Section #8 nails it. There were two candidates darkened. One had a strikethrough mark. That can be interpreted as “other marks in the target areas or candidate areas for any other candidates have been partially erased, scratched out, or otherwise obliterated”.
Which was essentially the explanation that was given.
Have you seen the picture of the ballot? How can you say that the democrat’s name has been obliterated as per section 8, but not say that there is a clarifying mark next to the dem’s name as in section 5? Especially as the governor’s candidate is filled in and then has a mark across the bubble.
The only way to judge the intent of the voter is due to the fact that the voter voted R for the other candidates. Without that information, only given the single entry on the ballot (as it is supposed to be judged) I do not see how you can say that it has been “erased, scratched out, or otherwise obliterated”, and not " clarified by an additional mark."
Do you think that this ballot should have been counted as being toward the republican candidate for governor? If so, then how do you say that a similar mark is not intended to clarify, rather than obliterate?
This should have been considered a spoiled ballot.
I’m not saying that either result should have occurred. I’m saying that there is a perfectly valid argument to be made under Section 8 of the rules, to consider the strikethrough as an attempt to indicate that the unintentional double-vote for the Democrat should not count. I made that assertion in response to the rules being referred to after I asserted that the issue wasn’t as open-and-shut as someone attempted to assert it was.
One of the problems that people have when they take positions (legal or political) is that they refuse to accept that the “other” side has arguments that have potential merit. When I was an attorney, I saw that happen all the time (often by my “opponent”). Whether or not you think a question should be resolved a certain way, it is often the case that the question can reasonably be resolved a different way.
As is the case here.
Are you completely confident you’re not falling into the practice you so nicely and condescendingly show us all? There’s an easy and foolproof test - if the party names are reversed, what conclusion do you come to? You don’t get to claim “it could go either way, so let’s just have it go my way”, not in court, and not in real life.
Would you be so good as to acknowledge that about what you call the “other” side?
I don’t have a dog in the fight, since I’m neither “liberal” nor “conservative”. So, as often happens with people here on this Board, you appear to have fallen victim to assuming something about me that isn’t true.
Since I don’t have a dog in the fight, I think I’m able to look at the situation with a more even-handed eye. I’m not asserting that there is a plausible argument for discounting the ballot because I’m pleased with that outcome. Nor would I reject the argument (assuming that it was the case that it had no reasonable possible validity) out of a sense of happiness with that outcome, either.
So, yes, reverse the names, I don’t care. My point still stands: the claim that Section 8 of the rules you posted can legitimately be used to claim the ballot should be counted as a vote for the Republican candidate still stands. I will point out that I also think that a valid argument can be made under those rules for refusing to count the ballot for either candidate. So either result was a legitimately possible outcome; reasonable people could differ on what the outcome should be.
I am a “liberal” for all intents and purposes and like I said earlier it looks like a Republican vote to me. I also by the same token would not count the vote for the Republican candidate for governor. At any rate if I were the Democratic candidate I’d politely concede*. Unfortunate, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
ETA: * Or submit to the coin flip, I’m forgetting now where the count was.
Had the vote been counted initially, I would agree. But since that ballot wasn’t sequestered, we don’t even know if that vote was already counted. Process matters.
THIS in my opinion is where things got squirrely. And I have for some time wondered why the Democratic candidate didn’t file a lawsuit on this issue. It seems to be a real due process problem. But she did make this big push initially to get the Republican to agree to drop all challenges, so she was kind of hoist on her own petard.
If I understand you correctly, that’s an odd interpretation: that if you offer the other side a mutual-disarmament deal and they refuse, you’re somehow obligated to unilaterally disarm.
If you say to someone: I think it’s in the best interests of the state that we don’t challenge the results of this any further; are you willing to agree with me and not file any protest to the result?
Then that person’s response is irrelevant. You have made the assertion that the best interests of the people are served by not challenging the result. If you then challenge the result, it shows you were simply trying to con the other person with your statement into making a concession you yourself aren’t willing to abide by.
Just like with nuclear disarmament, there are countervailing interests here. It may be in the best interests of the Commonwealth for races such as this to not be fought over to the last possible legal action, but it’s also not in the best interests of the Commonwealth for one party to be willing to do so while the other party isn’t.
First of all, it will likely result in partisan presence in the legislature that is out of line with the wishes of the people as expressed at the ballot box, and second, if only one side is dragging these things out all the way and the other side isn’t, you never get to the place where it’s a win-win for both sides to throw in the towel on these kinds of maneuvers.
That suggests that any time I offer someone else a deal, I have to do the thing I offered without them agreeing, since I thought the deal was so great.
I’m all in favor of unilateral disarmament too, as long as it’s the other guys doing it.
Simonds concedes the VA-94 race to Yancey: “I have conceded because I do not see any legal pathways forward and I want representation for the 94th District today."
So she fucking caved in; gave up. I’m not surprised.
If it was really important to her, she would have fought for it. Yancey fought for it.
IMO, this is why epithets like “weak” and “spineless” and “without the strength of their convictions” ring true when applied to Democrats, and I fucking hate it. It seems to me that it started with Al Gore and has continued to this day.
“No legal pathways forward”? :dubious: How about that recount you’re entitled to ask for? Is that not a “legal pathway forward”? :rolleyes:
If this is the kind of tenacity and resourcefulness she’d bring as an elected official, perhaps voters aren’t really losing much after all. I mean, if she won’t fight for herself (and by extension her constituents), how can anyone expect her to fight for just her constituents?
Quarry.
At some point, you do have to accept the outcome of an election. I think that we are at that point, now, though I would have fought a bunch before. The controversial ballot should have been contested, or they should have done another full recount, and the draw should have been done better, I have my reservations about the way that played out.
A large part of the problem is that if you fight fair, you can lose. Especially if you pick a fair fight against a cheater, you are pretty much sure to lose.
You can pull a Roy Moore. That’s always popular.
What happens then? (Honest question). Obviously if one of these conspiracy theories about double-counting ballots is true, then you might get a different result. But what if it’s still tied? Another drawing? Does the loser of that drawing get a recount?
I’m not sure, Falchion. The statutes linked at Ballotpedia don’t really cover all possible events; perhaps there are other relevant statutes that aren’t listed there.