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?
They should've caught the guy before he left and made him finish. (If, of course, what they're talking about is what actually happened. It's just guesswork, so ...)
When the voter steps away from the machine, it's supposed to be in it's "Ready for the next voter" state (a kind of welcome screen thingy). When the ballot's still in there getting processed, it's not on that screen, and since the people working the machines need to be constantly checking them to make sure they're ready for the next person (and that no one has left anything behind), it should've been caught quickly. There's a little American flag that pops up when your vote has been correctly counted, and the people working that section are constantly asking the voters if they saw the flag before they leave.
When it was found, if they couldn't locate the voter before he took too many steps away, then that's something you'd call over the guy or gal running the whole voting precinct for. And while they might proceed with making it vote the correct parts of the ballot ("forcing it through"), there would absolutely be a paper trail generated for that. You have no idea how many reams of paper are involved in running one of these things.
An overvote invalidates the specific category only (e.g., overvoting for Governor would not affect your Lt. Gov, Senator, or bond issuance votes); the machine's overvote error displays this explicitly.
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?
On an overvote, the letter writer said it would just ignore the race that contained it. IE: How he was advised to handle it.
Re: the bolded
If a poll worker cast that ballot, yes, I say void the whole thing. It's one step removed from casting a ballot I abandoned on the table; and not a big one.
As a voter I can't decide what procedural hoops I don't feel like jumping through to communicate my vote, and the poll workers are there to make sure I understand them, not jump through them for me.
If they can't fill out my ballot (and I believe they can't?), then they shouldn't be allowed to cast 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, 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?
On an overvote, the letter writer said it would just ignore the race that contained it. IE: How he was advised to handle it.
Re: the bolded
If a poll worker cast that ballot, yes, I say void the whole thing. It's one step removed from casting a ballot I abandoned on the table; and not a big one.
As a voter I can't decide what procedural hoops I don't feel like jumping through to communicate my vote, and the poll workers are there to make sure I understand them, not jump through them for me.
If they can't fill out my ballot (and I believe they can't?), then they shouldn't be allowed to cast it.
A poll worker can fill out your ballot for you.
Doing so requires filling out a special form with witnesses and shit and is a titanic pain in the ass.
Republican recount official Kenneth Mallory had agreed during the initial recount process that the voter had indicated a vote on that final ballot for both candidates that could not be counted for either of them.
Any change after that precinct count was completed violates a rule banning multiple counts of the same precinct, Simonds argued.
“Were it not strictly applied, this Court — and any future recount courts — will be forced to reckon with all manner of requests for a third counting of ballots occasioned by pressure brought to bear on recount officials from any manner of sources,” the lawyers wrote.
That always seemed the glaring issue along with general unfairness
There shall be only one redetermination of the vote in each precinct.
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?
On an overvote, the letter writer said it would just ignore the race that contained it. IE: How he was advised to handle it.
Re: the bolded
If a poll worker cast that ballot, yes, I say void the whole thing. It's one step removed from casting a ballot I abandoned on the table; and not a big one.
As a voter I can't decide what procedural hoops I don't feel like jumping through to communicate my vote, and the poll workers are there to make sure I understand them, not jump through them for me.
If they can't fill out my ballot (and I believe they can't?), then they shouldn't be allowed to cast it.
A poll worker can fill out your ballot for you.
Doing so requires filling out a special form with witnesses and shit and is a titanic pain in the ass.
Thanks. Thought there must have been some exception for those physically unable.
Republican recount official Kenneth Mallory had agreed during the initial recount process that the voter had indicated a vote on that final ballot for both candidates that could not be counted for either of them.
Any change after that precinct count was completed violates a rule banning multiple counts of the same precinct, Simonds argued.
“Were it not strictly applied, this Court — and any future recount courts — will be forced to reckon with all manner of requests for a third counting of ballots occasioned by pressure brought to bear on recount officials from any manner of sources,” the lawyers wrote.
That always seemed the glaring issue along with general unfairness
There shall be only one redetermination of the vote in each precinct.
I dunno. Rule of law and proper process with Republican oversight vs "I want a Republican to win!" and throwing a tantrum.
