Ehh. While I don't like the result, and I'm not sure how it works with regards the rules, I'm fairly confident that the intent is clear.
He marked Gillespie with a X, then realized he needed to fill in the box. Then he marked the wrong circle on 94th district, and tried to correct it, rather than getting a new ballot.
While I understand that not everyone votes partisanly, I'd find it very unlikely that someone who voted for Ed Gillespie also voted for the Democrat for their local House race. Possible, but not likely.
So, if all actual laws and procedures were followed (and it's not clear from above that they were), it looks like it's coming down to randomness.
Which sucks, because fickle fate this year (and the last couple months of last year) has been pretty fucked.
And how do you feel about the guy who counted it, after realizing how close it was, changing his mind and coming back to say "Wait, no, there was one more that should've been something else"?
Oh, that's shitty, and I hope that the laws and procedures mean that the vote won't count. A separate issue from what the intent of this vote appears to be.
I absolutely hope the vote gets turfed on procedural grounds. But there isn't any real ambiguity of who the votes were for.
i want the democrat to win as much as anyone, but i don't see how that ballot isn't clearly intending to vote for the republican
the mark on the governor race could just as easily have been an X first and then the person realized they needed to fill in the bubble
or they decided they didn't want to vote for any of the choices for some reason, but still voted the part line otherwise (what)
but either way it is pretty clear they struck through the Dem vote and filled in a Rep vote for the House seat
the only argument going forward to me would be that other ballots probably should be reexamined if that one was (or that ballot should not have been reexamined in the first place)
If you wait until realizing that the vote is super close, and then go looking for specific ballots that are sketchy enough to swing one way or the other, then something fucky is going on. Had it been counted originally, fine. It would still be skeevy, but I'm sure there are a number of idiotic votes. They can act impartially because they don't know the results at the time.
Going back on and re-examining ballots to find one (or multiple) after the fact, looking for enough sketchy enough to change the results of the election? That's absurd.
Yeah, it absolutely cannot be allowed for people doing the counting to change their minds after they hear the 'final' result. Doesn't matter what that vote wanted to do, it was excluded, and only was included after the person counting it heard 'Hey, it's within 1 vote!'
This is seeming skeevier and skeevier. Basically:
"I assumed it was a straight party ticket vote, and am new at this, but literally everybody but me said to ditch it, so I ditched it, but once I LEARNED THE WINNER and was contacted by A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL LAWYER, I was talked into decided to bring it up and contest it."
This is seeming skeevier and skeevier. Basically:
"I assumed it was a straight party ticket vote, and am new at this, but literally everybody but me said to ditch it, so I ditched it, but once I LEARNED THE WINNER and was contacted by A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL LAWYER, I was talked into decided to bring it up and contest it."
This guy should be harshly judged for discussing the details of the ballot counting and individual ballots with his parents. The simple fact that he 'remembered' the one vote that he couldn't count for a Republican calls into question EVERY vote he counted. His entire precinct should be recounted, and he should be investigated for voter fraud.
I really dislike the "determining voter intent" provision of Virginia law on this. It should be standard procedure that if you overvote, your vote for that position doesn't count, but if you make a mistake you can have that ballot shredded and ask for a new one. This whole x-ing things out and putting a slash (or maybe a checkmark! who knows?) through something else is just all sorts of fucked. Having a court "determine voter intent" should never be a thing.
-edit- Also if I am remembering correctly, my ballot had rectangles instead of ovals, am I out of my mind here or is this a case of different styles of ballot in different parts of the commonwealth?
Yeah, I'd say the voter probably intended to vote for the Republican, but that probably is far short of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "clear and convincing". I could probably see it meeting preponderance of evidence standard. Which...
-edit- Also if I am remembering correctly, my ballot had rectangles instead of ovals, am I out of my mind here or is this a case of different styles of ballot in different parts of the commonwealth?
Probably. The exact model for voting in Illinois (and so the bubble or arrow to fill in) depends on the county and it's Clerk/Board of Elections.
moniker on
0
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Nope nope nope, this is not the kind of thing that can be allowed to happen at all, at any level of government, in a free country.
The GOP is getting bolder and bolder in its efforts to blatantly steal power, and this is not going to get better unless they suffer consequences for it.
Ehh. While I don't like the result, and I'm not sure how it works with regards the rules, I'm fairly confident that the intent is clear.
