This is a damn outrage. Another election stolen by republicans. Everyone involved is a criminal and should see jail time. They just managed to break the pretty much unbreakable concept of fair human counting by allowing for continuous reevaluation of votes.
Effectively, to go back to the previous argument in a real way, the way human counting works is that it generates a pseudo random number of counted votes for each candidate around the real number of cast votes. The scatter is about the same for all counters and for all districts, so the pseudo random scatter becomes fair with time and number of districts.
Now what we have is a situation where if the vote is close, republicans can randomly produce discarded votes to try and win. This creates a bias in the system which, like all our government systems, makes it favor republicans.
The system (Like all counted systems) needs to be governed by fairly applied, previously existing rules for recounts and resampling (new election) some dude randomly remembering a single ballot he threw out isn't one of those.
If it's any consolation, the GOP still would've challenged the draw if the Democrat's name had come out and held up certification long enough to elect Speaker and set Rules for the Session with their 50-49 majority, so it doesn't change much.
And again the Dem has the right for a recount after the draw, which we know the republican would of done like Taramoor said. Seriously by the time this is over the legislative session might just be over anyway for the year.
Which is a whole different beast. The fact the state government meets a max of 60 days for even years and 45 for odd years is insane for a state as large as Virginia.
And again the Dem has the right for a recount after the draw, which we know the republican would of done like Taramoor said. Seriously by the time this is over the legislative session might just be over anyway for the year.
Which is a whole different beast. The fact the state government meets a max of 60 days for even years and 45 for odd years is insane for a state as large as Virginia.
Pretty sure that's way more than Texas.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
My understanding of the letter of the law is that you can't just go back and add a spoiled ballot after learning that you lost by 1 vote.
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.
My understanding of the letter of the law is that you can't just go back and add a spoiled ballot after learning that you lost by 1 vote.
You want to be technical until the count is certified by the 3 judge panel you can. So while absolute bullshit still with in the law.
Guys I can't get over the drawing lots as a solution
Like, coin flipping an election that was too close seems ridiculous
was this protocol set up because back when they just figured there'd just never be an actual tie? This seems like holding a second vote would be a thousand times more democratic than handing it over to chance.
Guys I can't get over the drawing lots as a solution
Like, coin flipping an election that was too close seems ridiculous
was this protocol set up because back when they just figured there'd just never be an actual tie? This seems like holding a second vote would be a thousand times more democratic than handing it over to chance.
It's fairly common practice, with regional variants. Nevada draws a high card, because obviously.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Guys I can't get over the drawing lots as a solution
Like, coin flipping an election that was too close seems ridiculous
was this protocol set up because back when they just figured there'd just never be an actual tie? This seems like holding a second vote would be a thousand times more democratic than handing it over to chance.
It's fairly common practice, with regional variants. Nevada draws a high card, because obviously.
I feel like a roulette wheel would be better. 00 means the new Representative is an Independent, and a horse.
Guys I can't get over the drawing lots as a solution
Like, coin flipping an election that was too close seems ridiculous
was this protocol set up because back when they just figured there'd just never be an actual tie? This seems like holding a second vote would be a thousand times more democratic than handing it over to chance.
It's fairly common practice, with regional variants. Nevada draws a high card, because obviously.
That seems thematically fitting, I will grant the state of Nevada that
Guys I can't get over the drawing lots as a solution
Like, coin flipping an election that was too close seems ridiculous
was this protocol set up because back when they just figured there'd just never be an actual tie? This seems like holding a second vote would be a thousand times more democratic than handing it over to chance.
It's fairly common practice, with regional variants. Nevada draws a high card, because obviously.
That seems thematically fitting, I will grant the state of Nevada that
But still wtf
For true Democracy...
"In the event of a tie, the names of all people eligible for the office in the district shall be placed into a hat. One name shall be drawn, and that person shall receive the office"
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
That's stupid beyond words. How is that a legal principal?
From my reading of the decision, that bombastic quote from the conclusion doesn't have much to do with the reasoning.
The reasoning, as far as I can follow it, is: the statute explicitly states that the court should consider complaints from recount officials, and the statute does not explicitly state any timing restriction on when that complaint needs to occur.
The Democratic petition argued that the statute's claim that there should only be one redetermination of the vote per precinct implicitly establishes a timing window, but the court claims that ruling on contested ballots is properly viewed as part of the original redetermination process, not a separate redetermination occurring afterward (this seems like a crucial claim they bury in a footnote, but w/e); they also claim that the alleged timing window restricting their ability to review complaints would conflict with the very broad scope of the court's mission as stated in other pieces of relevant statute.
