Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:38 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Election judges, not judicial judges.

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

Then would you, as a judge, also interpret that the voter in question did not mean to vote for the governor?
Yes, I'd have to rule that way, since there is no clear vote for governor.
  #52  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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.
I'm pretty sure you meant "flip a state's legislature", not congressional delegation. I agree, it should be "on the up and up". It appears to have been. Absent something more substantive than wild conjecture to the contrary, I'm likely to continue holding that opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The precedent is in how the "tie" and subsequent drawing played out, and any responses that lawmakers may have to those events. ...
What was precedent-setting here? The procedure (draw lots) was established a long time ago. They apparently drew lots to settle another tie race in Virginia in 1971.
  #53  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:44 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm pretty sure you meant "flip a state's legislature", not congressional delegation.
The legislature controls redistricting, which does indeed mean it's flipping the congressional delegation.
  #54  
Old 01-09-2018, 05:16 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The legislature controls redistricting, which does indeed mean it's flipping the congressional delegation.
No, it does not. You are confused about some basic facts. I will try to help you now:

Virginia's congressional delegation has been 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats since January 2017. Regardless of the outcome of the statehouse races in November 2017, Virginia's congressional delegation will continue to be 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats until 2019 (barring resignation, incapacitation, or death of one / more of the representatives).

I suppose you were trying to make some point about gerrymandering, but can you guess what is going to happen on November 5, 2019 (hint: that's before the next census)?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-09-2018 at 05:17 PM.
  #55  
Old 01-09-2018, 05:36 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm pretty sure you meant "flip a state's legislature", not congressional delegation. I agree, it should be "on the up and up". It appears to have been. Absent something more substantive than wild conjecture to the contrary, I'm likely to continue holding that opinion.
You are correct, I misspoke, I did mean the state legislature. Though, as Elv1s points out, that does have an impact on redistricting. There may be another election between now and then, but incumbency has weight. Having this seat filled by and R between now and then means that is more likely that it will be and R then.
Quote:
What was precedent-setting here? The procedure (draw lots) was established a long time ago. They apparently drew lots to settle another tie race in Virginia in 1971.
A number of things. The way the recount was done was poorly implemented. That the republican could issue challenges, but the democrat couldn't was a bit odd, to me. Then there was the ballot itself, which for reasons I have stated a few times on this thread, I do not think should have been counted. Then there is the fact that the republican head of the board of elections was the one to draw the lots, with only other republican members of the BOE to observe. I watched that draw, and it would have been easy for me to have manipulated that draw to pick whichever I wanted to pick.

Those precedents.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 01-09-2018 at 05:38 PM.
  #56  
Old 01-09-2018, 06:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
I have a question and a correction:

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... the republican could issue challenges, but the democrat couldn't was a bit odd, to me. ...
This is the first I've heard of this. What do you mean? The Republicans did issue a challenge, but were they the only ones that "could"? Was the Democrat barred from appealing to the judicial panel for some reason? Could you please explain what you mean here in a bit more detail?

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... only other republican members of the BOE to observe. ...
I watched the draw too, and this sentence seems obviously incorrect. First off, the Dem candidate herself was there to observe. That's how we got this thread started, because she kind of stormed out afterwards. And the room had lots of people and cameras in it. You don't really mean that the only people allowed to observe were "other republican members of the BOE" do you? Could you clarify here too?
  #57  
Old 01-09-2018, 06:54 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
Before attempting semantic jabs you might want to buy and consult a dictionary. Oh, hey, there’s one right here.

Stranger
As it happens, I was aware of the more widely-used meaning of "questionable," but since it didn't actually apply to the lot-drawing procedure, I thought perhaps you were using the word in a weird but accurate way, as opposed a correct use to make an incorrect assertion.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #58  
Old 01-09-2018, 07:06 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,750
This particular challenge was issued after the time when challenges were allowed. If the Democrat had known that the rules were being changed in the middle of the election, then they could have challenged more ballots, too, but they weren't told that that was an option.
  #59  
Old 01-09-2018, 07:13 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
This particular challenge was issued after the time when challenges were allowed.
Cite?