He marked Gillespie with a X, then realized he needed to fill in the box. Then he marked the wrong circle on 94th district, and tried to correct it, rather than getting a new ballot.
While I understand that not everyone votes partisanly, I'd find it very unlikely that someone who voted for Ed Gillespie also voted for the Democrat for their local House race. Possible, but not likely.
So, if all actual laws and procedures were followed (and it's not clear from above that they were), it looks like it's coming down to randomness.
Which sucks, because fickle fate this year (and the last couple months of last year) has been pretty fucked.
And if it randomly selects the Democrat I'm reasonably confident the GOP will invoke the little known "Best 2 out of 3" provision.
I seem to remember one time a seat somewhere was decided on an agreed-upon coin toss.
Afterwards, the loser challenged it saying that he shouldn't lose the seat because of a coin toss.
Ehh. While I don't like the result, and I'm not sure how it works with regards the rules, I'm fairly confident that the intent is clear.
He marked Gillespie with a X, then realized he needed to fill in the box. Then he marked the wrong circle on 94th district, and tried to correct it, rather than getting a new ballot.
While I understand that not everyone votes partisanly, I'd find it very unlikely that someone who voted for Ed Gillespie also voted for the Democrat for their local House race. Possible, but not likely.
So, if all actual laws and procedures were followed (and it's not clear from above that they were), it looks like it's coming down to randomness.
Which sucks, because fickle fate this year (and the last couple months of last year) has been pretty fucked.
And if it randomly selects the Democrat I'm reasonably confident the GOP will invoke the little known "Best 2 out of 3" provision.
Wait, so we don't have confirmation it is the ballot, they just dug through ballots until they found one that was an issue?
So if this guy hadn't said 'yeah i guess there is', they would have kept calling people to seed of doubt them into digging through ballots until they found one they could use?
DiannaoChong on
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I bet he looses the coin toss, demands a recount, and they somehow come up with a handful of more ballots that are at best questionable and at worse outright fucking fake.
It seems pretty clear to me that these judges fumbled the ball hard by even allowing the letter to be considered as testimony and even harder by actually discussing the individual ballot. The republican poll watcher doesn't get to remember a vote he saw 5 days later just because the race was close. Decide then, and shut the he'll up. Anything else breaks our democracy.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+4
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It seems pretty clear to me that these judges fumbled the ball hard by even allowing the letter to be considered as testimony and even harder by actually discussing the individual ballot. The republican poll watcher doesn't get to remember a vote he saw 5 days later just because the race was close. Decide then, and shut the he'll up. Anything else breaks our democracy.
You’re talking about this in terms of the rights of the campaigns, or the poll watchers, to advance their claims to receiving certain votes, but I think that’s only part of the picture. There’s also the right of the individual who cast the vote to have it counted for who they chose. It’s plausible enough to argue that the campaign can waive its own rights via bad decisions or negligence, but harder to argue that the individual voter’s right to participate in elections can be waived by some separate poll watcher’s initial negligence or bad decision.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
It seems pretty clear to me that these judges fumbled the ball hard by even allowing the letter to be considered as testimony and even harder by actually discussing the individual ballot. The republican poll watcher doesn't get to remember a vote he saw 5 days later just because the race was close. Decide then, and shut the he'll up. Anything else breaks our democracy.
You’re talking about this in terms of the rights of the campaigns, or the poll watchers, to advance their claims to receiving certain votes, but I think that’s only part of the picture. There’s also the right of the individual who cast the vote to have it counted for who they chose. It’s plausible enough to argue that the campaign can waive its own rights via bad decisions or negligence, but harder to argue that the individual voter’s right to participate in elections can be waived by some separate poll watcher’s initial negligence or bad decision.
for me it is 100% that either this ballot doesn't count because it was after the fact or if this ballot counts, there are most certainly other ballots that need to be counted that had previously been tossed out because otherwise there is no standard and it is literally just digging through ballots after the result is declared until you find enough to make your side win
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+5
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It seems pretty clear to me that these judges fumbled the ball hard by even allowing the letter to be considered as testimony and even harder by actually discussing the individual ballot. The republican poll watcher doesn't get to remember a vote he saw 5 days later just because the race was close. Decide then, and shut the he'll up. Anything else breaks our democracy.