Seems like both sides have valid arguments. *headdesk*
There's a bit more in the thread about Simonds offering to let the draw tomorrow stand if Yancey does, but Republicans said "fuck no" to that. Reason being is that they currently have 50 votes to 49, and the very moment that they can do shit, they're using the 'majority' they have to install one of their own as speaker of the house and set rules for the session because it won't TECHNICALLY be split. So if Simonds wins the draw, they're going to contest it, holding onto that 50-49 advantage until they can set the various rules and shit for the session. If/When Simonds eventually wins on appeal or whatever, it'll be too late. All they can do is tie and go "Oops, too bad. Rules have been set. You need a majority to change them. TOUGH SHIT."
This is pretty fucked up.
ArcTangent on
+13
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
The entire concept is completely illegal. The guy who brought the case should be in jail. But, since he is not, we ABSOLUTELY should be just finding someone who was a democratic counter to say "Yep, I reckon I threw out one democratic vote too. I demand it be counted" Hell, get someone up there who reckons he saw approximately Republican Margin of victory + 1 votes being thrown away in every count.
The entire concept of vote counting relies on individual votes being neither memorable nor important. That there not be enough TIME to worry about the precise intentions of every voter, or to think about whether you can be corrupt and slyly toss out that democratic vote and noone will ever know. You literally cannot think about each vote and remember it, and obsess over it and have been a good vote counter. If you DO behave like that, then you were not one.
In this situation a recount is unfair, a new election is unfair, and the draw is unfair. The only fair outcome is a democratic victory because NOONE had legal grounds to challenge the count based on "I reckon I get one wrong"
If you are going to go with math and science, a draw is actually the correct outcome. There is without question a margin of error in counting ballots (no one can count thousands of ballots and get it right every time) and a result within less than 1/2 to 1/4 of a percent is within that margin of error. It is impossible to say with any degree of certainty who truly had more votes. It's possible the Republican actually won by 50 or 100 votes and we just missed that, just due to human error in counting. A random draw is actually the correct outcome in any election that is this close, with the only alternative that makes rational sense being a re-do.
If you are going to go with math and science, a draw is actually the correct outcome. There is without question a margin of error in counting ballots (no one can count thousands of ballots and get it right every time) and a result within less than 1/2 to 1/4 of a percent is within that margin of error. It is impossible to say with any degree of certainty who truly had more votes. It's possible the Republican actually won by 50 or 100 votes and we just missed that, just due to human error in counting. A random draw is actually the correct outcome in any election that is this close, with the only alternative that makes rational sense being a re-do.
Numbers don't stop existing just because they're small. Countable things don't become uncountable if you wish hard enough.
In any counting task that involves humans, there is a margin of error because humans are imprecise. It is simply not possible for a human to count thousands of ballots without making a single wrong entry. If the difference in the result is less than the margin of error, you have a sstatistical tie. This is well established in mathematics. Whether or not you choose to accept mathematics principles is up to you. Like evolution, they are true regardless.
In any counting task that involves humans, there is a margin of error because humans are imprecise. It is simply not possible for a human to count thousands of ballots without making a single wrong entry. If the difference in the result is less than the margin of error, you have a sstatistical tie. This is well established in mathematics. Whether or not you choose to accept mathematics principles is up to you. Like evolution, they are true regardless.
You do understand that it's quite insane to say that discrete, countable things have an impossibly known quantity, right?
In any counting task that involves humans, there is a margin of error because humans are imprecise. It is simply not possible for a human to count thousands of ballots without making a single wrong entry. If the difference in the result is less than the margin of error, you have a sstatistical tie. This is well established in mathematics. Whether or not you choose to accept mathematics principles is up to you. Like evolution, they are true regardless.
You don't understand the link. At no point do they make a single arguement regarding an error rate of human counting. The argument is that because of random factors that if the election were to be somehow rerun many times you would see a variance in the election greater than the deciding amount. This can be stuff like folks having car trouble or feeling down or going out for a drink.
The problem is that while these might statistically be a tie, in that the victor was essentially random, it is not in actuality a tie. There is a number of votes and that will result in one person with more votes than the other or a tie. Adam didn't have car trouble, Bob was feeling down and Cindy skipped the drink. An actual set happened and generated actual results that we had all previously agreed to live by.
I'd also point out that recounts are done by multiple humans in series to drastically reduce the error rate. It is likely lower than you think from actual election workers. I would expect a much higher error rate stemming from the humans who are filling out the ballots which is why we have strict adjudication rules, which in this case were not followed.
In any counting task that involves humans, there is a margin of error because humans are imprecise. It is simply not possible for a human to count thousands of ballots without making a single wrong entry. If the difference in the result is less than the margin of error, you have a sstatistical tie. This is well established in mathematics. Whether or not you choose to accept mathematics principles is up to you. Like evolution, they are true regardless.