Quote:
If the Democrat had known that the rules were being changed in the middle of the election, then they could have challenged more ballots, too, but they weren't told that that was an option.
I'd ask for a cite here too, but I figure that the explanation from the first claim may answer this one too. But to the extent that this does not happen, I'm reserving the right to ask you for a cite on this claim also.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 01-09-2018 at 07:15 PM.
  #60  
Old 01-09-2018, 07:16 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I have a question and a correction:



This is the first I've heard of this. What do you mean? The Republicans did issue a challenge, but were they the only ones that "could"? Was the Democrat barred from appealing to the judicial panel for some reason? Could you please explain what you mean here in a bit more detail?



I watched the draw too, and this sentence seems obviously incorrect. First off, the Dem candidate herself was there to observe. That's how we got this thread started, because she kind of stormed out afterwards. And the room had lots of people and cameras in it. You don't really mean that the only people allowed to observe were "other republican members of the BOE" do you? Could you clarify here too?
The rest of us can see the video in the OP. Perhaps you can link to the CGI version you saw.
  #61  
Old 01-09-2018, 08:02 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
As it happens, I was aware of the more widely-used meaning of "questionable," but since it didn't actually apply to the lot-drawing procedure, I thought perhaps you were using the word in a weird but accurate way, as opposed a correct use to make an incorrect assertion.
The ‘blind’ lot draw was done in full view of the drawer, who had a line of site into the bowl (which the board made so much of an issue about having chosen it seemed almost mocking in and of itself) and placing the names into film canisters in no way guarantees that the draw wasn’t rigged; I can think of three ways offhand to ensure that the that the canisters were distinct simply by touch. The traditional approach to a blind draw is to pull names out of a hat, held over view, or alternatively, marbles or balls out of a bag. This entire shindig seemed orchestrated for maximum fanfare, but not at all to assure that the process was unbiased. The drawing process was indeed questionable, or if you like, dubious, problematic, or suspect.

But let’s be honest: anyone who has an opinion about this process (the recount, the arbitration of a previously excluded vote, and the blind draw) is also going to have a strong opinion about what they would like the result to be, and were the situation reversed (the conservative candidate won the recount and lost the draw) the opinions might also be reversed. Which just speaks to how arbitrary this process is; that a mismarked ballot could be arbitrated in such a way or that an election crucial to the legislative agenda of the state could come down to a decision of (presumed) chance. It is enough to raise hackles on both sides, as evidenced by the discussion herein.

But despite the characterization of the o.p. that the Simond’s response was that of a “sore loser” who “behaved very poorly”, we see less than six seconds of video showing the candidate leaving the chamber without screaming, visibly protesting, or slamming anything. Her supposed poor behavior was less disrespectful than that of certain “sore winners” and their sycophants for whom the o.p. has expressed sympathy. The entire premise of this thread is a synecdoche of modern politics in the willingness to not only strenuously advocate for a certain ideology but to interpret the world in such a way as to self-ratify that position even when it is not consistent with observable fact.

Stranger
  #62  
Old 01-09-2018, 08:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
The rest of us can see the video in the OP. Perhaps you can link to the CGI version you saw.
The BBC video in the OP sucks. Music, editing for length, etc. Here is the C-SPAN video of the entire lot-drawing process. The point of my post wasn't to characterize how she left the meeting, but to illustrate that the claim that there were "only other republican members of the BOE to observe" is false. Do you agree with my conclusion on that point?

Also, here are the members of the Virginia Board of Elections. I don't know much of anything about their partisan background, but it says this about the Vice Chair: "In February 2015, the Governor appointed her to the four-year term as Vice Chair of the Virginia State Board of Elections." and this about the Secretary: "In February 2015, the Governor appointed her to the four-year term as Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections." Wikipedia tells me that Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, "served as the 72nd Governor of Virginia from 2014 to 2018.". They certainly don't sound like Republicans. Are they? Or was that more bad information from k9bfriender?

I'd invite anyone interested to watch the C-SPAN video I linked to and draw their own conclusions about whether the drawing of lots was fair or rigged.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-09-2018 at 08:53 PM.
  #63  
Old 01-09-2018, 08:59 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The BBC video in the OP sucks. Music, editing for length, etc. Here is the C-SPAN video of the entire lot-drawing process. The point of my post wasn't to characterize how she left the meeting, but to illustrate that the claim that there were "only other republican members of the BOE to observe" is false. Do you agree with my conclusion on that point?