You’re talking about this in terms of the rights of the campaigns, or the poll watchers, to advance their claims to receiving certain votes, but I think that’s only part of the picture. There’s also the right of the individual who cast the vote to have it counted for who they chose. It’s plausible enough to argue that the campaign can waive its own rights via bad decisions or negligence, but harder to argue that the individual voter’s right to participate in elections can be waived by some separate poll watcher’s initial negligence or bad decision.
for me it is 100% that either this ballot doesn't count because it was after the fact or if this ballot counts, there are most certainly other ballots that need to be counted that had previously been tossed out because otherwise there is no standard and it is literally just digging through ballots after the result is declared until you find enough to make your side win
Are there others that were similarly thrown out by the poll watchers, but which could be brought back, and which are genuinely ambiguous enough that the judges might wind up counting them? I can’t imagine that the campaigns aren’t both looking as hard as they possibly can right now - if nothings comes to light that’s at least some kind of evidence.
I agree tho that it would be absurd to reverse the initial verdict on this one without allowing the chance for others. It’s just not clear to me that’s what they’re doing.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
yeah, i guess there is the chance it was literally just this one ballot that was ambiguous
that just seems implausible
it may be the better strategy is waiting for the coin flip and then calling for another recount and so that's what everyone is doing
It seems pretty clear to me that these judges fumbled the ball hard by even allowing the letter to be considered as testimony and even harder by actually discussing the individual ballot. The republican poll watcher doesn't get to remember a vote he saw 5 days later just because the race was close. Decide then, and shut the he'll up. Anything else breaks our democracy.
You’re talking about this in terms of the rights of the campaigns, or the poll watchers, to advance their claims to receiving certain votes, but I think that’s only part of the picture. There’s also the right of the individual who cast the vote to have it counted for who they chose. It’s plausible enough to argue that the campaign can waive its own rights via bad decisions or negligence, but harder to argue that the individual voter’s right to participate in elections can be waived by some separate poll watcher’s initial negligence or bad decision.
The voter's right isn't being waived. They spoiled their ballot and didn't ask for a new one. Which every ballot instructions I've ever seen explicitly points out to do. If their intended choice was unambiguous that would be one thing, but it's not.
+9
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
edited December 2017
i don't agree the voter's intent is ambiguous
it is pretty clear to me
the problem is going "oh we lost by one? hang on i just remembered another ballot we should count"
the problem is going "oh we lost by one? hang on i just remembered another ballot we should count"
e: uh... ambiguous
Indeed. The counters can only be fair if they don't really know whether each vote matters individually. The idea that a single vote could swing the whole thing is so unlikely that it makes the counting work. If you have 1000 ballots to count in 30 minutes, you don't have time to spend 20 minutes wondering whether you can throw a single one into your guys bin even though it shouldn't be in there. But if you can go back after the fact knowing it was close your judgement will be clouded.
So the person certified to the best of their abilities their findings, in some fashion right? Is there not some penalty for what is essentially admiting to not doing his due diligence if he really "wants to make this right"? They get pretty specific instructions and he is trying to claim, on paper, that he didnt follow them after the fact.
Also if I am remembering correctly, my ballot had rectangles instead of ovals, am I out of my mind here or is this a case of different styles of ballot in different parts of the commonwealth?
In 2000, there were confusing "Butterfly" ballots in Florida that caused a bunch of elderly NY Jews to vote for Buchanan accidentally instead of Gore. Buchanan was a right wing Nazi apologist. The number was almost certainly enough to swing the state, and it was only used in a few counties
It seems pretty clear to me that these judges fumbled the ball hard by even allowing the letter to be considered as testimony and even harder by actually discussing the individual ballot. The republican poll watcher doesn't get to remember a vote he saw 5 days later just because the race was close. Decide then, and shut the he'll up. Anything else breaks our democracy.
You’re talking about this in terms of the rights of the campaigns, or the poll watchers, to advance their claims to receiving certain votes, but I think that’s only part of the picture. There’s also the right of the individual who cast the vote to have it counted for who they chose. It’s plausible enough to argue that the campaign can waive its own rights via bad decisions or negligence, but harder to argue that the individual voter’s right to participate in elections can be waived by some separate poll watcher’s initial negligence or bad decision.
for me it is 100% that either this ballot doesn't count because it was after the fact or if this ballot counts, there are most certainly other ballots that need to be counted that had previously been tossed out because otherwise there is no standard and it is literally just digging through ballots after the result is declared until you find enough to make your side win
Are there others that were similarly thrown out by the poll watchers, but which could be brought back, and which are genuinely ambiguous enough that the judges might wind up counting them? I can’t imagine that the campaigns aren’t both looking as hard as they possibly can right now - if nothings comes to light that’s at least some kind of evidence.