Would be interesting to see any of the editorializing about it from the legal world, if anyone has a link. I don't have much confidence in my ability to parse this kind of stuff out on my own without any of the background.
That's stupid beyond words. How is that a legal principal?
From my reading of the decision, that bombastic quote from the conclusion doesn't have much to do with the reasoning.
The reasoning, as far as I can follow it, is: the statue explicitly states that the court should consider complaints from recount officials, and the statute does not explicitly state any timing restriction on when that complaint needs to occur.
The Democratic petition argued that the statute's claim that there should only be one redetermination of the vote per precinct implicitly establishes a timing window, but the court claims that ruling on contested ballots is properly viewed as part of the original redetermination process, not a separate redetermination occurring afterward (this seems like a crucial claim they bury in a footnote, but w/e); they also claim that the alleged timing window restricting their ability to review complaints would conflict with the very broad scope of the court's mission as stated in other pieces of relevant statute.
Would be interesting to see any of the editorializing about it from the legal world, if anyone has a link. I don't have much confidence in my ability to parse this kind of stuff out on my own without any of the background.
What really stands out to me is the ending of the ruling.
Decision
The right of a citizen to cast a free vote has been secured to us by the blood of patriots shed from Lexington and Concord to Selma, Alabama.
So since Republicans had already stated that they would reject the results of the draw if they lost and demand another recount, what's stopping the Democrats from doing the same now?
And don't say "being grownups." Giving in to tamper tantrums is not "being a grownup". Laying down the law is.
So since Republicans had already stated that they would reject the results of the draw if they lost and demand another recount, what's stopping the Democrats from doing the same now?
And don't say "being grownups." Giving in to tamper tantrums is not "being a grownup". Laying down the law is.
I guess I would say the fact that we did offer to 'not ask for a recount providing they agreed to as well', and that combined with the fact that the press would never report the italicized...
"Democrats lie and demand recount, even though they said they would honor the results! Are your votes at risk? Will Democrats kill your family? More at 11?"
To me its a tossup as to whether its worth it. 50-49 is still a republican majority, and my the time the recount is done they will have put themselves in charge of everything anyway. Theres not a huge amount to gain, but then again, not a huge amount to lose either.
Maybe instead of a tie being broken by random draw, instead a tie should mean that nobody gets the seat, and that district can just go without representation until the next election. That'll teach the voters to actually make a decision*.
So since Republicans had already stated that they would reject the results of the draw if they lost and demand another recount, what's stopping the Democrats from doing the same now?
And don't say "being grownups." Giving in to tamper tantrums is not "being a grownup". Laying down the law is.
I guess I would say the fact that we did offer to 'not ask for a recount providing they agreed to as well', and that combined with the fact that the press would never report the italicized...
"Democrats lie and demand recount, even though they said they would honor the results! Are your votes at risk? Will Democrats kill your family? More at 11?"
To me its a tossup as to whether its worth it. 50-49 is still a republican majority, and my the time the recount is done they will have put themselves in charge of everything anyway. Theres not a huge amount to gain, but then again, not a huge amount to lose either.
Not laying down and allowing Republicans to brazenly steal a seat you had more votes for is kind of a big gain.
So since Republicans had already stated that they would reject the results of the draw if they lost and demand another recount, what's stopping the Democrats from doing the same now?
And don't say "being grownups." Giving in to tamper tantrums is not "being a grownup". Laying down the law is.
I guess I would say the fact that we did offer to 'not ask for a recount providing they agreed to as well', and that combined with the fact that the press would never report the italicized...
"Democrats lie and demand recount, even though they said they would honor the results! Are your votes at risk? Will Democrats kill your family? More at 11?"
To me its a tossup as to whether its worth it. 50-49 is still a republican majority, and my the time the recount is done they will have put themselves in charge of everything anyway. Theres not a huge amount to gain, but then again, not a huge amount to lose either.
Not laying down and allowing Republicans to brazenly steal a seat you had more votes for is kind of a big gain.