Also, here are the members of the Virginia Board of Elections. I don't know much of anything about their partisan background, but it says this about the Vice Chair: "In February 2015, the Governor appointed her to the four-year term as Vice Chair of the Virginia State Board of Elections." and this about the Secretary: "In February 2015, the Governor appointed her to the four-year term as Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections." Wikipedia tells me that Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, "served as the 72nd Governor of Virginia from 2014 to 2018.". They certainly don't sound like Republicans. Are they? Or was that more bad information from k9bfriender?

I'd invite anyone interested to watch the C-SPAN video I linked to and draw their own conclusions about whether the drawing of lots was fair or rigged.
You claimed "she stormed out." What does that have to do with what you're claiming?
  #64  
Old 01-09-2018, 09:07 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
You claimed "she stormed out." What does that have to do with what you're claiming?
If you're going to say that I claimed something, please try to be precise. Want to try again?
  #65  
Old 01-09-2018, 11:04 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
But let’s be honest: anyone who has an opinion about this process (the recount, the arbitration of a previously excluded vote, and the blind draw) is also going to have a strong opinion about what they would like the result to be, and were the situation reversed (the conservative candidate won the recount and lost the draw) the opinions might also be reversed.
Sorry, not true. My view of the draw process is completely independent of the result, and assure you that the opinions have about the process is divorced from the result: we know this 'cause my opinion didn't change from when I knew the procedure to be used but before the draw. The procedure was explained in advance and either side could have objected to the randomization controls proposed. Just like Randi's tests to verify psychic powers, the time to object is before the test failure.

For that matter, my opinion about the disputed ballot is also divorced from my preferred result. We know THIS because I think the disputed ballot should be regarded as spoiled, and not counted for either. Of course, I'd apply that same rigorous standard to EVERY ballot, and I have no idea what the outcome would be.


Quote:
But despite the characterization of the o.p. that the Simond’s response was that of a “sore loser” who “behaved very poorly”, we see less than six seconds of video showing the candidate leaving the chamber without screaming, visibly protesting, or slamming anything.
Concur. I don't think Simond's response was noteworthy in either direction.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #66  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:42 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Then there is the fact that the republican head of the board of elections was the one to draw the lots, with only other republican members of the BOE to observe. I watched that draw, and it would have been easy for me to have manipulated that draw to pick whichever I wanted to pick.
The problem I have with it is not so much that the actual draw was made by the GOP head of the board of elections but that the draw was made by the same person who loaded one of the names into a film canister.

That's a BIG problem because it would be very easy to mark the canister (for feeling by hand... not marking it visually) by say, scratching it with your thumbnail or slightly lifting the lid, etc. Also, drawing out of a very shallow container was a bad idea. There are many easy ways the draw could have been far more tamper-proof.

I don't necessarily believe that the GOP guy who made the draw cheated or even attempted to cheat. But when you are forced into the untidy pickle of deciding the winner of an election by drawing lots you want to make damn sure the method you use is unimpeachable.
  #67  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:55 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,676
ETA-- I am wrong. the chairman did NOT load a canister. Sorry
  #68  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:16 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
... the GOP head of the board of elections ... the GOP guy who made the draw ...
Like I said earlier, I don't know anything about the partisan composition of the Virginia Board of Elections. It appears that the other two board members were appointed by Democrat Terry McAuliffe. The website doesn't say anything about how the Chairman, James Alcorn, ended up in that position. You're saying he's Republican. What's the source for that information?
  #69  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:30 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
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:

(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!!"
Hey, septimus, given what we now know about who appointed the Vice Chair and Secretary, would you like to revise any of this, or are you just going to leave it hanging out there like an ugly wart on your (undoubtedly - other than this one time of course - flawless) record?
  #70  
Old 01-10-2018, 09:53 AM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Like I said earlier, I don't know anything about the partisan composition of the Virginia Board of Elections. It appears that the other two board members were appointed by Democrat Terry McAuliffe. The website doesn't say anything about how the Chairman, James Alcorn, ended up in that position. You're saying he's Republican. What's the source for that information?
James Alcorn was appointed as Chairman by Terry McAullife in 2015 (and appointed to the Board initially by McAullife in 2014) and is a Democrat. See, here from the Washington Post ("Alcorn, a Democrat appointed by outgoing Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D)"). Both the Vice Chair and the Secretary were, of course, also appointed by Gov. McAullife (D). See here.

