|
If the dems take the chamber, can they immediately redistrict?
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Aliquid posted:If the dems take the chamber, can they immediately redistrict? No, Republicans control the state Senate which was not up for election this year. Also: https://twitter.com/reemadamin/status/943216518413811714 There is ONE SINGLE PROVISIONAL BALLOT LEFT
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Right now the best shot is a 50-49-1 dem/rep/undecided split so the best the dems can do in the situation where the court case flips against them sometime during the sessions is A. Elect a speaker (must be done first for anything to be done) B. Cram every single committee with as many dems as possible C. Confirm as many appointments as possible D. Maybe pass legislation like a straight Medicaid expansion if it can be written quickly enough It’s going to be insane
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/reemadamin/status/943220966217408518 so wild
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Holy loving poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
so what was the actual vote share in the house of representatives for each party
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Virginia politics are kinda wild
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Holy loving poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
this is why you vote
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Venuz Patrol posted:so what was the actual vote share in the house of Was 51-49 for the Republicans. If this becomes official, it goes to 50-50. Finally, there's the 28th district where the registrar, for unknown reasons, randomly moved hundreds of voters into different precincts out of the district. This election was won by the Republican incumbent with 82 votes, but around 200 voters were given ballots for the 88th district instead of the 28th. This is highly unusual, and a likely solution will be a special election. BirdOfPlay fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Was 51-49 for the Republicans. also, those 200 or so voters voted for the democrat on the ballots they got in numbers that, if translated directly to the correct candidates, would have flipped the election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Venuz Patrol posted:so what was the actual vote share in the house of representatives for each party Wikipedia says 1,075,206 R to 1,306,384 D. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Whoops, wrong thread. Still good for Virginia though.
Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
^^ lol i am a dumb Edit: refereing Mind_Taker, not PPJ.evilweasel posted:also, those 200 or so voters voted for the democrat on the ballots they got in numbers that, if translated directly to the correct candidates, would have flipped the election. True, so there is a very good chance that this ends up being a Dem pickup. Would the special election be open to everyone in the district, or restricted to those in the contested precincts? Further, could it just be limited to those who were given the wrong ballot? I know everything is done via secret ballot, but don't the clerks in charge of a precinct log who votes? I dislike the open election option, specifically, because knowing state-wide results will change voting compared to what would/should have happened back in November. That said, it just might be the best option available to correct this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Finally, there's the 28th district where the previous, now-dead registrar, for unknown reasons, randomly moved hundreds of voters into different precincts out of the district. This election was won by the Republican incumbent with 82 votes, but around 200 voters were given ballots for the 88th district instead of the 28th. This is highly unusual, and a likely solution will be a special election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:^^ lol i am a dumb Edit: refereing Mind_Taker, not PPJ. Any special election would in all likelihood be open to the entire district. It's not a perfect solution-- hell, the courts will hate it, they hate invalidating elections-- but when an election is this fucky blunt instrument fixes are all we've got.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:True, so there is a very good chance that this ends up being a Dem pickup. I'm pretty sure that's a republican-leaning district and one of the ones nobody thought was gonna be competitive. No guarantee turnout is the same, especially when everyone knows what the stakes in that specific election are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Never, ever let anyone tell you your vote doesn't matter. Holy poo poo. Glad to hear some good news while I'm off in Paris. Also this is why the Dems offered a power sharing deal to the GOP right before the recounts. They refused so now the Dems can say "gently caress you" and give themselves everything while the count is 50-49 with 1 race going to a special. Or hell they could be even more ballsy and just say the Dem in that race won. axeil fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Holy loving poo poo. Not an emptyquote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Lee Carter loving owns https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/943245439490576385
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
axeil posted:Also this is why the Dems offered a power sharing deal to the GOP right before the recounts. They refused so now the Dems can say "gently caress you" and give themselves everything while the count is 50-49 with 1 race going to a special. Or hell they could be even more ballsy and just say the Dem in that race won. Which legislature votes on contested seatings? The outgoing one, or the undisputed members of the incoming one?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Which legislature votes on contested seatings? The outgoing one, or the undisputed members of the incoming one? It's the incoming one, because the House of Delegates isn't a continuous body; they adjourned way back in April because we have a loving ridiculous part-time legislature. When the new House of Delegates sits at noon on January 10, one of its first orders of business is to seat new delegates and deal with any contested elections. The House has never actually had to do anything about an election, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jfreewright/status/943291532643143680
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
What is this? Am I missing something? I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What is this? Am I missing something? I'm confused. tucker carlson being tucker carlson https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/943283425657675776
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:tucker carlson being tucker carlson Furthermore, Sen. Carter Glass (of Glass-Seagall fame, no less) was a drafter of the 1902 VA Constitution and used such language to pass the clause of the VA Constitution that disenfranchised citizens convicted of a host of crimes. The Atlantic ran an article about this when T-Mac restored voting rights last year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:tucker carlson being tucker carlson Oh, that figures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
