Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-07-2018, 03:50 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111

Election decided by lot and a sore loser


An election in Virginia was tied so the results was decided by drawing lots from a bowl (BBC video). The loser behaved very poorly.
  #2  
Old 01-07-2018, 03:57 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,796
I just see her walking out, clearly upset, but not actually doing anything. I was expecting worse from your description of "behaved very poorly."
  #3  
Old 01-07-2018, 03:59 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,285
She wasn't particularly gracious, but I'm not sure I'd say she behaved "very poorly". Meh. Why does her 5 seconds of being pissed merit our attention?
  #4  
Old 01-07-2018, 04:02 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
It was a totally fugly bowl. Really, it looked like a chamber pot.
  #5  
Old 01-07-2018, 04:06 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,478
I agree, she doesn't seem to have behaved very badly.

But to be honest I think the process was not well done. We don't have continuous video, but the names should have been put into the canisters out of sight of the one drawing. You can't tell for sure that he couldn't keep an eye on them the whole time. Even the hand mixing might be only apparent, as he could already have one gripped in his hand. I'm not saying the drawing wasn't fair, I'm saying from what we can see, they did a poor job of making sure it was obviously fair. A simple coin flip would have done that.
  #6  
Old 01-07-2018, 04:07 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
She wasn't particularly gracious, but I'm not sure I'd say she behaved "very poorly". Meh. Why does her 5 seconds of being pissed merit our attention?
Because people on the left are just awful, awful people, as demonstrated by her failure to react with visible pleasure at the lot-drawing result.
__________________
__________________

Thread on my books (inexpensive gifts!) https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=866609
  #7  
Old 01-07-2018, 04:18 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
But to be honest I think the process was not well done. We don't have continuous video, but the names should have been put into the canisters out of sight of the one drawing. You can't tell for sure that he couldn't keep an eye on them the whole time. Even the hand mixing might be only apparent, as he could already have one gripped in his hand. I'm not saying the drawing wasn't fair, I'm saying from what we can see, they did a poor job of making sure it was obviously fair. A simple coin flip would have done that.
Agree.
  #8  
Old 01-07-2018, 04:20 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,865
What? Did she slug a reporter or something?
  #9  
Old 01-07-2018, 04:33 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,332
Perhaps Quartz thinks the loser should have congratulated the winner before leaving. However, that would have been impossible in this case because while the loser was present, the winner didn't even show up.
  #10  
Old 01-07-2018, 05:42 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
An election in Virginia was tied so the results was decided by drawing lots from a bowl (BBC video). The loser behaved very poorly.
Let me see if I can guess your party affiliation.
  #11  
Old 01-07-2018, 06:13 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Perhaps Quartz thinks the loser should have congratulated the winner before leaving. However, that would have been impossible in this case because while the loser was present, the winner didn't even show up.
Seriously? Yeah, that would make it kinda tough to shake hands with him. I guess she could have thanked the guy drawing names or something.

After the hard fought recount battle, being a little peeved that the drawing didn't go your way is pretty understandable. And, anyway, not everyone can be as gracious and tactful as, for example, the President.
  #12  
Old 01-07-2018, 06:14 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
She showed more class in an incredibly close election than Roy Moore did after getting clearly beaten. From the video evidence supplied in the OP, she has got a lot to learn about being a sore loser.
  #13  
Old 01-07-2018, 06:26 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Let me see if I can guess your party affiliation.
He’s a Scottish liberal sort, but has these strange streaks of propriety in politics. Like, he generally thinks Trump is treated unfairly.
  #14  
Old 01-07-2018, 07:06 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
It is also worth noting that Simonds actually won the recount by one vote, and it was then decided to count a ballot which had both candidates marked on it for Yancey, creating the tie. I cannot imagine anyone being happy about losing an arbitrary draw after legally winning the election, and Simonds took the loss with better grace than some notable people have behaved about winning an election, i.e. not levying a single complaint about rigged counts or fantasy illegal voters.

The o.p. apparently just wants to manufacture controversy ascribing purported bad behavior to anyone who is not of politically conservative bent, and will no doubt act shocked and hurt that anyone would think it so despite a pervasive pattern of similar behavior.