However, Wheeler (the vice chair) is the token Republican. See here. As I understand it, the board must consist of two members of the party that won the gubernatorial election (here, the Democrats) and one member of the losing party. See here.

Last edited by Falchion; 01-10-2018 at 09:53 AM.
  #71  
Old 01-10-2018, 11:23 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The BBC video in the OP sucks. Music, editing for length, etc. Here is the C-SPAN video of the entire lot-drawing process. The point of my post wasn't to characterize how she left the meeting, but to illustrate that the claim that there were "only other republican members of the BOE to observe" is false. Do you agree with my conclusion on that point?

Also, here are the members of the Virginia Board of Elections. I don't know much of anything about their partisan background, but it says this about the Vice Chair: "In February 2015, the Governor appointed her to the four-year term as Vice Chair of the Virginia State Board of Elections." and this about the Secretary: "In February 2015, the Governor appointed her to the four-year term as Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections." Wikipedia tells me that Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, "served as the 72nd Governor of Virginia from 2014 to 2018.". They certainly don't sound like Republicans. Are they? Or was that more bad information from k9bfriender?

I'd invite anyone interested to watch the C-SPAN video I linked to and draw their own conclusions about whether the drawing of lots was fair or rigged.
I would appreciate if you would back off on the personal attacks. As far as observers, there were other people in the room, but at the table, in front of and able to see what was happening inside the bowl, not so much, it was just the two of them. If lot drawing was the only way to go, then the candidates or proxies should have had an opportunity to load and inspect the canisters themselves, then observe the drawing from above, as opposed to at a low angle that hides what is actually happening.

You think that the vice chair, Wheeler is a democrtat? Think again.

My understanding is that the board is made of a republican member, a democratic member, and a supposedly non-partisan member. Alcorn is the supposedly non-partisan member. That the republican member was appointed by a democratic governor does not mean all that much.

Now, it is not as obvious, the political leanings of the chair, Alcorn, but in his interviews, I come across many republican sympathetic quotes, and not so many democratic.

Quote:
QUESTION: Last month, at the request of the Republican Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee, the State Board of Elections certified a statement voters must sign — signifying that they are Republicans — in order to vote in the March 1 GOP presidential primary. Who will enforce the requirement at the polls? What happens if a voter refuses to sign?

ANSWER: The officers of election are charged with maintaining order and the election laws at the polling places. If a voter refuses to sign the statement, they will not be able to vote in the Republican presidential primary. They are still allowed to vote in the general election in the fall or could choose to vote in the Democratic presidential primary.
And yeah, that's not proof of leaning, but it is comments like that throughout interviews that do lead me to believe that he leans more to the right than the left. Enough so to cheat an election, I dunno, but there are things to be considered more than just partisanship when it comes to cheating.

There are ways that this could have been done that would have increased confidence that it was not rigged, that they deliberately chose not to perform the draw in ways that are harder to cheat should make one suspicious as to the result.
  #72  
Old 01-10-2018, 11:33 AM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
My understanding is that the board is made of a republican member, a democratic member, and a supposedly non-partisan member. Alcorn is the supposedly non-partisan member. That the republican member was appointed by a democratic governor does not mean all that much.
That is a false understanding. The board is made up of three members representing "each of the political parties having the highest and next highest number of votes in the Commonwealth for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election." In appointing members, "Two Board members shall be of the political party which cast the highest number of votes for Governor at that election." That is, there are currently two Democrats and one Republican on the board. Wheeler is the Republican.

Alcorn was appointed by Terry McAullife as a Democratic board member. (I will note that unlike the other Democratic board member, who as a long history in partisan politics, Alcorn appears to be a career elections board staff member, so his political leanings may be less predictable).

Last edited by Falchion; 01-10-2018 at 11:34 AM.
  #73  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:03 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yup, and the final recount tally (a tie) replaced the intermediate one (D + 1).
What you said was having won a recount by one vote counts the same has having lost the original count. That is false.
  #74  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:09 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
No, the recount result was D+1. You're thinking of the double-count tally.
Well, not really. The recount's result is whatever the judges certify as the recount result. The judges certified a tie.