I agree tho that it would be absurd to reverse the initial verdict on this one without allowing the chance for others. It’s just not clear to me that’s what they’re doing.
The boxes are sealed and no one has access and they had to complain before the hearing, at least if the appeal fails
edit
The challenged ballot was also supposed to be held apart specifically. It was not but they said close enough because one that was similar to what was challenged was paper clipped with a few other spoiled ballots. Basically none of the procedure was followed
It seems pretty clear to me that these judges fumbled the ball hard by even allowing the letter to be considered as testimony and even harder by actually discussing the individual ballot. The republican poll watcher doesn't get to remember a vote he saw 5 days later just because the race was close. Decide then, and shut the he'll up. Anything else breaks our democracy.
You’re talking about this in terms of the rights of the campaigns, or the poll watchers, to advance their claims to receiving certain votes, but I think that’s only part of the picture. There’s also the right of the individual who cast the vote to have it counted for who they chose. It’s plausible enough to argue that the campaign can waive its own rights via bad decisions or negligence, but harder to argue that the individual voter’s right to participate in elections can be waived by some separate poll watcher’s initial negligence or bad decision.
for me it is 100% that either this ballot doesn't count because it was after the fact or if this ballot counts, there are most certainly other ballots that need to be counted that had previously been tossed out because otherwise there is no standard and it is literally just digging through ballots after the result is declared until you find enough to make your side win
Are there others that were similarly thrown out by the poll watchers, but which could be brought back, and which are genuinely ambiguous enough that the judges might wind up counting them? I can’t imagine that the campaigns aren’t both looking as hard as they possibly can right now - if nothings comes to light that’s at least some kind of evidence.
I agree tho that it would be absurd to reverse the initial verdict on this one without allowing the chance for others. It’s just not clear to me that’s what they’re doing.
The boxes are sealed and no one has access and they had to complain before the hearing, at least if the appeal fails
edit
The challenged ballot was also supposed to be held apart specifically. It was not but they said close enough because one that was similar to what was challenged was paper clipped with a few other spoiled ballots. Basically none of the procedure was followed
Good lord how is this not just flat out voter fraud?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It seems pretty clear to me that these judges fumbled the ball hard by even allowing the letter to be considered as testimony and even harder by actually discussing the individual ballot. The republican poll watcher doesn't get to remember a vote he saw 5 days later just because the race was close. Decide then, and shut the he'll up. Anything else breaks our democracy.
You’re talking about this in terms of the rights of the campaigns, or the poll watchers, to advance their claims to receiving certain votes, but I think that’s only part of the picture. There’s also the right of the individual who cast the vote to have it counted for who they chose. It’s plausible enough to argue that the campaign can waive its own rights via bad decisions or negligence, but harder to argue that the individual voter’s right to participate in elections can be waived by some separate poll watcher’s initial negligence or bad decision.
for me it is 100% that either this ballot doesn't count because it was after the fact or if this ballot counts, there are most certainly other ballots that need to be counted that had previously been tossed out because otherwise there is no standard and it is literally just digging through ballots after the result is declared until you find enough to make your side win
Are there others that were similarly thrown out by the poll watchers, but which could be brought back, and which are genuinely ambiguous enough that the judges might wind up counting them? I can’t imagine that the campaigns aren’t both looking as hard as they possibly can right now - if nothings comes to light that’s at least some kind of evidence.
I agree tho that it would be absurd to reverse the initial verdict on this one without allowing the chance for others. It’s just not clear to me that’s what they’re doing.
The boxes are sealed and no one has access and they had to complain before the hearing, at least if the appeal fails
edit
The challenged ballot was also supposed to be held apart specifically. It was not but they said close enough because one that was similar to what was challenged was paper clipped with a few other spoiled ballots. Basically none of the procedure was followed
Good lord how is this not just flat out voter fraud?
At this point can they just throw their hands up and say "that's enough, we need a special election to fix this"?