Stranger
  #15  
Old 01-07-2018, 07:52 PM
Lightnin''s Avatar
Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 7,497
I would've been pretty pissed, too. As soon as I heard that the ruined ballot would be accepted (which changed Simond's win to a tie) and, as a result, a random draw would decide the winner, I just freakin' knew that she had already lost. There was no way in hell the GOP would let the Dems break their stranglehold.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #16  
Old 01-07-2018, 08:59 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,097
The old rule in boxing is, if the title match ends in a draw, the champion keeps his belt. I just assume that's probably the way it works in politics as well.
  #17  
Old 01-08-2018, 06:47 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
The o.p. apparently just wants to manufacture controversy ascribing purported bad behavior to anyone who is not of politically conservative bent, and will no doubt act shocked and hurt that anyone would think it so despite a pervasive pattern of similar behavior.
You have the right to be wrong.
__________________
Quartz
  #18  
Old 01-08-2018, 08:19 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,975
How did the loser "behave poorly", OP?
  #19  
Old 01-08-2018, 08:26 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,552
There's also the problem that the "loser" actually won by one vote, and that the election was only tied because they chose to double-count one vote that had already been counted.
  #20  
Old 01-08-2018, 09:09 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
I've seen the double-counting allegation raised before, but not with any cites. It doesn't seem plausible, either - if you're going to slip one ballot back into the pile, why not a few more to avoid the risk of losing a drawing?
  #21  
Old 01-08-2018, 09:23 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I've seen the double-counting allegation raised before, but not with any cites. It doesn't seem plausible, either - if you're going to slip one ballot back into the pile, why not a few more to avoid the risk of losing a drawing?
The cite provided mentions why the ballot was counted for Yancey -
Quote:
The ballot that was re-examined has marks next to both candidates. But the mark next to Simonds' bubble also has a slash through it, so judges determined that the voter did not intend to select her.
[x] Simonds
[x]Yancey

Shades of the hanging chad...

Regards,
Shodan
  #22  
Old 01-08-2018, 09:25 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
The allegation is that it was counted twice. Got a cite?
  #23  
Old 01-08-2018, 09:29 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
There's also the problem that the "loser" actually won by one vote, and that the election was only tied because they chose to double-count one vote that had already been counted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I've seen the double-counting allegation raised before, but not with any cites. It doesn't seem plausible, either - if you're going to slip one ballot back into the pile, why not a few more to avoid the risk of losing a drawing?
As I understand it:

The ballots were counted in the re-count. As part of the re-count process, questionable ballots are set aside to be dealt with by the people doing the re-count. One of the ballots so handled everyone remembers was denied being counted for the reasons we've discussed. The result overall was a win for the Democratic candidate.

The Republican operatives asserted that the ballot that had been disputed should have been counted for the Republican instead of disallowed. Unfortunately, the ballots at that point had been re-integrated into a complete stack. So they went back through the ballots and the Republican operatives identified the ballot now being discussed as the ballot that had been disallowed, and claimed it should be counted. What no one can be certain of (it is alleged) is that this is the actual ballot that had been disallowed previously.

Of course, without seeing all the ballots voted, and being able to make some determination as to what candidate disputed ballots there are, we're a bit at the mercy of the people in that Virginia precinct when it comes to knowing how likely it is that this ballot is or is not the one previously disallowed.
  #24  
Old 01-08-2018, 09:32 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,036
Historians aren't sure when a coin or die was first used to make an arbitrary decision in a game of chance but it was probably before 3000 BC, the date to which Sumerian tetrahedral dice have been dated. One thing we can be sure of: Oog and Ogg, when casting their dice in an ancient version of Parcheesi, had a better method much less prone to cheating than the method used by the Virginia Board of Elections.

They went through a lot of pompous bullshit; then the Republican Chairman Alcorn while keeping his hand on the canisters the entire time, pulls out the Republican canister ... while the Republican Secretary and Republican Vice Chairman look on smiling. It's quite possible that Alcorn knew which canister was which, either because it was greased or otherwise distinguishable, or by keeping his hand on it the whole time.

Did he cheat? Maybe not; I'll call it fifty-fifty, mainly because if the intent was to cheat there were many smarter ways. OTOH, the GOP isn't noted for smarts; hence my 50-50 guess.

Trivial ways to improve the appearance of fairness: Shuffle the jar legitimately. And/or have a random citizen or celebrity — or anyway someone other than the same GOP Cheatman Alcorn who'd had his hand on them throughout the shuffling — draw the winner. Come to think of it, this drawing was so blatantly wrong-headed my 50-50 quote was generous. They probably did cheat.

The Vice Chair was given only a stupid token job in this charade, so I Googled to see if she was the token Democrat. Nope; she's an expert at what Virginia GOP does best: Suppressing Democratic votes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevirginia.us
Democratic Party of Virginia Chairwoman Susan Swecker today called for Dr. Clara Belle Wheeler to resign her position as vice chairwoman of the Virginia State Board of Elections.
In a deliberate effort to shake voters’ faith in the electoral process, Clara Belle Wheeler has made patently false allegations of massive and widespread voter fraud,” said Swecker. “These baseless allegations are intended to dissuade people from exercising their fundamental right to vote. Undermining the very electoral system with which she is entrusted is a dereliction of duty, and actively advocating for the election of Republicans while overseeing the election system is a conflict of interest. We call for her immediate resignation today.”