Yeah, but I don't think we'll actually GET the seat in time for it to mean anything? They only sit for like 45 days right? How quickly can we do the recount? By the time it's done they will already have made the rules say "In the event of a tie, the Republicans win"\
But yeah, I guess, maybe we can at least ruin this guys year and try to drag the name of the corrupt counter through the mud. He's the one I'm most frustrated with here. I think we should probably target a lawsuit at him personally somehow, since I'm pretty sure he just made the 'damaged' ballot up.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Yeah we are veering very strongly into illegitimate government territory if we allow this to just go by. What happened here is not identical to single-party-by-law, there are key differences.
But there are not many key differences, and there will be fewer if we don't stop it here.
So since Republicans had already stated that they would reject the results of the draw if they lost and demand another recount, what's stopping the Democrats from doing the same now?
And don't say "being grownups." Giving in to tamper tantrums is not "being a grownup". Laying down the law is.
No, in fact we all figure since the Republicans refused to accept that and the statement of the dem candidate all options are open there will be a recount and the house of delegates with be 50-49 for the time being.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
So since Republicans had already stated that they would reject the results of the draw if they lost and demand another recount, what's stopping the Democrats from doing the same now?
And don't say "being grownups." Giving in to tamper tantrums is not "being a grownup". Laying down the law is.
I guess I would say the fact that we did offer to 'not ask for a recount providing they agreed to as well', and that combined with the fact that the press would never report the italicized...
"Democrats lie and demand recount, even though they said they would honor the results! Are your votes at risk? Will Democrats kill your family? More at 11?"
To me its a tossup as to whether its worth it. 50-49 is still a republican majority, and my the time the recount is done they will have put themselves in charge of everything anyway. Theres not a huge amount to gain, but then again, not a huge amount to lose either.
Not laying down and allowing Republicans to brazenly steal a seat you had more votes for is kind of a big gain.
Yeah, but I don't think we'll actually GET the seat in time for it to mean anything? They only sit for like 45 days right? How quickly can we do the recount? By the time it's done they will already have made the rules say "In the event of a tie, the Republicans win"\
But yeah, I guess, maybe we can at least ruin this guys year and try to drag the name of the corrupt counter through the mud. He's the one I'm most frustrated with here. I think we should probably target a lawsuit at him personally somehow, since I'm pretty sure he just made the 'damaged' ballot up.
It doesn't make any sense on its face that he would be able to do that, and indeed the ruling describes the ballot being inspected in court.
What you are "pretty sure" of is conspiracy theory gossip and we shouldn't post that kind of stuff here.
+1
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
If anyone hasn't watched the moment of actual selection...it sure is something.
There really isn't a way to do it that someone wouldn't complain about, it seems fine to me.
We have true random number generators that could be used nowadays. I don't even think they are expensive.
Literally that entire method was a joke, capping this entire absurd process. Go get the damned state lottery machine and say 'Democrats are 1-25' or roll a dice. That was quite simply not a random process. Fine for quickly muddling through a few hundred pointless 'which order do people go in' draws, but utterly absurd for this.
The pieces weren't well agitated by the second lady, the main drawing guy could see and track the pieces into the film canisters, and into the bowl from the moment they were inserted to the moment they came out. If you, for example, did hundreds of these drawings each year to pick the order of the ballots I'd give you a 90% chance of picking the one you wanted.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+1
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Easy ways to make it almost acceptable: use more than one distinct object per candidate, maybe three or four each; actually agitate the bowl instead of just picking the canisters out, rubbing them together a bit, then placing them back in; blindfold the guy picking them during the preparation for a start. I'm not asking for a whole lot, just enough to reasonably say that an attentive person could not purposefully choose one over the other. Fucking bingo parlors put in more effort.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Easy ways to make it almost acceptable: use more than one distinct object per candidate, maybe three or four each; actually agitate the bowl instead of just picking the canisters out, rubbing them together a bit, then placing them back in; blindfold the guy picking them during the preparation for a start. I'm not asking for a whole lot, just enough to reasonably say that an attentive person could not purposefully choose one over the other. Fucking bingo parlors put in more effort.
Hell, go with the damn Arizona method. Have one candidate shuffle a deck of cards, then the other candidate gets to cut it, and they can't cut it such that the bottom card is now the top or second to top card. Then the first person gets the top card, and the second gets the card underneath that. Repeat, reversing actions, until there is a winner.
I mean, I guess they were probably honest here, they just seemed like a random bunch of folks who were seriously in over their heads, but come on. I bet the republican who messed up this whole democracy thing seemed just a bit in over his head too. I'm no longer assigning to incompetence what can be explained by malice.