Now one can argue - and I would - that the judges failed to follow the procedures laid out in the law when they allowed the disputed ballot to be reconsidered, and that the apparent recount result from the day before should have been the result that was certified.

But the judges certified a tie. That was the recount result.
  #75  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:33 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,025
Anyway, Simonds has conceded. What a sore loser!
  #76  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:46 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I would appreciate if you would back off on the personal attacks.
My apologies, in reading back through my previous reply, you are correct, it was overly harsh towards you. Sorry.

I'd like to come to some shared understand of reality and a common factual basis. I submit this statement for your review:

Two of the three members of the Virginia Board of Elections are Democrats, including James Alcorn, the guy that actually drew the winning name out of the bowl.

Do we agree that the above is correct?
  #77  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:50 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
What you said was having won a recount by one vote counts the same has having lost the original count. That is false.
I think you and I were trying to make the same point. I quoted another poster who said the D "actually won the recount" and you used the word "apparent", but I think our point is the same: the certified tie is the result that matters, not the original count, and not the (to borrow your word) apparent recount tally that had the D up by 1 vote.
  #78  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Anyway, Simonds has conceded. What a sore loser!
No one's going to give her shit for saying "I’m on the Democrat team"? Really? That's usually such a sore spot for you guys.
  #79  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:56 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No one's going to give her shit for saying "I’m on the Democrat team"? Really? That's usually such a sore spot for you guys.
You're going to have to clarify what your objection is.
  #80  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:59 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
You're going to have to clarify what your objection is.
I don't have an objection. I assumed you'd find something in her statement somewhere between mildly annoying and glaringly offensive, but hey, if you guys don't have a problem with "Democrat team", neither do I. I'll just file that factoid away for later.
  #81  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:00 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
That is a false understanding. The board is made up of three members representing "each of the political parties having the highest and next highest number of votes in the Commonwealth for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election." In appointing members, "Two Board members shall be of the political party which cast the highest number of votes for Governor at that election." That is, there are currently two Democrats and one Republican on the board. Wheeler is the Republican.
It does seem I was mistaken. I was trying to find the party affiliation, one was very obviously republican affiliated, one was very obviously democratically affiliated, and the third seemed fairly neutral.

While I was incorrect in my assessment, and was having trouble finding the law that sets it up, that is still pretty far off from HD's claim that Wheeler was appointed by a democratic governor, therefore, doesn't sound like a republican.
Quote:
Alcorn was appointed by Terry McAullife as a Democratic board member. (I will note that unlike the other Democratic board member, who as a long history in partisan politics, Alcorn appears to be a career elections board staff member, so his political leanings may be less predictable).
I spent more time than I should have reading stories and interviews with Alcorn trying to determine his party. I didn't really see much that indicated he was a democrat, and a few clues that he sided with the republicans, so I did make the assumption that he was the neutral party.

I still didn't like the drawing though. There were ways to give it a bit more integrity that they chose not to use. If the result had been the other way around, with the nominal democrat in charge of drawing, then I would expect the republicans to call shenanigans on the draw. As it was a nominal democrat who did the draw, it is harder for the dems to make that accusation to "one of their own", but, like I said, there are plenty of non-partisan reasons to cheat as well.

At this point, I change my perspective a bit, in that it is possible that Alcorn was not in on cheating at all, but the system was set up deliberately to have little integrity so that, in the event that the democrat's name was chosen, the republicans would challenge the draw, on the grounds that it would be trivially easy to cheat with that setup.

A "heads I win, tails you cheated so we reflip" scenario.
  #82  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:23 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't have an objection. I assumed you'd find something in her statement somewhere between mildly annoying and glaringly offensive, but hey, if you guys don't have a problem with "Democrat team", neither do I. I'll just file that factoid away for later.
OK. I still don't have any idea what you're talking about though.
  #83  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:26 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My apologies, in reading back through my previous reply, you are correct, it was overly harsh towards you. Sorry.

I'd like to come to some shared understand of reality and a common factual basis. I submit this statement for your review:

Two of the three members of the Virginia Board of Elections are Democrats, including James Alcorn, the guy that actually drew the winning name out of the bowl.