You do understand that it's quite insane to say that discrete, countable things have an impossibly known quantity, right?
When there is enough of them it becomes VERY dificult to say 100% its right. If i think i have 10000 small widgets and use a scale to weigh them there is enough tolerance to generate a +/- 1 or 2. It is resource restrictive to verify the exact count. Its not an imposibly known quantity but it is unrealistic to expect 100% accuracy down to the very last vote. There will be errors. The odds of this situation arising are so slim as to not dedicate the resources to resolve it, beyond the draw that is in place.
In any counting task that involves humans, there is a margin of error because humans are imprecise. It is simply not possible for a human to count thousands of ballots without making a single wrong entry. If the difference in the result is less than the margin of error, you have a sstatistical tie. This is well established in mathematics. Whether or not you choose to accept mathematics principles is up to you. Like evolution, they are true regardless.
You do understand that it's quite insane to say that discrete, countable things have an impossibly known quantity, right?
When there is enough of them it becomes VERY dificult to say 100% its right. If i think i have 10000 small widgets and use a scale to weigh them there is enough tolerance to generate a +/- 1 or 2. It is resource restrictive to verify the exact count. Its not an imposibly known quantity but it is unrealistic to expect 100% accuracy down to the very last vote. There will be errors. The odds of this situation arising are so slim as to not dedicate the resources to resolve it, beyond the draw that is in place.
23,215 votes.
Figure 10 seconds of examination of a ballot on average. (That is ridiculously high for clearly marked ballots.) 64.5 person hours. Let's triple that for error checking. 190 person hours. Break that down into teams of three to do it quickly and pay them 20 bucks an hour.
$4,000 dollars is too much for you to pay for faith in the electoral process because of a once a century event? Given turnout rates, that's like a dime from every citizen.
Then remember that's not even a tax burden because a lot of election workers are unpaid volunteers and those that aren't often barely make minimum wage.
In any counting task that involves humans, there is a margin of error because humans are imprecise. It is simply not possible for a human to count thousands of ballots without making a single wrong entry. If the difference in the result is less than the margin of error, you have a sstatistical tie. This is well established in mathematics. Whether or not you choose to accept mathematics principles is up to you. Like evolution, they are true regardless.
You do understand that it's quite insane to say that discrete, countable things have an impossibly known quantity, right?
When there is enough of them it becomes VERY dificult to say 100% its right. If i think i have 10000 small widgets and use a scale to weigh them there is enough tolerance to generate a +/- 1 or 2. It is resource restrictive to verify the exact count. Its not an imposibly known quantity but it is unrealistic to expect 100% accuracy down to the very last vote. There will be errors. The odds of this situation arising are so slim as to not dedicate the resources to resolve it, beyond the draw that is in place.
First, this has nothing to do with anything.
Second, it's using a continuous measure to estimate a discrete one. The parallel to counting votes here would be to put all the votes for one candidate in a pile and WEIGH them. We don't do that, because it's insane.
The issue isn’t whether the election is practically a tie.
The issue is that vote totals were certified by all parties with the Democrat up by one. Then AFTER that certification and first recount, somebody decided “Oh wait, I remember a vote that was probably intended for a Republican but was discarded because it was an over vote. We should count that one to make it a tie!”
The GOP gets a random chance do-over because they decided they didn’t like the outcome. And if they lose that, they still intend to rig the system in their favor. They’re stealing the election.
I don't disagree that the process being used by the Republicans is stupid. I'm a socialist. I am slightly pleased, however, that the end result is the mathematically correct one, which is a draw.
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If machines are counting, that is true. If humans are counting, that is demonstrably false. Humans make errors.
It's a Scantron ballot read by a machine. The reason this is supposedly a tie is because a spoiled ballot was added in after the fact due to election officials determining voter intent.
I'd love a system where people would hold a party responsible if they are willing to trade their scruples to revoke their certification to garner a 50/50 shot at winning an election.
DiannaoChong on
+1
Options
miscellaneousinsanitygrass grows, birds fly, sun shines,and brother, i hurt peopleRegistered Userregular
The Dem is entitled to a second recount and the dude won't be seated till that is done leaving it at 50-49.
And seriously people this was literally following the letter of the law. It was not illegal. Stupid? Probably. But not illegal.