You guys are getting real ornery over a moment where everyone agrees the process is silly and the losing side is going to engage the process for a recount anyways.
My roommate and I received mailings from Tom Garrett last week, asking for feedback on what issues he should prioritize. Looks like all of the issues listed are horrible things I disagree with (would I prefer him to concentrate on stronger border controls, or further dismantling Obamacare? BARF). There is a small free-response area, I guess I should write something in there, but I'm not sure what I can effectively communicate in ~2 sentences.
There's also a bit of text on the brochure that says something to the effect of "this mailing was paid for by your tax dollars" which feels bad. But I guess if it was a mailing from a rep that wasn't awful, I would feel good about it, so I guess I have to be OK with it?
My roommate and I received mailings from Tom Garrett last week, asking for feedback on what issues he should prioritize. Looks like all of the issues listed are horrible things I disagree with (would I prefer him to concentrate on stronger border controls, or further dismantling Obamacare? BARF). There is a small free-response area, I guess I should write something in there, but I'm not sure what I can effectively communicate in ~2 sentences.
There's also a bit of text on the brochure that says something to the effect of "this mailing was paid for by your tax dollars" which feels bad. But I guess if it was a mailing from a rep that wasn't awful, I would feel good about it, so I guess I have to be OK with it?
"I am concerned with Russian infiltration of the NRA."
So since Republicans had already stated that they would reject the results of the draw if they lost and demand another recount, what's stopping the Democrats from doing the same now?
And don't say "being grownups." Giving in to tamper tantrums is not "being a grownup". Laying down the law is.
No, in fact we all figure since the Republicans refused to accept that and the statement of the dem candidate all options are open there will be a recount and the house of delegates with be 50-49 for the time being.
So it's been nearly a month since Republicans looked at a seat won by a Democrat and said "nope, we'll take it anyway". Has the Virginia Dems done anything to fight back yet? Local Virginia political news is rather hard to come across here, so I haven't heard what happened since the canister debacle.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
So since Republicans had already stated that they would reject the results of the draw if they lost and demand another recount, what's stopping the Democrats from doing the same now?
And don't say "being grownups." Giving in to tamper tantrums is not "being a grownup". Laying down the law is.
No, in fact we all figure since the Republicans refused to accept that and the statement of the dem candidate all options are open there will be a recount and the house of delegates with be 50-49 for the time being.
So it's been nearly a month since Republicans looked at a seat won by a Democrat and said "nope, we'll take it anyway". Has the Virginia Dems done anything to fight back yet? Local Virginia political news is rather hard to come across here, so I haven't heard what happened since the canister debacle.
nothing that i've heard of, though i admittedly haven't been glued to the news much lately
last i heard simonds declared she wouldn't challenge it
Posts
Effectively, to go back to the previous argument in a real way, the way human counting works is that it generates a pseudo random number of counted votes for each candidate around the real number of cast votes. The scatter is about the same for all counters and for all districts, so the pseudo random scatter becomes fair with time and number of districts.
Now what we have is a situation where if the vote is close, republicans can randomly produce discarded votes to try and win. This creates a bias in the system which, like all our government systems, makes it favor republicans.
The system (Like all counted systems) needs to be governed by fairly applied, previously existing rules for recounts and resampling (new election) some dude randomly remembering a single ballot he threw out isn't one of those.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Which is a whole different beast. The fact the state government meets a max of 60 days for even years and 45 for odd years is insane for a state as large as Virginia.
Pretty sure that's way more than Texas.
My understanding of the letter of the law is that you can't just go back and add a spoiled ballot after learning that you lost by 1 vote.
You want to be technical until the count is certified by the 3 judge panel you can. So while absolute bullshit still with in the law.
Like, coin flipping an election that was too close seems ridiculous
was this protocol set up because back when they just figured there'd just never be an actual tie? This seems like holding a second vote would be a thousand times more democratic than handing it over to chance.
It's fairly common practice, with regional variants. Nevada draws a high card, because obviously.
I feel like a roulette wheel would be better. 00 means the new Representative is an Independent, and a horse.
That seems thematically fitting, I will grant the state of Nevada that
But still wtf
For true Democracy...
"In the event of a tie, the names of all people eligible for the office in the district shall be placed into a hat. One name shall be drawn, and that person shall receive the office"
From my reading of the decision, that bombastic quote from the conclusion doesn't have much to do with the reasoning.