It seems pretty clear to me that these judges fumbled the ball hard by even allowing the letter to be considered as testimony and even harder by actually discussing the individual ballot. The republican poll watcher doesn't get to remember a vote he saw 5 days later just because the race was close. Decide then, and shut the he'll up. Anything else breaks our democracy.
You’re talking about this in terms of the rights of the campaigns, or the poll watchers, to advance their claims to receiving certain votes, but I think that’s only part of the picture. There’s also the right of the individual who cast the vote to have it counted for who they chose. It’s plausible enough to argue that the campaign can waive its own rights via bad decisions or negligence, but harder to argue that the individual voter’s right to participate in elections can be waived by some separate poll watcher’s initial negligence or bad decision.
for me it is 100% that either this ballot doesn't count because it was after the fact or if this ballot counts, there are most certainly other ballots that need to be counted that had previously been tossed out because otherwise there is no standard and it is literally just digging through ballots after the result is declared until you find enough to make your side win
Are there others that were similarly thrown out by the poll watchers, but which could be brought back, and which are genuinely ambiguous enough that the judges might wind up counting them? I can’t imagine that the campaigns aren’t both looking as hard as they possibly can right now - if nothings comes to light that’s at least some kind of evidence.
I agree tho that it would be absurd to reverse the initial verdict on this one without allowing the chance for others. It’s just not clear to me that’s what they’re doing.
The boxes are sealed and no one has access and they had to complain before the hearing, at least if the appeal fails
edit
The challenged ballot was also supposed to be held apart specifically. It was not but they said close enough because one that was similar to what was challenged was paper clipped with a few other spoiled ballots. Basically none of the procedure was followed
Good lord how is this not just flat out voter fraud?
At this point can they just throw their hands up and say "that's enough, we need a special election to fix this"?
But they don't, and that's crap, like they had an election it was called for one party by one vote and then "nope I found this other vote we didn't count, but we should totally count it now because it ties it up." That's calvinball voting politics.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
yeah, i guess there is the chance it was literally just this one ballot that was ambiguous
that just seems implausible
it may be the better strategy is waiting for the coin flip and then calling for another recount and so that's what everyone is doing
That ballot looks uniquely fucked up to me, so it feels plausible that it's the only one like it, but that could easily be me Dunning-Kruegering because I've only ever seen my neatly filled ballots, and this ballot. I've never seen how badly, or how often, the least capable of my fellow voters can manage to fuck up a simple scantron bubble system.
And the fact that there were even less conformant ballots suggests I'm almost definitely wrong.
democrats are going to challenge it. They might have a very good shot, given how much is wrong with that ballot, plus everything else that has been odd about this situation.
So if I am understanding things correctly, that ballot would have been initially rejected by the counting machine because of filling in two ovals where only one was allowed, thus being an overvote. If a ballot is rejected from the machine, then the voter has the option to either force it through anyway, acknowledging that their spoiled vote won't count but the others will, or to get a new ballot and fill that one out correctly. If all of that is correct, didn't the voter then knowingly discard their vote for delegate?
I would be happy to have anything that is incorrect in the above paragraph clarified, but that is my understanding of the procedure. I am extremely paranoid about filling out my ballot properly so I have never had anything remotely similar happen to me personally.
So if I am understanding things correctly, that ballot would have been initially rejected by the counting machine because of filling in two ovals where only one was allowed, thus being an overvote. If a ballot is rejected from the machine, then the voter has the option to either force it through anyway, acknowledging that their spoiled vote won't count but the others will, or to get a new ballot and fill that one out correctly. If all of that is correct, didn't the voter then knowingly discard their vote for delegate?
I would be happy to have anything that is incorrect in the above paragraph clarified, but that is my understanding of the procedure. I am extremely paranoid about filling out my ballot properly so I have never had anything remotely similar happen to me personally.
Is that the procedure? And can you cite the source?
I am learning that these things rules are sometimes surprisingly localized and/or arcane.
So if I am understanding things correctly, that ballot would have been initially rejected by the counting machine because of filling in two ovals where only one was allowed, thus being an overvote. If a ballot is rejected from the machine, then the voter has the option to either force it through anyway, acknowledging that their spoiled vote won't count but the others will, or to get a new ballot and fill that one out correctly. If all of that is correct, didn't the voter then knowingly discard their vote for delegate?