Now on the judge panel decision that is more questionable and I would probably of challenged it beyond the judge panel in court but that is a difficult argument still.
The Dem is entitled to a second recount and the dude won't be seated till that is done leaving it at 50-49.
And seriously people this was literally following the letter of the law. It was not illegal. Stupid? Probably. But not illegal.
Now on the judge panel decision that is more questionable and I would probably of challenged it beyond the judge panel in court but that is a difficult argument still.
I would rather they appeal this than get a recount. Changing the vote count after it's been certified, regardless of margin, seems fundamentally wrong.
If you want a recount, you need to recount. You don't get to just, say, put a slash through a digit on the original count and then write a second number below it.
The Dem is entitled to a second recount and the dude won't be seated till that is done leaving it at 50-49.
And seriously people this was literally following the letter of the law. It was not illegal. Stupid? Probably. But not illegal.
Now on the judge panel decision that is more questionable and I would probably of challenged it beyond the judge panel in court but that is a difficult argument still.
I would rather they appeal this than get a recount. Changing the vote count after it's been certified, regardless of margin, seems fundamentally wrong.
If you want a recount, you need to recount. You don't get to just, say, put a slash through a digit on the original count and then write a second number below it.
Especially if you wait until finding out what the number is before going looking for ways to put your finger on the scale.
Posts
They should've caught the guy before he left and made him finish. (If, of course, what they're talking about is what actually happened. It's just guesswork, so ...)
When the voter steps away from the machine, it's supposed to be in it's "Ready for the next voter" state (a kind of welcome screen thingy). When the ballot's still in there getting processed, it's not on that screen, and since the people working the machines need to be constantly checking them to make sure they're ready for the next person (and that no one has left anything behind), it should've been caught quickly. There's a little American flag that pops up when your vote has been correctly counted, and the people working that section are constantly asking the voters if they saw the flag before they leave.
When it was found, if they couldn't locate the voter before he took too many steps away, then that's something you'd call over the guy or gal running the whole voting precinct for. And while they might proceed with making it vote the correct parts of the ballot ("forcing it through"), there would absolutely be a paper trail generated for that. You have no idea how many reams of paper are involved in running one of these things.
An overvote invalidates the specific category only (e.g., overvoting for Governor would not affect your Lt. Gov, Senator, or bond issuance votes); the machine's overvote error displays this explicitly.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
On an overvote, the letter writer said it would just ignore the race that contained it. IE: How he was advised to handle it.
Re: the bolded
If a poll worker cast that ballot, yes, I say void the whole thing. It's one step removed from casting a ballot I abandoned on the table; and not a big one.
As a voter I can't decide what procedural hoops I don't feel like jumping through to communicate my vote, and the poll workers are there to make sure I understand them, not jump through them for me.
If they can't fill out my ballot (and I believe they can't?), then they shouldn't be allowed to cast it.
A poll worker can fill out your ballot for you.
Doing so requires filling out a special form with witnesses and shit and is a titanic pain in the ass.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Or is it being held up while people file lawsuits and such?
Because the way they came back and pulled just this one vote AFTER the count was announced is AAAAAALLLLLL the way bullshit.
https://wtop.com/virginia/2017/12/tied-va-house-race-dems-ask-recount-court-redo-declare-simonds-winner/
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Thanks. Thought there must have been some exception for those physically unable.
Seems like both sides have valid arguments. *headdesk*
These f'n guys.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/367249-court-denies-virginia-dem-motion-to-reconsider-its-finding-that-the
Random draw to happen apparently tomorrow. Sigh...
pleasepaypreacher.net
There's a bit more in the thread about Simonds offering to let the draw tomorrow stand if Yancey does, but Republicans said "fuck no" to that. Reason being is that they currently have 50 votes to 49, and the very moment that they can do shit, they're using the 'majority' they have to install one of their own as speaker of the house and set rules for the session because it won't TECHNICALLY be split. So if Simonds wins the draw, they're going to contest it, holding onto that 50-49 advantage until they can set the various rules and shit for the session. If/When Simonds eventually wins on appeal or whatever, it'll be too late. All they can do is tie and go "Oops, too bad. Rules have been set. You need a majority to change them. TOUGH SHIT."
This is pretty fucked up.
It's a stolen election, is what it is. Again.
