasize that this was the voter's choice? --Bob

[Estonut]

As I understand it, the ballot previously wasn't counted at all but now is being counted for the Republican candidate.

I haven't seen a picture of the disputed ballot, but based on the description I've read it does seem to me that all of the decision makers are trying to be fair. The voter marked both candidates and then drew a line through the Democrat's name. The argument is that the voter intended to vote for the Republican because the other votes on that ballot were cast for Republican candidates. Assuming that Virginia uses an "ascertainable intent of the voter" standard, I think either decision is reasonable, particularly if there's precedent for using votes in other races to ascertain the voter's intent in the race under review.

If a line is drawn through the Democrat's name, how can that possibly be interpreted to be the voter's choice?

That's why a picture would help. Did the voter intend to draw the line through the name to strike it out or as an underscore to emphasize that this was the voter's choice?

Spoiler

[Bob78164]

As I understand it, the ballot previously wasn't counted at all but now is being counted for the Republican candidate.

I haven't seen a picture of the disputed ballot, but based on the description I've read it does seem to me that all of the decision makers are trying to be fair. The voter marked both candidates and then drew a line through the Democrat's name. The argument is that the voter intended to vote for the Republican because the other votes on that ballot were cast for Republican candidates. Assuming that Virginia uses an "ascertainable intent of the voter" standard, I think either decision is reasonable, particularly if there's precedent for using votes in other races to ascertain the voter's intent in the race under review.

If a line is drawn through the Democrat's name, how can that possibly be interpreted to be the voter's choice?

That's why a picture would help. Did the voter intend to draw the line through the name to strike it out or as an underscore to emphasize that this was the voter's choice? --Bob

Here's a picture of the ballot.



My initial understanding was not correct. Both bubbles were filled in, and then a slash was placed through the bubble indicating the Democrat, not the Democrat's name. That seems fairly ambiguous to me, but it doesn't change my opinion that everyone involved is doing their best to get it right. --Bob

[Estonut]

... really does matter.

A recount today in a Virginia Hose of Delegates race, ...

I noticed this when I copied and pasted to search for an image of the ballot. This name seems more appropriate...

[Bob Juch]

David Yancey is my 8th cousin. His mother is a Holocaust survivor:

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn507546

I wouldn't have voted for him.

[Estonut]

David Yancey is my 8th cousin. His mother is a Holicost survivor:

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn507546

I wouldn't have voted for him.

I bet they both know how to spell it correctly...

You got 6 of 9 letters right.

[jarnon]

Spoiler

This looks mighty ambiguous. The voter filled in the circle for the Republican running for governor, and emphasized it with an X. For other offices, the circle for the Republican is simply filled in. But for delegate, both circles are filled in but one has a single line through it. Is the line meant to highlight the right candidate or cross out the wrong one?

[littlebeast13]

Spoiler

This looks mighty ambiguous. The voter filled in the circle for the Republican running for governor, and emphasized it with an X. For other offices, the circle for the Republican is simply filled in. But for delegate, both circles are filled in but one has a single line through it. Is the line meant to highlight the right candidate or cross out the wrong one?

I find this to be a fascinating exercise in intent without giving a rat's ass about the political implications...

My interpretation is that this voter started out by assuming the bubbles had to be X'ed out... starting with the governor's race and moving across the ballot rather than down it. They (third person gender neutral pronouns FTW) apparently made it halfway through their X for the House race before apparently realizing they had screwed up (Maybe also realizing they weren't voting for the candidate they wanted since it would be their only vote for a D). I'd bet a forensic team could figure out whether the X on the governor's vote was made over or under the coloring of the circle (My bet is obviously under)...

There is no way to accurately determine what the voter's intent was for that race on this ballot, and they compounded their initial error(s) by not requesting a new ballot once they messed up (Isn't that part of the instructions to voters is that you can request a new ballot if you screw up? I can't remember). There should be no room for any ambiguity when it comes to an official election, though I have my doubts there's any process left in this world that isn't influenced by political machinations anymore. If this ballot's vote for the House race is not completely disregarded, I'll even more firmly believe that to be true...

lb13

[mrkelley23]

Spoiler

This looks mighty ambiguous. The voter filled in the circle for the Republican running for governor, and emphasized it with an X. For other offices, the circle for the Republican is simply filled in. But for delegate, both circles are filled in but one has a single line through it. Is the line meant to highlight the right candidate or cross out the wrong one?

I find this to be a fascinating exercise in intent without giving a rat's ass about the political implications...