let me see if I have this straight: - currently the balance of power in the VA house is 50/50 - there will be 2 more recounts but they're not expected to flip - one of those recounts will also have a special election somewhen in 2018 because of voting irregularities - because of those irregularities the R that won that seat can't be seated in the house so the balance is actually 50-49 in Dems' favor because the legislation will start their session before the special election takes place anything missing or wrong? the question I have is - considering the fact that Republicans have a majority in the VA senate (at least according to wiki), why does everyone presume that Dems will be able to push legislation through? since it has to be voted on by both houses and signed by the governor, doesn't it seem that the Rs in the senate will just shoot down anything the Ds in the house push through?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:let me see if I have this straight: I've heard strategies ranging from offering R senators jobs in his administration to trigger special elections favorable to Dems, offering some reforms to Medicaid in exchange for expanding it and finding and leaning on vulnerable R's in areas Northam won. You're right that we should probably temper expectations, but it's not entirely hopeless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thekateblack/status/943226745146216448
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
If the Dems end up with a majority in the house, all they'll need to do is flip one solitary Republican in the Senate to pass stuff. That's eminently doable, since there are plenty of them in districts both Clinton and Northam won. This is still insane to me because we went in thinking that a good night would decrease the house majority to 56R, 44D. Potentially getting the ability to actually govern is beyond anyone's dreams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
The Virginia race is not over. Basically, there was one ballot that voted for both candidates, but with a strike mark through the vote for the Democratic candidate, and then voted straight-ticket R for the rest of the ballot. The Republican official during the recount agreed with the Democratic official the vote should not count. That official changed their mind last night, and wrote a letter to the court that would certify the recount to that effect. The court is now deciding (a) if it's too late to challenge the ballot since everyone agreed at the time; and (b) if they can challenge it, if it should count. https://twitter.com/reemadamin/status/943504977254903808 https://twitter.com/reemadamin/status/943505550884696064 https://twitter.com/reemadamin/status/943505754551668736 https://twitter.com/reemadamin/status/943512873116069890
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Honestly if they get to overturn that it feels like why bother having people certify anything since you can just call do overs when it benefits you. If they had made this case yesterday I think it would be somewhat valid (ignoring Florida 2000) but now it's way too late.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Are you loving making GBS threads me? He gets a call from the GOP and is claiming that the ballot should have counted and this could be allowed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Are you loving making GBS threads me? He gets a call from the GOP and is claiming that the ballot should have counted and this could be allowed? Based on the Virginia standards, if what they're saying is true (voted for both, but crossed out one of the ovals) the ballot clearly should have counted: https://www.elections.virginia.gov/Files/ElectionAdministration/ElectionLaw/ExamplesforHandcounting.pdf Look at the bottom of page 11. So the official definitely hosed up. It's not like this challenge is baseless - it's basically a question of procedure, at what point is it too late to challenge?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
I looked up the Virginia law on recounts. Relevant portions are below, bolding mine:quote:There shall be only one redetermination of the vote in each precinct. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter8/section24.2-802/ So the key legal issue, as I see it, is the second bolded section. The officials shall submit the ballots "as to the validity of which questions exist to the court." Now, he did that initially (there were none) and has done so again today (challenging one, in writing). He would have been completely within his rights to challenge it (and would have won) initially. But does he have a right to submit challenges up to the date of the hearing, or only once? If he gets to submit this additional challenge, the ballot will get counted. If he is not permitted to submit this additional challenge, the other two bolded sections apply: the court may not order a new recount, and the court may only rule on the validity of "questioned ballots", i.e. the ballots officially questioned which doesn't include this one and will certify the Democrat the winner. So, that's what the judges are probably arguing about now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Based on the Virginia standards, if what they're saying is true (voted for both, but crossed out one of the ovals) the ballot clearly should have counted: https://www.elections.virginia.gov/Files/ElectionAdministration/ElectionLaw/ExamplesforHandcounting.pdf The procedure question is the one that's getting me hung up on this. He certified everything as hunky-dory and, then, gets a call from the GOP telling him to contest his certification. It's not a good look and I don't think the ballot box should've been opened because of that. Also, section 8 mentions crossing out or erasing the mark, not the candidate's name. That said, section 11 does state that a negative mark for candidate A and a positive one for candidate B should be a vote for B.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:The procedure question is the one that's getting me hung up on this. He certified everything as hunky-dory and, then, gets a call from the GOP telling him to contest his certification. It's not a good look and I don't think the ballot box should've been opened because of that. even the GOP can be in the right sometimes so if this one vote is flipped, dems lose the election and the house?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:The procedure question is the one that's getting me hung up on this. He certified everything as hunky-dory and, then, gets a call from the GOP telling him to contest his certification. It's not a good look and I don't think the ballot box should've been opened because of that. I do not have a problem with the judges opening up the ballot box because I don't think that's a decision that they will rule on the validity of that individual ballot. I interpret them looking in the box before ruling on the merits as looking for an easy way out: if there's no ballot that matches what the guy's saying, the problem becomes extremely easy and his letter can be ignored without deciding the hard questions here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:36
|
|