Wheeler’s allegations came to light in an article published by the Winchester Star. According to the Star, Wheeler told the Winchester-Frederick-Clarke Republican Women’s Club that:

“Massive, well-organized, well-orchestrated voter fraud … happens every day”
This year’s election is “the most important” election in memory because “if [Republicans] don’t win this election we will never win another election in Virginia because [the Democrats] will tear up the election process.”
“It’s not who votes that counts…It’s who counts the votes.”
(The final sentence attributed to Vice Cheatman Wheeler seems unlikely. But I've copied this verbatim from a webpage.)

Also note that the decision to revise the count was taken solely by Republican partisans; the eventual drawing of lots canisters was run totally by Republican partisans.

But all these partisan cheaters were selected (and black voters suppressed) in accordance by Virginia's rules and democratic procedures. Some Dopers will view this as "Democracy in Action! Ha ha ha!!"
  #25  
Old 01-08-2018, 06:29 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,271
It stinks to high heaven.
__________________
__________________

Thread on my books (inexpensive gifts!) https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=866609
  #26  
Old 01-08-2018, 06:31 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
It stinks to high heaven.
Eau de Republican.
  #27  
Old 01-08-2018, 07:59 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
You have the right to be wrong.
Am I, though?

Stranger
  #28  
Old 01-08-2018, 08:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
"actually won the recount by one vote" counts for about as much as having actually lost the original count.
  #29  
Old 01-08-2018, 08:24 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,700
I agree that this process wasn't done well enough. The guy should have been blindfolded when drawing the lots, or at least done in some way that he couldn't eyeball things beforehand - "I'll pick the lot that's to my left; that's where the D/R candidate is"
  #30  
Old 01-08-2018, 08:25 PM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 11,588
For those of us who live here, this is a living, devastating, tragedy. I realize it does seem funny from the outside, but for a brief, shining minute, we had a chance to be happy with way our taxes were being spent. For me, and many other Virginians, it would have meant the chance to get healthcare.

She knew how high the stakes were, and for how many people. The fact that she made it out of the room without falling to her knees and keening is pretty impressive.

I wish I could say that I found it strange the winner didn't trouble himself to be there. I hope his constituents notice his level of dedication.
  #31  
Old 01-08-2018, 10:11 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
I don't find it funny in the slightest. Another Pubby-sleazed election. And I've only ever been a tourist to Virginia.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 01-08-2018 at 10:12 PM.
  #32  
Old 01-08-2018, 11:25 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruCelt View Post
I wish I could say that I found it strange the winner didn't trouble himself to be there. I hope his constituents notice his level of dedication.
He was probably warned off so as to not be directly associated with corruption in public view, this giving him plausible deniability in case of challenge.

Stranger
  #33  
Old 01-09-2018, 06:05 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
You have the right to be wrong.
You have the right to make a case that Stranger is wrong.

If you choose not to exercise that right, it suggests that you may not have much of a case. Just sayin'.
  #34  
Old 01-09-2018, 06:07 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"actually won the recount by one vote" counts for about as much as having actually lost the original count.
IANAL, but based on actual events over the past eon, I think it's obvious that from a legal perspective, the results of the recount replace the results of the original count.
  #35  
Old 01-09-2018, 10:02 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
IANAL, but based on actual events over the past eon, I think it's obvious that from a legal perspective, the results of the recount replace the results of the original count.
Yup, and the final recount tally (a tie) replaced the intermediate one (D + 1).
  #36  
Old 01-09-2018, 10:08 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,552
No, the recount result was D+1. You're thinking of the double-count tally.
  #37  
Old 01-09-2018, 10:31 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
No, the recount result was D+1. You're thinking of the double-count tally.
Whatever you want to call the one that actually counted in the end is fine with me.
  #38  
Old 01-09-2018, 10:44 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Whatever you want to call the one that actually counted in the end is fine with me.
So, you end with a ballot, that no one is sure whether it was counted already or not, and there is certainly no way to really determine the intent of the voter that puts the republican up to a tie.