Do we agree that the above is correct?
I am still not sure where to find a cite that this guy is a democrat, but yeah, it does appear as though he is nominally a democrat, though the vice chair is definitely a republican. The other person that did not participate in the drawing was also a democrat.

I just can't get over getting hung up on the draw though, as it was quite literally a duplicate of a "magic trick" that I performed in 3rd grade. It is possible the draw was clean, but I don't know why they would go about doing it in such a way as to make it that easy to cheat.
  #84  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:31 PM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
It does seem I was mistaken. I was trying to find the party affiliation, one was very obviously republican affiliated, one was very obviously democratically affiliated, and the third seemed fairly neutral.

While I was incorrect in my assessment, and was having trouble finding the law that sets it up, that is still pretty far off from HD's claim that Wheeler was appointed by a democratic governor, therefore, doesn't sound like a republican.

I spent more time than I should have reading stories and interviews with Alcorn trying to determine his party. I didn't really see much that indicated he was a democrat, and a few clues that he sided with the republicans, so I did make the assumption that he was the neutral party.
I agree that you and HD were both wrong about the members of the board of elections (you were wrong when you said Alcorn was a Republican; you were wrong when you said Alcorn was independent; and HD was wrong when he said Wheeler was a Democrat).

Alcorn was interviewed a while back
and explained that he personal policy was to avoid partisan political activity while working for the board and while being a member to promote the idea that the Board was nonpartisan. I'm not sure I would have predicted that that policy would end up being a negative.

(Although, if you go back before this election, Alcorn got a lot of flack from Republican sources for his role in McAullife's efforts to restore voting rights to felons en masse. Those articles were quick to point out that Alcorn was a appointed to a Democratic seat on the Board.)
  #85  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:38 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't have an objection. I assumed you'd find something in her statement somewhere between mildly annoying and glaringly offensive, but hey, if you guys don't have a problem with "Democrat team", neither do I. I'll just file that factoid away for later.
I see where you are going with this, but I would say that it isn't that big a deal. If she had said "Democrat party", I'd have 'd. But "democrat team", I dunno, it's team democrat. It is possible that she misspoke, but not that big a deal.

If you notice, it is rare that people get "shit" for saying "Democrat party", the first time. It is usually a correction. Just as if someone called you "HurricaDitka". You'd say, hey, that's not my name, it's HurricaneDitka. No biggie, right?

But then if I was persistent, and everytime I referred to you, I called you "HurricaDitka", you'd start to get a bit annoyed, would you not?

Then, even if a few of you opponents kept calling you that, for no reason that can be articulated with any sort of maturity, a friend of your refers to a group gathering that you hosted as "Hurrica Team", you are unlikely to give them shit about it, right?
  #86  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:05 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I see where you are going with this, but I would say that it isn't that big a deal. If she had said "Democrat party", I'd have 'd. But "democrat team", I dunno, it's team democrat. It is possible that she misspoke, but not that big a deal.

If you notice, it is rare that people get "shit" for saying "Democrat party", the first time. It is usually a correction. Just as if someone called you "HurricaDitka". You'd say, hey, that's not my name, it's HurricaneDitka. No biggie, right?

But then if I was persistent, and everytime I referred to you, I called you "HurricaDitka", you'd start to get a bit annoyed, would you not?

Then, even if a few of you opponents kept calling you that, for no reason that can be articulated with any sort of maturity, a friend of your refers to a group gathering that you hosted as "Hurrica Team", you are unlikely to give them shit about it, right?
Yeah, it was more of a flippant, light-hearted comment than a serious suggestion. Team D would have to be pretty cold-hearted to actually give their candidate grief for a minor mis-statement while dealing with a tough loss.
  #87  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:12 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Hey, septimus, given what we now know about who appointed the Vice Chair and Secretary, would you like to revise any of this, or are you just going to leave it hanging out there like an ugly wart on your (undoubtedly - other than this one time of course - flawless) record?
I am not certain that Alcorn was cheating. I merely point out that
* it would have been extremely easy for him to keep his hand on the GOP canister throughout the shuffling.
* there were simple and obvious ways to vary the procedure to eliminate this easy way to cheat; surely they would have been discussed if a sincere effort was ever made to develop a fair lot-drawing.
* the stakes were extremely high — there are probably businessmen who collectively would pay many millions to affect this draw.