My interpretation is that this voter started out by assuming the bubbles had to be X'ed out... starting with the governor's race and moving across the ballot rather than down it. They (third person gender neutral pronouns FTW) apparently made it halfway through their X for the House race before apparently realizing they had screwed up (Maybe also realizing they weren't voting for the candidate they wanted since it would be their only vote for a D). I'd bet a forensic team could figure out whether the X on the governor's vote was made over or under the coloring of the circle (My bet is obviously under)...

There is no way to accurately determine what the voter's intent was for that race on this ballot, and they compounded their initial error(s) by not requesting a new ballot once they messed up (Isn't that part of the instructions to voters is that you can request a new ballot if you screw up? I can't remember). There should be no room for any ambiguity when it comes to an official election, though I have my doubts there's any process left in this world that isn't influenced by political machinations anymore. If this ballot's vote for the House race is not completely disregarded, I'll even more firmly believe that to be true...

lb13

I don't disagree with lb's interpretation, but I believe there are other explanations just as meaningful. The panel cites that this person voted for "all" the other Republicans, so they must've intended to vote for the Republican in this race. But there are only three other partisan races on the ballot. One might as well say this person intended to vote for women in partisan races, since that's what they did. I"m actually inclined to believe lb's explanation of the voter's actions, which to me means this ballot shouldn't be counted, on the grounds the voter is too effin' stupid to count.

But all that is beside the point, to me. If an election has been recounted three times, to within a 0.04% uncertainty, and there is not a clear winner, then there should either be a new election (usually too expensive and time-consuming) or some sort of truly random selection. Or, better yet, a Survivor-style fire-building-like contest. See who can recall the most words of the state constitution in a row. Give them a test over Virginia history. Have them write a proposed ordinance by themself, then have a legal committee look it over to decide who wrote it best.

A guy can dream, can't he?

[ghostjmf]

In Mass, & presumably all states with written-on-paper ballots, people who screw up ballots are given replacements. And screwed-up ballots are put in special pile just for tallying at end-of-day to prove that they didn't leave the building. Tallies are made at end of day so that # of ballots actually counted by end of day equal # of voters.

Machines that ballots are fed into reject ballots where people have voted for 2 people in a "must-choose-one" race, have colored egregiously outside the lines, that sort of thing. A poll worker will examine the ballot, point out what caused rejection, & get the voter to have "spoiled ballot" replaced.

But if the goofy ballot is an absentee ballot, poll workers, one from each party that has a candidate in the race, have to decide, if possible, "what they meant" after the polls have closed.

Yes, I've been a poll-worker in a paper-ballot place.

I should go read this thread to study what's supposed to have happened here.

[ghostjmf]

Having now looked at ballot, which any working paper-ballot-reading machine a pollworker trying to feed it into (that's how absentee ballots get treated where I worked) would kick out, I'd throw out the 2 votes in the "pick one" column & also throw out the whole field where the voter wrote a line through their circle.

But I've never been the person who helps decide this stuff.

[ghostjmf]

In case you're wondering, the machine will also reject a ballot filled in with some color ink it can't read, or where there's some mysterious tiny damage to an edge of the ballot that caused it to not feed in properly.

Those kind of rejected ballots are easy for "deciders" to count. Someone who used light ink isn't following directions, but its not going to get their vote thrown out.

[Im_Ace]

David Yancey is my 8th cousin. His mother is a Holicost survivor:

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn507546

I wouldn't have voted for him.

It would be nice if you could spell correctly.

[Bob Juch]

David Yancey is my 8th cousin. His mother is a Holicost survivor:

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn507546

I wouldn't have voted for him.

It would be nice if you could spell correctly.

Yes, and it would be better if my spell checker flagged that.

[silverscreenselect]

They held the draw today to decide the contested race and Republican David Yancey won, giving the Republicans a 51-49 edge in the Virginia House. However, there is still a lawsuit pending about the validity of the one ballot that was in question.

[Bob78164]

They held the draw today to decide the contested race and Republican David Yancey won, giving the Republicans a 51-49 edge in the Virginia House. However, there is still a lawsuit pending about the validity of the one ballot that was in question.

More importantly, there's also a federal lawsuit about another district, decided by fewer than 100 votes, in which voters were mistakenly assigned to the wrong district. That resulted in some people voting in the district who shouldn't have been able to do so, and others not getting to vote in the district at issue even though they were entitled to do so. The number of affected voters was more than the margin of victory. --Bob