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.
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.
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.
Concur. I don’t think Simond’s response was noteworthy in either direction.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.