I'm not certain one way or the other if cheating occurred on this draw. Neither are you. If I had to guess, I'd say the chance is 60% that severe cheating occurred.
  #88  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
... HD was wrong when he said Wheeler was a Democrat). ...
First off, Falchion, thank you for shedding some much-needed light on this subject. I appreciate your insight.

In my defense, I was pretty upfront about my ignorance of the partisan leanings of the members of the Virginia BoE and I don't believe I ever claimed she was a Democrat, just that she was appointed by a Democrat. I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... Also, here are the members of the Virginia Board of Elections. I don't know much of anything about their partisan background, but it says this about the Vice Chair: "In February 2015, the Governor appointed her to the four-year term as Vice Chair of the Virginia State Board of Elections." and this about the Secretary: "In February 2015, the Governor appointed her to the four-year term as Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections." Wikipedia tells me that Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, "served as the 72nd Governor of Virginia from 2014 to 2018.". They certainly don't sound like Republicans. Are they? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Like I said earlier, I don't know anything about the partisan composition of the Virginia Board of Elections. It appears that the other two board members were appointed by Democrat Terry McAuliffe. The website doesn't say anything about how the Chairman, James Alcorn, ended up in that position. You're saying he's Republican. What's the source for that information?
IIRC, the closest I got was "They certainly don't sound like Republicans. Are they?"

ETA: It's certainly a lot farther away from an explicit claim than septimus and I Love Me, Vol. I made

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2018 at 02:14 PM.
  #89  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:16 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I am not certain that Alcorn was cheating. I merely point out that
* it would have been extremely easy for him to keep his hand on the GOP canister throughout the shuffling.
* there were simple and obvious ways to vary the procedure to eliminate this easy way to cheat; surely they would have been discussed if a sincere effort was ever made to develop a fair lot-drawing.
* the stakes were extremely high — there are probably businessmen who collectively would pay many millions to affect this draw.

I'm not certain one way or the other if cheating occurred on this draw. Neither are you. If I had to guess, I'd say the chance is 60% that severe cheating occurred.
Did you, by chance, watch the C-SPAN video I provided a link to?
  #90  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
... I'm not certain one way or the other if cheating occurred on this draw. ...
Two days ago you felt certain enough to label him "GOP Cheatman Alcorn".

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2018 at 02:24 PM.
  #91  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:39 PM
OldGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't have an objection. I assumed you'd find something in her statement somewhere between mildly annoying and glaringly offensive, but hey, if you guys don't have a problem with "Democrat team", neither do I. I'll just file that factoid away for later.
You might have noticed that black people typically do not get upset when another black person refers to a black person with the term "nigger" but do get upset when a white person does. I presume this is because they are not using the word in a dismissive or derisive manner. Many republicans do appear to be using the "adjective" "Democrat" in exactly that manner. This could possibly be the difference here as well.
  #92  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:41 PM
Folly's Avatar
Folly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago! (no more burbs)
Posts: 2,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Did you, by chance, watch the C-SPAN video I provided a link to?
I just watched the procedure used and I would say that cheating would have been possible if the chair and vice chair were acting together. You can tell that when the canisters are put in the bowl that Yancey is toward the back (from the chair's perspective). The vice chair did some stuff (including this weird thing where she rolled the canisters back and forth without changing their relative position) and could have put the canisters back in with Yancey deliberately in the front or back.

I think the best argument against cheating is the vice chair threw the canisters back in with some force risking bouncing when she could have carefully placed them back in the bowl.
  #93  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folly View Post
... I think the best argument against cheating is the vice chair threw the canisters back in with some force risking bouncing when she could have carefully placed them back in the bowl.
I agree with both you and k9bfriender that there are things they could have done better, but I'm surprised that the way she dropped the canisters in the bowl is "the best argument against cheating" in your eyes. I would have thought that the fact that the guy picking the canister is a Democrat with no discernible motive for helping Yancey win would be "the best argument against cheating".
  #94  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:30 PM
Folly's Avatar
Folly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago! (no more burbs)
Posts: 2,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I agree with both you and k9bfriender that there are things they could have done better, but I'm surprised that the way she dropped the canisters in the bowl is "the best argument against cheating" in your eyes. I would have thought that the fact that the guy picking the canister is a Democrat with no discernible motive for helping Yancey win would be "the best argument against cheating".
I didn't read the above back and forth carefully enough to determine if it was resolved whether he was a Democrat or Republican. But I would stick with my answer even if he was a known Democrat. It's not like Democrats can't be paid off or something while the video is something I can evaluate with my own eyes.
  #95  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folly View Post
I didn't read the above back and forth carefully enough to determine if it was resolved whether he was a Democrat or Republican. But I would stick with my answer even if he was a known Democrat. It's not like Democrats can't be paid off or something while the video is something I can evaluate with my own eyes.
There have been all sorts of wild conspiracy theories in this thread. septimus suggested the canister might have been greased. Stranger On A Train called it "corruption in public view". k9bfriender said "it could have been a very small amount of sleight of hand". And now you've chimed in with "It's not like Democrats can't be paid off or something ...".