Bricker has tried to make the clam that Voter ID will make people feel more confidence in their elections, especially in very close elections. Getting a close up look at how the elections are actually run should remove any confidence they felt whatsoever.
  #39  
Old 01-09-2018, 01:48 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Whatever you want to call the one that actually counted in the end is fine with me.
Whether it is “fine with[you]” or not is immaterial. The question is whether it was legitimate to take a ballot which was marked for both candidates and which was retroactively ascribed to one of them on the basis of a purported crossout (which every election ballot I’ve ever seen says not to do) which made the recount go from favoring a one vote lead for Simonds to a tie which was then broken by this questionable ‘blind draw’ process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Bricker has tried to make the clam that Voter ID will make people feel more confidence in their elections, especially in very close elections. Getting a close up look at how the elections are actually run should remove any confidence they felt whatsoever.
Absent of ballot stuffing or dumping (both of which have occurred but only rarely and in cases of gross electoral corruption, e.g. Chicago) there is an almost no indication of wide scale voter fraud in this past general election or in general. Errors in counting—even with electronic systems—are vastly greater than indications of voter fraud in every audit I’ve ever seen, and most voter ID laws are clearly geared toward making it more difficult for specific demographics of citizens to vote, e.g. those who do not have driver’s licenses, are students, and the elderly. I would support voter ID laws if they included provisions to assure that there is outreach and assistance to maximize voter registration and participation among all demographics, but that is clearly not the case with the majority of proposed and enacted laws.

Ballot verification, on the other hand—anonymous but traceable to polling station ballots with digital authentication using public key encryption with open source code—would make verification and recount virtually foolproof and instantaneous, and also eliminate the problem of voter errors like selecting two choices for the same candidate or proposition. This could provide confidence in elections which come down to a handful of votes without subjective interpretation by election officials with potential biases.

In this case, while there may be some legitimacy to questioning a recount that came down to a single vote, it is very clear that Republicans were highly motivated to invalidate the voting tally in Simonds’ favor, and that resolving the election by drawing is both arbitrary and in this case has some suspicious irregularities. Simonds, instead of throwing a fit or threatening to challenge the legitimacy of the process, stolidly accepted the result which is hardly “sore loser” and “behaving very poorly” that the o.p characterize her as displaying.

Stranger
  #40  
Old 01-09-2018, 02:15 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
... The question is whether it was legitimate to take a ballot which was marked for both candidates and which was retroactively ascribed to one of them on the basis of a purported crossout (which every election ballot I’ve ever seen says not to do) which made the recount go from favoring a one vote lead for Simonds to a tie which was then broken by this questionable ‘blind draw’ process. ...
Absent a judge declaring it illegitimate, I believe the answer is "yes, it's legitimate".
  #41  
Old 01-09-2018, 02:58 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Absent a judge declaring it illegitimate, I believe the answer is "yes, it's legitimate".
Of course, if the democrat sues the board of elections, then they are a sore loser. If the Judge determines that the ballot was invalid, then he is an activist judge.

With my own two eyes, I can see that that ballot should not be counted. Determining whether it was a strike through mark or a clarifying mark is completely subjective. There is no objective way to determine what the will of the voter was on that ballot. It is up to whoever judge the ballot to make that determination, which is not how it is supposed to work, it is supposed to be up to the voter to determine where their vote goes.

Add to that the fact that it is not certain that that ballot had not already been counted, and the question of legitimacy is a bit less absolute than you like to believe.

Tell me honestly, what would your reaction be if the dems sued the board of elections? Considering the OP considers silently walking out of the room to be a sore loser, what would actually defending yourself in court be called?
  #42  
Old 01-09-2018, 03:06 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,552
And note that he's also not calling the Republican a sore loser for bringing in the invalid ballot to be double-counted in the first place. Because of course that's perfectly legitimate.
  #43  
Old 01-09-2018, 03:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Tell me honestly, what would your reaction be if the dems sued the board of elections? Considering the OP considers silently walking out of the room to be a sore loser, what would actually defending yourself in court be called?
For a statehouse seat? My reaction would be "good luck, and let me know when you guys over there in VA have settled on a winner". It sounds like they have now.
  #44  
Old 01-09-2018, 03:15 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
With my own two eyes, I can see that that ballot should not be counted. Determining whether it was a strike through mark or a clarifying mark is completely subjective.
That depends on the law itself. If Virginia election law disqualifies a ballot for irregularities, then it's a clear-cut case, and the ballot should be disqualified. However, I'll assume here that the judges know the law and have applied it properly.

Quote:
There is no objective way to determine what the will of the voter was on that ballot. It is up to whoever judge the ballot to make that determination, which is not how it is supposed to work, it is supposed to be up to the voter to determine where their vote goes.
The problem is that we don't have the voter to verify what his/her will was. To be fair, my interpretation of the ballot would be in favor of the Republican, that the vote for Simonds was struck through.