The reasoning, as far as I can follow it, is: the statute explicitly states that the court should consider complaints from recount officials, and the statute does not explicitly state any timing restriction on when that complaint needs to occur.
The Democratic petition argued that the statute's claim that there should only be one redetermination of the vote per precinct implicitly establishes a timing window, but the court claims that ruling on contested ballots is properly viewed as part of the original redetermination process, not a separate redetermination occurring afterward (this seems like a crucial claim they bury in a footnote, but w/e); they also claim that the alleged timing window restricting their ability to review complaints would conflict with the very broad scope of the court's mission as stated in other pieces of relevant statute.
Would be interesting to see any of the editorializing about it from the legal world, if anyone has a link. I don't have much confidence in my ability to parse this kind of stuff out on my own without any of the background.
What really stands out to me is the ending of the ruling.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
And don't say "being grownups." Giving in to tamper tantrums is not "being a grownup". Laying down the law is.
I guess I would say the fact that we did offer to 'not ask for a recount providing they agreed to as well', and that combined with the fact that the press would never report the italicized...
"Democrats lie and demand recount, even though they said they would honor the results! Are your votes at risk? Will Democrats kill your family? More at 11?"
To me its a tossup as to whether its worth it. 50-49 is still a republican majority, and my the time the recount is done they will have put themselves in charge of everything anyway. Theres not a huge amount to gain, but then again, not a huge amount to lose either.
* except that humans don't work that way
Not laying down and allowing Republicans to brazenly steal a seat you had more votes for is kind of a big gain.
Yeah, but I don't think we'll actually GET the seat in time for it to mean anything? They only sit for like 45 days right? How quickly can we do the recount? By the time it's done they will already have made the rules say "In the event of a tie, the Republicans win"\
But yeah, I guess, maybe we can at least ruin this guys year and try to drag the name of the corrupt counter through the mud. He's the one I'm most frustrated with here. I think we should probably target a lawsuit at him personally somehow, since I'm pretty sure he just made the 'damaged' ballot up.
But there are not many key differences, and there will be fewer if we don't stop it here.
No, in fact we all figure since the Republicans refused to accept that and the statement of the dem candidate all options are open there will be a recount and the house of delegates with be 50-49 for the time being.
It doesn't make any sense on its face that he would be able to do that, and indeed the ruling describes the ballot being inspected in court.
What you are "pretty sure" of is conspiracy theory gossip and we shouldn't post that kind of stuff here.
Totally. Random.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
We have true random number generators that could be used nowadays. I don't even think they are expensive.
Literally that entire method was a joke, capping this entire absurd process. Go get the damned state lottery machine and say 'Democrats are 1-25' or roll a dice. That was quite simply not a random process. Fine for quickly muddling through a few hundred pointless 'which order do people go in' draws, but utterly absurd for this.
The pieces weren't well agitated by the second lady, the main drawing guy could see and track the pieces into the film canisters, and into the bowl from the moment they were inserted to the moment they came out. If you, for example, did hundreds of these drawings each year to pick the order of the ballots I'd give you a 90% chance of picking the one you wanted.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Hell, go with the damn Arizona method. Have one candidate shuffle a deck of cards, then the other candidate gets to cut it, and they can't cut it such that the bottom card is now the top or second to top card. Then the first person gets the top card, and the second gets the card underneath that. Repeat, reversing actions, until there is a winner.
I mean, I guess they were probably honest here, they just seemed like a random bunch of folks who were seriously in over their heads, but come on. I bet the republican who messed up this whole democracy thing seemed just a bit in over his head too. I'm no longer assigning to incompetence what can be explained by malice.
i mean jesus. he probably didn't watch them or anything but it's just baby shit.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=film+canister
There's also a bit of text on the brochure that says something to the effect of "this mailing was paid for by your tax dollars" which feels bad. But I guess if it was a mailing from a rep that wasn't awful, I would feel good about it, so I guess I have to be OK with it?
"I am concerned with Russian infiltration of the NRA."
So it's been nearly a month since Republicans looked at a seat won by a Democrat and said "nope, we'll take it anyway". Has the Virginia Dems done anything to fight back yet? Local Virginia political news is rather hard to come across here, so I haven't heard what happened since the canister debacle.
nothing that i've heard of, though i admittedly haven't been glued to the news much lately
last i heard simonds declared she wouldn't challenge it
Democrats need to point out when republicans steal elections or try to steal elections.
If only it were so contained.