I would be happy to have anything that is incorrect in the above paragraph clarified, but that is my understanding of the procedure. I am extremely paranoid about filling out my ballot properly so I have never had anything remotely similar happen to me personally.
Is that the procedure? And can you cite the source?
I am learning that these things rules are sometimes surprisingly localized and/or arcane.
IMO if the voting machine tells you that you done fucked up, and you don't call over one of the election workers and say "WTF," then the vote has to stand as the machine counts it.
So if I am understanding things correctly, that ballot would have been initially rejected by the counting machine because of filling in two ovals where only one was allowed, thus being an overvote. If a ballot is rejected from the machine, then the voter has the option to either force it through anyway, acknowledging that their spoiled vote won't count but the others will, or to get a new ballot and fill that one out correctly. If all of that is correct, didn't the voter then knowingly discard their vote for delegate?
I would be happy to have anything that is incorrect in the above paragraph clarified, but that is my understanding of the procedure. I am extremely paranoid about filling out my ballot properly so I have never had anything remotely similar happen to me personally.
Hi! I've worked at least one VA election now, and that is largely accurate (depending on where you are in VA, anyway; could be different in the specific locality).
It's a bit of a semantic difference but I think it's a bit false to say that the ballot "would have been initially rejected by the counting machine" - the machine will absolutely accept an overvoted ballot, but it will give you an error message. Where I worked, the error message (IIRC) specifies which categories had an issue. At that point, the machine still has hold of the ballot; it won't actually give it back to you unless you request it back. You're also allowed to submit an undervoted ballot (e.g., skip a category or vote for one item when you're allowed to vote for two); that won't generate an error message of any kind.
The last point raised in the letter - "voter left the machine, and the ballot officer forced the ballot on their own" - is a failure. That should never happen.
So if I am understanding things correctly, that ballot would have been initially rejected by the counting machine because of filling in two ovals where only one was allowed, thus being an overvote. If a ballot is rejected from the machine, then the voter has the option to either force it through anyway, acknowledging that their spoiled vote won't count but the others will, or to get a new ballot and fill that one out correctly. If all of that is correct, didn't the voter then knowingly discard their vote for delegate?
I would be happy to have anything that is incorrect in the above paragraph clarified, but that is my understanding of the procedure. I am extremely paranoid about filling out my ballot properly so I have never had anything remotely similar happen to me personally.
Hi! I've worked at least one VA election now, and that is largely accurate (depending on where you are in VA, anyway; could be different in the specific locality).
It's a bit of a semantic difference but I think it's a bit false to say that the ballot "would have been initially rejected by the counting machine" - the machine will absolutely accept an overvoted ballot, but it will give you an error message. Where I worked, the error message (IIRC) specifies which categories had an issue. At that point, the machine still has hold of the ballot; it won't actually give it back to you unless you request it back. You're also allowed to submit an undervoted ballot (e.g., skip a category or vote for one item when you're allowed to vote for two); that won't generate an error message of any kind.
The last point raised in the letter - "voter left the machine, and the ballot officer forced the ballot on their own" - is a failure. That should never happen.
So, what should have been the fix? The ballot is removed, and not counted at all, despite six (arguably seven) of the eight votes being legitimate? That seems a bit iffy.
Or are you meaning more of a systemic situation, where the voter isn't permitted to leave (or knowingly forfeits their ballot) if the machine detects an overvote, unless they opt to force it? Because I could see that being incredibly difficult to enforce. Especially given there are apparently already instructions in place for what to do in the case of an error, no?
Hmm... technical query (that may answer the above), does an overvote, like in this situation, invalidate just that election (in this case, the 94th district), or does it completely invalidate the entire ballot?
So if I am understanding things correctly, that ballot would have been initially rejected by the counting machine because of filling in two ovals where only one was allowed, thus being an overvote. If a ballot is rejected from the machine, then the voter has the option to either force it through anyway, acknowledging that their spoiled vote won't count but the others will, or to get a new ballot and fill that one out correctly. If all of that is correct, didn't the voter then knowingly discard their vote for delegate?
I would be happy to have anything that is incorrect in the above paragraph clarified, but that is my understanding of the procedure. I am extremely paranoid about filling out my ballot properly so I have never had anything remotely similar happen to me personally.
Is that the procedure? And can you cite the source?
