|
Barbe Rouge posted:even the GOP can be in the right sometimes No. If that vote is counted (it wasn't before) it becomes a tie vote, and the winner is determined "by lot"
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
So this would make the vote a straight tie then? edit: and answered while I was typing no less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No. If that vote is counted (it wasn't before) it becomes a tie vote, and the winner is determined "by lot" And in that case, there could be another recount, maybe! https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/943521945357778944
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:And in that case, there could be another recount, maybe! https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/943532240931352577 its almost like virginia (and most states) have really contradictory electoral laws
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:And in that case, there could be another recount, maybe! Endorph posted:its almost like virginia (and most states) have really contradictory electoral laws It's not contradictory and there definitely may not be a second recount. The issue is that Virginia only allows the "apparent loser" of a race to request a recount. So if the initial tally is a tie, nobody can ask for a recount. You then select a winner, and then the loser can ask for a recount because they are now officially the "apparent loser".
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
This is such a clusterfuck. A house majority decided by a single ballot
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
If that ballot is as described it really should have been counted in the first place. But I also agree with the concerns that you need absolute confirmation that the ballot hasn't already been counted and it sounds like that doesn't exist Being a judge must be hard
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
The ERA as in the Equal Rights Amendment? She wants to pass that at the Virginia government level or ratify it to the Constitution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The ERA as in the Equal Rights Amendment? She wants to pass that at the Virginia government level or ratify it to the Constitution? presumably the former since it comes up every now and then in the state senate
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:presumably the former since it comes up every now and then in the state senate Oh ok. I've heard rumblings that people want to try and bring it back because it might technically not be dead for ratification so I was confused. I mean either would be fine. Good for her. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
So the ballot is actually a little bit more ambiguious than previously reported: https://twitter.com/JWPascale/status/943559301737713665 Democrats are arguing that because he put an X through Gillispee, you can't assume the slash was to void the vote for Simonds. I do not know if this means it's coming down to the merits of voter intent, or if the judges had them argue that point as well and are deciding both the argument about if they can hear the challenge and what the intent was at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:So the ballot is actually a little bit more ambiguious than previously reported: Oh god, its loving pregnant chads all over again
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:So the ballot is actually a little bit more ambiguious than previously reported: Isn’t this sort of voter-intent divination the very reason we end up running special elections in the first place? Short of calling the guy and asking, there’s not much to be done. They certified it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
My read on that ballot is no vote for governor and a vote for the republican in the house but I'm not an elections official who actually knows Virgina ballot law
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
I love how that ballot tells the story of a long, agonizing personal struggle in the voting booth. It might as well have sweat stains on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:Isn’t this sort of voter-intent divination the very reason we end up running special elections in the first place? Short of calling the guy and asking, there’s not much to be done. They certified it. No, this is explicitly one of the things recounts are for, determining voter intent on ballots that don't quite match what you're supposed to do. If the ballot is not clear enough on what his intent is, it doesn't count. If Democrats are successful in arguing EITHER (a) it's too late to challenge or (b) if it's not to late to challenge, this is not sufficiently clear evidence of his intent to count this vote, the ballot doesn't count and the original count stands. The special election is only an issue because the GOVERNMENT hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
gently caress https://twitter.com/JWPascale/status/943561990441721858
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Son of a bitch. Nice that Republicans get to break the rules when it's convenient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
So when does the coin get flipped and who gets to flip it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
well poo poo. is there a twitch stream where we can sweat simonds' coin flip? come on one tiiiiime
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:So when does the coin get flipped and who gets to flip it? Someone appointed by the State Board of Elections, at a hearing they'll convene probably like tomorrow. It's usually someone safely nonpartisan like a kid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
This is so goddamn stupid. This coin poo poo makes me more angry than if they had just found two more votes in the pile.Alter Ego posted:Son of a bitch. Pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