The entire concept is completely illegal. The guy who brought the case should be in jail. But, since he is not, we ABSOLUTELY should be just finding someone who was a democratic counter to say "Yep, I reckon I threw out one democratic vote too. I demand it be counted" Hell, get someone up there who reckons he saw approximately Republican Margin of victory + 1 votes being thrown away in every count.
The entire concept of vote counting relies on individual votes being neither memorable nor important. That there not be enough TIME to worry about the precise intentions of every voter, or to think about whether you can be corrupt and slyly toss out that democratic vote and noone will ever know. You literally cannot think about each vote and remember it, and obsess over it and have been a good vote counter. If you DO behave like that, then you were not one.
In this situation a recount is unfair, a new election is unfair, and the draw is unfair. The only fair outcome is a democratic victory because NOONE had legal grounds to challenge the count based on "I reckon I get one wrong"
Numbers don't stop existing just because they're small. Countable things don't become uncountable if you wish hard enough.
Humans can be exact no problem. It's called "checking your work" and "peer review."
Edit: at last,a decent website! http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/27/ties-damned-ties-and-statistics/
You do understand that it's quite insane to say that discrete, countable things have an impossibly known quantity, right?
You don't understand the link. At no point do they make a single arguement regarding an error rate of human counting. The argument is that because of random factors that if the election were to be somehow rerun many times you would see a variance in the election greater than the deciding amount. This can be stuff like folks having car trouble or feeling down or going out for a drink.
The problem is that while these might statistically be a tie, in that the victor was essentially random, it is not in actuality a tie. There is a number of votes and that will result in one person with more votes than the other or a tie. Adam didn't have car trouble, Bob was feeling down and Cindy skipped the drink. An actual set happened and generated actual results that we had all previously agreed to live by.
I'd also point out that recounts are done by multiple humans in series to drastically reduce the error rate. It is likely lower than you think from actual election workers. I would expect a much higher error rate stemming from the humans who are filling out the ballots which is why we have strict adjudication rules, which in this case were not followed.
When there is enough of them it becomes VERY dificult to say 100% its right. If i think i have 10000 small widgets and use a scale to weigh them there is enough tolerance to generate a +/- 1 or 2. It is resource restrictive to verify the exact count. Its not an imposibly known quantity but it is unrealistic to expect 100% accuracy down to the very last vote. There will be errors. The odds of this situation arising are so slim as to not dedicate the resources to resolve it, beyond the draw that is in place.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
23,215 votes.
Figure 10 seconds of examination of a ballot on average. (That is ridiculously high for clearly marked ballots.) 64.5 person hours. Let's triple that for error checking. 190 person hours. Break that down into teams of three to do it quickly and pay them 20 bucks an hour.
$4,000 dollars is too much for you to pay for faith in the electoral process because of a once a century event? Given turnout rates, that's like a dime from every citizen.
Then remember that's not even a tax burden because a lot of election workers are unpaid volunteers and those that aren't often barely make minimum wage.
First, this has nothing to do with anything.
Second, it's using a continuous measure to estimate a discrete one. The parallel to counting votes here would be to put all the votes for one candidate in a pile and WEIGH them. We don't do that, because it's insane.
The issue is that vote totals were certified by all parties with the Democrat up by one. Then AFTER that certification and first recount, somebody decided “Oh wait, I remember a vote that was probably intended for a Republican but was discarded because it was an over vote. We should count that one to make it a tie!”
The GOP gets a random chance do-over because they decided they didn’t like the outcome. And if they lose that, they still intend to rig the system in their favor. They’re stealing the election.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I don't think it's too much to ask or expect for nobody to be able to put their fingers on the scale.
It's a Scantron ballot read by a machine. The reason this is supposedly a tie is because a spoiled ballot was added in after the fact due to election officials determining voter intent.
I'd love a system where people would hold a party responsible if they are willing to trade their scruples to revoke their certification to garner a 50/50 shot at winning an election.
well, hopefully people turn out even harder in 2019
pleasepaypreacher.net
And seriously people this was literally following the letter of the law. It was not illegal. Stupid? Probably. But not illegal.
Now on the judge panel decision that is more questionable and I would probably of challenged it beyond the judge panel in court but that is a difficult argument still.
I would rather they appeal this than get a recount. Changing the vote count after it's been certified, regardless of margin, seems fundamentally wrong.
If you want a recount, you need to recount. You don't get to just, say, put a slash through a digit on the original count and then write a second number below it.
Especially if you wait until finding out what the number is before going looking for ways to put your finger on the scale.