Look, I get it. Your girl lost a close election that you thought, at least at one point, she had in the bag (for the second time in two years). That's frustrating. Probably really frustrating, like Lucy yanking the football away. But the conspiracy theories being entertained in this thread would make Alex Jones blush. It's something that I would have hoped would have been beneath the SDMB.
  #96  
Old 01-10-2018, 04:01 PM
Folly's Avatar
Folly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago! (no more burbs)
Posts: 2,382
I don't know if I have enough post history for someone to determine if she was my girl or not. My point, after looking at the video, was that cheating was possible if the chair and vice chair were both in on it because of the dumb way they did the drawing.
  #97  
Old 01-10-2018, 04:10 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There have been all sorts of wild conspiracy theories in this thread. septimus suggested the canister might have been greased. Stranger On A Train called it "corruption in public view". k9bfriender said "it could have been a very small amount of sleight of hand". And now you've chimed in with "It's not like Democrats can't be paid off or something ...".

Look, I get it. Your girl lost a close election that you thought, at least at one point, she had in the bag (for the second time in two years). That's frustrating. Probably really frustrating, like Lucy yanking the football away. But the conspiracy theories being entertained in this thread would make Alex Jones blush. It's something that I would have hoped would have been beneath the SDMB.
I think you're overstating a bit. Most of the responses were that the situation would easily have allowed cheating to occur, not that it necessarily actually did. The appearance is questionable.

And at this point, most any Democratic candidate is 'my girl/guy.'
  #98  
Old 01-10-2018, 04:40 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
k9bfriender said "it could have been a very small amount of sleight of hand".
I am just put off by the fact that it is the exact same set up that I used to "cheat" in a magic show when I was 8. When I first watched the stream, I was wondering if it were a parody, with the set up being so blatantly easy to cheat.

Upon realizing that, no, that is in fact the official way they just ended a very controversial election, I really couldn't believe it. Whether or not there was cheating, you should be on the up and up and do things in such a way to remove the possibility of cheating.

I don't know exactly who came up with the process they used (and I'm not talking about drawing lots in general, I'm talking about film canisters and this particular bowl), but they were either very naive or very cynical.

Is there any reason that they were not able to do things in a more transparent manner that would assure all of fairness? It's not that there were no other ways of randomly drawing, but they chose this one, why?
  #99  
Old 01-10-2018, 04:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Is there any reason that they were not able to do things in a more transparent manner that would assure all of fairness? It's not that there were no other ways of randomly drawing, but they chose this one, why?
I suspect that they wish they had, in hindsight. The reality is that they're just average people doing the best they can. I doubt they ever imagined that a bunch of weirdos (I'm including myself here, this isn't intended as an insult) on the Internet would be poring over the footage, checking the angle and direction of his eyes, or the number of mixing swirls made before the draw, or slandering them as "GOP Cheatman". In the past they used a cardboard box, FFS. This isn't some grand conspiracy, it's just normal folks being mediocre at whatever task they're trying to accomplish. It happens every day, all across this country.
  #100  
Old 01-11-2018, 10:22 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think you and I were trying to make the same point. I quoted another poster who said the D "actually won the recount" and you used the word "apparent", but I think our point is the same: the certified tie is the result that matters, not the original count, and not the (to borrow your word) apparent recount tally that had the D up by 1 vote.
OK, I see.

My apologies for misunderstanding you, and jumping on what you said on account of that.
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 09:25 AM.

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