Quote:
Add to that the fact that it is not certain that that ballot had not already been counted, and the question of legitimacy is a bit less absolute than you like to believe.
And the very questionable way in which the tiebreaker was carried out.
  #45  
Old 01-09-2018, 03:25 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
For a statehouse seat? My reaction would be "good luck, and let me know when you guys over there in VA have settled on a winner". It sounds like they have now.
Well, yeah for a statehouse seat, as that is what this whole thread has been about. Your responses in this thread have indicated that you have more feelings about the matter than a simple "good luck".

You are saying that you would be supportive of the democrats suing the board of elections, and if a judge tossed that ballot out, then you would be supportive of that ruling as well?

And, well, this is precedent setting, as well, so what about when it is not about a statehouse seat, what about when it is for US congress or senate? would you still be as cavalier?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
That depends on the law itself. If Virginia election law disqualifies a ballot for irregularities, then it's a clear-cut case, and the ballot should be disqualified. However, I'll assume here that the judges know the law and have applied it properly.
Election judges, not judicial judges.

I don't doubt that they know the law, but I don't know that they applied it properly.
Quote:


The problem is that we don't have the voter to verify what his/her will was. To be fair, my interpretation of the ballot would be in favor of the Republican, that the vote for Simonds was struck through.
Then would you, as a judge, also interpret that the voter in question did not mean to vote for the governor?
Quote:

And the very questionable way in which the tiebreaker was carried out.
Definitely agreed there. I did a magic show for a talent contest in 3rd grade. The skills I had there would have been more than enough to ensure that I had picked the "right" canister.

There is no way to tell, the draw could have been random and fair, or it could have been a very small amount of sleight of hand in order to determine the winner.

Voter ID or not, if I were a virginian in this district, I would have no confidence in the vote due to the actions of those who are supposed to safeguard it.
  #46  
Old 01-09-2018, 03:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Well, yeah for a statehouse seat, as that is what this whole thread has been about. Your responses in this thread have indicated that you have more feelings about the matter than a simple "good luck".

You are saying that you would be supportive of the democrats suing the board of elections, and if a judge tossed that ballot out, then you would be supportive of that ruling as well?
I don't think I'd use the word "supportive". More like "indifferent". Or perhaps "accepting". It seems like a waste of time and money to sue over such small potatoes, but YMMV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And, well, this is precedent setting, as well, so what about when it is not about a statehouse seat, what about when it is for US congress or senate? would you still be as cavalier?
What precedent was set here? That we bicker over narrow election results? That's not new.
  #47  
Old 01-09-2018, 03:38 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
. . . which made the recount go from favoring a one vote lead for Simonds to a tie which was then broken by this questionable ‘blind draw’ process.
Does "questionable," in the above mean people can ask questions about it?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 01-09-2018 at 03:38 PM.
  #48  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:22 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think I'd use the word "supportive". More like "indifferent". Or perhaps "accepting". It seems like a waste of time and money to sue over such small potatoes, but YMMV.
Not really small potatoes. I mean, to you, half a country away and unaffected by laws passed in virginia, sure.

But it is no small potatoes to flip a state's congressional delegation, and that is the stakes here. 8.4 Million people live in virginia, and the direction that that state takes all of those people was determined by these events.

It seems fair to ensure that they are on the up and up.
Quote:

What precedent was set here? That we bicker over narrow election results? That's not new.
The precedent is in how the "tie" and subsequent drawing played out, and any responses that lawmakers may have to those events.

I think as far as bickering goes, that precedent was set long ago, we will bicker about narrow election results, we will bicker over wide election results, we will bicker over what we can bicker about, that's unrelated to the precedent that is being set in actual government by actual legislators and their actors right this very moment.
  #49  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:24 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Does "questionable," in the above mean people can ask questions about it?
Quote:
ques·tion·a·ble
ˈkwesCHənəb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
doubtful as regards truth or quality.
"it is questionable whether any of these exceptions is genuine"
synonyms: controversial, contentious, doubtful, dubious, uncertain, debatable, arguable; More
not clearly honest, honorable, or wise.
"a few men of allegedly questionable character"
synonyms: suspicious, suspect, dubious, irregular, odd, strange, murky, dark, unsavory, disreputable; More
No, your assumption as to what that word means was incorrect.
  #50  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:35 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Does "questionable," in the above mean people can ask questions about it?
Before attempting semantic jabs you might want to buy and consult a dictionary. Oh, hey, there’s one right here.

Stranger
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017