I am learning that these things rules are sometimes surprisingly localized and/or arcane.
So if I am understanding things correctly, that ballot would have been initially rejected by the counting machine because of filling in two ovals where only one was allowed, thus being an overvote. If a ballot is rejected from the machine, then the voter has the option to either force it through anyway, acknowledging that their spoiled vote won't count but the others will, or to get a new ballot and fill that one out correctly. If all of that is correct, didn't the voter then knowingly discard their vote for delegate?
I would be happy to have anything that is incorrect in the above paragraph clarified, but that is my understanding of the procedure. I am extremely paranoid about filling out my ballot properly so I have never had anything remotely similar happen to me personally.
Hi! I've worked at least one VA election now, and that is largely accurate (depending on where you are in VA, anyway; could be different in the specific locality).
It's a bit of a semantic difference but I think it's a bit false to say that the ballot "would have been initially rejected by the counting machine" - the machine will absolutely accept an overvoted ballot, but it will give you an error message. Where I worked, the error message (IIRC) specifies which categories had an issue. At that point, the machine still has hold of the ballot; it won't actually give it back to you unless you request it back. You're also allowed to submit an undervoted ballot (e.g., skip a category or vote for one item when you're allowed to vote for two); that won't generate an error message of any kind.
The last point raised in the letter - "voter left the machine, and the ballot officer forced the ballot on their own" - is a failure. That should never happen.
Failure or crime? I'm sure they meant well, if that happened, but wouldn't something like that be grounds for rejection all by itself?
My memory of election day was pretty much obliterated, but I have a hazy recall of body language* implying that the equivalent guy wasn't supposed to touch my ballot.
*(Miming the procedure a good arms-length away from me. Or maybe he was a smell-psychic and I reeked of the whiskey in my near-future)
Posts
I absolutely hope the vote gets turfed on procedural grounds. But there isn't any real ambiguity of who the votes were for.
Yeah, it absolutely cannot be allowed for people doing the counting to change their minds after they hear the 'final' result. Doesn't matter what that vote wanted to do, it was excluded, and only was included after the person counting it heard 'Hey, it's within 1 vote!'
This is seeming skeevier and skeevier. Basically:
"I assumed it was a straight party ticket vote, and am new at this, but literally everybody but me said to ditch it, so I ditched it, but once I LEARNED THE WINNER and was contacted by A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL LAWYER, I was talked into decided to bring it up and contest it."
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
This guy should be harshly judged for discussing the details of the ballot counting and individual ballots with his parents. The simple fact that he 'remembered' the one vote that he couldn't count for a Republican calls into question EVERY vote he counted. His entire precinct should be recounted, and he should be investigated for voter fraud.
-edit- Also if I am remembering correctly, my ballot had rectangles instead of ovals, am I out of my mind here or is this a case of different styles of ballot in different parts of the commonwealth?
Probably. The exact model for voting in Illinois (and so the bubble or arrow to fill in) depends on the county and it's Clerk/Board of Elections.
The GOP is getting bolder and bolder in its efforts to blatantly steal power, and this is not going to get better unless they suffer consequences for it.
I seem to remember one time a seat somewhere was decided on an agreed-upon coin toss.
Afterwards, the loser challenged it saying that he shouldn't lose the seat because of a coin toss.
So if this guy hadn't said 'yeah i guess there is', they would have kept calling people to seed of doubt them into digging through ballots until they found one they could use?
You’re talking about this in terms of the rights of the campaigns, or the poll watchers, to advance their claims to receiving certain votes, but I think that’s only part of the picture. There’s also the right of the individual who cast the vote to have it counted for who they chose. It’s plausible enough to argue that the campaign can waive its own rights via bad decisions or negligence, but harder to argue that the individual voter’s right to participate in elections can be waived by some separate poll watcher’s initial negligence or bad decision.
for me it is 100% that either this ballot doesn't count because it was after the fact or if this ballot counts, there are most certainly other ballots that need to be counted that had previously been tossed out because otherwise there is no standard and it is literally just digging through ballots after the result is declared until you find enough to make your side win
Are there others that were similarly thrown out by the poll watchers, but which could be brought back, and which are genuinely ambiguous enough that the judges might wind up counting them? I can’t imagine that the campaigns aren’t both looking as hard as they possibly can right now - if nothings comes to light that’s at least some kind of evidence.