I mean this is total bullshit. Both the R and D officials SIGNED OFF on declaring the ballot invalid. If the shoe had been on the other foot, what's the betting that the ballot wouldn't have counted?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
They should have to redo the election, not flip a loving coin. I don't give a poo poo about the logistical difficulties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:even the GOP can be in the right sometimes I get that, but to have someone from the party breathing down your neck to rescind your certification after it comes down to one vote scream impropriety. But that's just me. evilweasel posted:So the ballot is actually a little bit more ambiguious than previously reported: Going back to the vote counting guide you posted, I can quote:(8) Any ballot that has any mark, as above, in the target area or candidate area for one candidate, and on which other marks in the target areas or candidate areas for any other candidates have been partially erased, scratched out, or otherwise obliterated, shall be counted as a vote for the candidate for which the mark was not erased, scratched out, or otherwise obliterated, provided no other candidate is similarly Especially given that all the examples show that the incorrect choice was clearly scribbled out with a blob. cheetah7071 posted:My read on that ballot is no vote for governor and a vote for the republican in the house but I'm not an elections official who actually knows Virgina ballot law Funny you mention that, because the vote was counted for Governor, but not for Delegate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
So what was the party of the judge making the decision?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
I personally love that control of the Virginia House of Delegates, in which Democrats received ~225,000 more votes than Republicans, will be coming down to a coin flip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:I personally love that control of the Virginia House of Delegates, in which Democrats received ~225,000 more votes than Republicans, will be coming down to a coin flip. ~will of the people~
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
And this why the Democrats offered up a powersharing agreement, in case they lost this recount or got hosed over in some way
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:And this why the Democrats offered up a powersharing agreement, in case they lost this recount or got hosed over in some way and it's why the Republicans rejected it since they knew they've ratfuck their way into it somehow like they always do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Looking forward to the GOP observer at the coin flip screaming that tails actually means heads because the eagle has a head on it so therefore... gently caress these people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Nah they'll just keeping flipping the coin until the Republican wins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
So it's 50-50 for 50-50?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:So it's 50-50 for 50-50? But what is the over/under?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I love how that ballot tells the story of a long, agonizing personal struggle in the voting booth. It might as well have sweat stains on it. Well, there was a lot riding on it
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Now that the door is open, the Democrats' observer should be searching high and low for another ballet that might be counted for their side. After all, the certification is apparently meaningless.
Rebel Blob fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Isn't that how the vote went from 10 against to a tie? And you've got to give the Democratic side credit for fast talking the other side into throwing away that ballot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I mean this is total bullshit. Both the R and D officials SIGNED OFF on declaring the ballot invalid. If the shoe had been on the other foot, what's the betting that the ballot wouldn't have counted? If the shoe had been on the other foot, the notion anyone here would be crying about violations of certification procedure is utterly laughable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
The upside of the lot-drawing is that a second recount and series of appeals come into play should Symonds lose the draw. It's bizarre, but there's multiple winning avenues that come into play even if it doesn't end at the hat/bowl/canister.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:The upside of the lot-drawing is that a second recount and series of appeals come into play should Symonds lose the draw. It's bizarre, but there's multiple winning avenues that come into play even if it doesn't end at the hat/bowl/canister. My read of the law is that the news reports that the loser can ask for a new recount are wrong. It's just that if the initial vote is tied, nobody can ask for a recount until there's an official loser based on the draw because Virginia only allows an apparent loser to ask for a recount. Once the lot-drawing happens, there's a loser, at which that person can ask for the initial recount. Virginia law is pretty clear that there cannot be a second recount. edit: Specificially, I get that from this section: quote:When there is between any candidate apparently nominated or elected and any candidate apparently defeated a difference of not more than one percent of the total vote cast for the two such candidates as determined by the State Board or the electoral board, the defeated candidate may appeal from the determination of the State Board or the electoral board for a recount of the vote as set forth in this article. and quote:There shall be only one redetermination of the vote in each precinct. and this: evilweasel fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:09
|
|