I agree tho that it would be absurd to reverse the initial verdict on this one without allowing the chance for others. It’s just not clear to me that’s what they’re doing.
that just seems implausible
it may be the better strategy is waiting for the coin flip and then calling for another recount and so that's what everyone is doing
The voter's right isn't being waived. They spoiled their ballot and didn't ask for a new one. Which every ballot instructions I've ever seen explicitly points out to do. If their intended choice was unambiguous that would be one thing, but it's not.
it is pretty clear to me
the problem is going "oh we lost by one? hang on i just remembered another ballot we should count"
e: uh... ambiguous
Indeed. The counters can only be fair if they don't really know whether each vote matters individually. The idea that a single vote could swing the whole thing is so unlikely that it makes the counting work. If you have 1000 ballots to count in 30 minutes, you don't have time to spend 20 minutes wondering whether you can throw a single one into your guys bin even though it shouldn't be in there. But if you can go back after the fact knowing it was close your judgement will be clouded.
In 2000, there were confusing "Butterfly" ballots in Florida that caused a bunch of elderly NY Jews to vote for Buchanan accidentally instead of Gore. Buchanan was a right wing Nazi apologist. The number was almost certainly enough to swing the state, and it was only used in a few counties
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
edit
The challenged ballot was also supposed to be held apart specifically. It was not but they said close enough because one that was similar to what was challenged was paper clipped with a few other spoiled ballots. Basically none of the procedure was followed
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Good lord how is this not just flat out voter fraud?
pleasepaypreacher.net
At this point can they just throw their hands up and say "that's enough, we need a special election to fix this"?
But they don't, and that's crap, like they had an election it was called for one party by one vote and then "nope I found this other vote we didn't count, but we should totally count it now because it ties it up." That's calvinball voting politics.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That ballot looks uniquely fucked up to me, so it feels plausible that it's the only one like it, but that could easily be me Dunning-Kruegering because I've only ever seen my neatly filled ballots, and this ballot. I've never seen how badly, or how often, the least capable of my fellow voters can manage to fuck up a simple scantron bubble system.
And the fact that there were even less conformant ballots suggests I'm almost definitely wrong.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I would be happy to have anything that is incorrect in the above paragraph clarified, but that is my understanding of the procedure. I am extremely paranoid about filling out my ballot properly so I have never had anything remotely similar happen to me personally.
Is that the procedure? And can you cite the source?
I am learning that these things rules are sometimes surprisingly localized and/or arcane.
It's mentioned in The Letter:
Last paragraph on the first page.
IMO if the voting machine tells you that you done fucked up, and you don't call over one of the election workers and say "WTF," then the vote has to stand as the machine counts it.
Hi! I've worked at least one VA election now, and that is largely accurate (depending on where you are in VA, anyway; could be different in the specific locality).
It's a bit of a semantic difference but I think it's a bit false to say that the ballot "would have been initially rejected by the counting machine" - the machine will absolutely accept an overvoted ballot, but it will give you an error message. Where I worked, the error message (IIRC) specifies which categories had an issue. At that point, the machine still has hold of the ballot; it won't actually give it back to you unless you request it back. You're also allowed to submit an undervoted ballot (e.g., skip a category or vote for one item when you're allowed to vote for two); that won't generate an error message of any kind.
The last point raised in the letter - "voter left the machine, and the ballot officer forced the ballot on their own" - is a failure. That should never happen.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Or are you meaning more of a systemic situation, where the voter isn't permitted to leave (or knowingly forfeits their ballot) if the machine detects an overvote, unless they opt to force it? Because I could see that being incredibly difficult to enforce. Especially given there are apparently already instructions in place for what to do in the case of an error, no?
Hmm... technical query (that may answer the above), does an overvote, like in this situation, invalidate just that election (in this case, the 94th district), or does it completely invalidate the entire ballot?
Because of course it is.
*grumbles, pinches, zooms, repeats*
Failure or crime? I'm sure they meant well, if that happened, but wouldn't something like that be grounds for rejection all by itself?
My memory of election day was pretty much obliterated, but I have a hazy recall of body language* implying that the equivalent guy wasn't supposed to touch my ballot.
*(Miming the procedure a good arms-length away from me. Or maybe he was a smell-psychic and I reeked of the whiskey in my near-future)