Virginia Official Pulls Republican’s Name From Bowl to Pick Winner of Tied Race - Polidicks

[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/virginia-tie.html?ribbon-ad-idx=3&rref=us&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&pgtype=article"]source[/URL] [QUOTE]An official of the Virginia State Board of Elections pulled the name of David Yancey from a blue and white stoneware bowl on Thursday, breaking a tied race that is pivotal to control of the state House of Delegates. The outcome in favor of Mr. Yancey, the Republican incumbent, means that the House remains narrowly in his party’s hands, 51 seats to 49, after a Democratic wave in November propelled by anger at President Trump. Going into the election, the Republicans had a 32-seat advantage. The random drawing, a species of political unicorn that attracted attention well beyond Virginia, was conducted in the Patrick Henry Building near the State Capitol in Richmond shortly after 11 a.m. Each candidate’s name was written on strips of paper, inserted into film canisters and mixed together in the handmade bowl, made by the potter-in-residence at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Steven Glass. Despite the high ceremony, the drawing may not bring finality to a race that has already been fiercely fought through a recount and in court skirmishes. By state law, the loser in the drawing may request a second recount. The Democratic challenger, Shelly Simonds, a school board member in Newport News, said after the drawing that “all options are still on the table.’’ But she also sounded resigned. “You know it was a long hard election season, and it does seem like a sad end to the story to have to end on a game of chance,’’ she told reporters.[/QUOTE] :unimpressed:

Poetic that an educational figure would lose to something as brainless as a hat drawing.

If you can't win by gerrymandering, win by lawyering. They essentially guessed that a ballot was for the republican even though both candidates were checked and would normally be invalidated

The gop wins elections. or else. (fun fact the democratic party is actually the older of the two parties, the oldest currently active political party in the world.)

You have to wonder at what point is a new election even possible if they got to the point where it was an actual tie.

[QUOTE=Sableye;53032716]You have to wonder at what point is a new election even possible if they got to the point where it was an actual tie.[/QUOTE] It's not like everyone voted. It wouldn't be so hard to open up a single extra polling day in a week and talk about it on the news.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53032704]The gop wins elections. or else. (fun fact the democratic party is actually the older of the two parties, the oldest currently active political party in the world.)[/QUOTE] Well there was already a Tory party in Great Britain at the time. That's just a name, though.

Can’t believe they admitted it even though there’s a provision in VA law saying if a ballot is marked for both candidates, you throw that vote out and accept the other races that are clearly marked.

[quote]Ms. Simonds had proposed to Mr. Yancey on Wednesday that each should pledge to forgo a second recount if they lost the drawing. Mr. Yancey rejected the offer. Republican leaders in the House called on the Democrat to give up the fight, despite her right to ask for a second recount. [/quote] Lol.

It's so fucking retarded that it's decided by a fucking cointoss.

how long until it comes out that the hat draw was rigged and there were actually just two slips for the repub

Despite extreme gerrymandering, a Democrat won Virginia. The GOP then violated all established election laws to count a faulty vote in favor of their own candidate, creating a false pretense for a tie, and then "conveniently" drawing their candidate's name from a fucking [I]bowl[/I] to break said tie. They fabricated a vote, and then faked a random choice, all because of the will of the people threatened their power. Crooks. The lot of them.

Legit no fucking words.

So, wait, that ballot actually was counted? I think I remember someone saying it was the other way around, that it would have been a democrat vote that broke the tie, and not counting it resulted in a tie? [media]https://twitter.com/JWPascale/status/943559301737713665[/media] I mean judging from this, I honestly can't tell what it's supposed to be? There's a cross over Gillespie, which could mean either a double confirmation for some reason, or a cancellation. Meanwhile there's a [I]slash[/I] over Simonds while Yancey is marked. Did they seriously count that as a Yancey vote?

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53033134]I mean judging from this, I honestly can't tell what it's supposed to be? There's a cross over Gillespie, which could mean either a double confirmation for some reason, or a cancellation. Meanwhile there's a [I]slash[/I] over Simonds while Yancey is marked. Did they seriously count that as a Yancey vote?[/QUOTE] Honestly, the ballot is super unclear. There should have been no room for error here.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53033134]So, wait, that ballot actually was counted? I think I remember someone saying it was the other way around, that it would have been a democrat vote that broke the tie, and not counting it resulted in a tie? I mean judging from this, I honestly can't tell what it's supposed to be? There's a cross over Gillespie, which could mean either a double confirmation for some reason, or a cancellation. Meanwhile there's a [I]slash[/I] over Simonds while Yancey is marked. Did they seriously count that as a Yancey vote?[/QUOTE] You have it the other way around. It was originally ruled invalid, giving Democratic challenger Simonds a one vote lead, but a panel ruled otherwise, and gave that ballot to the Republican, Yancey. Thus bringing it to a tie, despite Virginia law clearly stating that a ballot that's filled in twice for two different candidates for the same office as being considered spoiled.

Wow, the power of democracy at work.

[QUOTE=Maegord;53033224]You have it the other way around. It was originally ruled invalid, giving Democratic challenger Simonds a one vote lead, but a panel ruled otherwise, and gave that ballot to the Republican, Yancey. Thus bringing it to a tie, despite Virginia law clearly stating that a ballot that's filled in twice for two different candidates for the same office as being considered spoiled.[/QUOTE] Jesus christ that's fucked up.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53032975]Despite extreme gerrymandering, a Democrat won Virginia. The GOP then violated all established election laws to count a faulty vote in favor of their own candidate, creating a false pretense for a tie, and then "conveniently" drawing their candidate's name from a fucking [I]bowl[/I] to break said tie. They fabricated a vote, and then faked a random choice, all because of the will of the people threatened their power. Crooks. The lot of them.[/QUOTE] Are you implying that they somehow rigged the bowl?

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53033596]Are you implying that they somehow rigged the bowl?[/QUOTE] that would be exceptionally easy to do just by making one of the papers bumpier than the others or just bent

What a fucking joke.

This should not be legally admissible, and it wouldn't be if the Republicans lost, either. They'd have either demanded a repeat or say the whole idea is bullshit. And it is bullshit, either way. This isn't democracy. This isn't even fair or legit 'random'. This is so insanely easy to rig that I don't doubt that it most likely [I]was[/I] rigged. Only a computer could give you a legitimate 50/50 and honestly just open another fucking voting day or something.

[QUOTE=Pigbear;53033720]that would be exceptionally easy to do just by making one of the papers bumpier than the others or just bent[/QUOTE] Well, no. The papers were in film canisters.

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53033596]Are you implying that they somehow rigged the bowl?[/QUOTE] When a panel of conniving GOP conspirators blatantly violated election law to count an spoiled vote that did not clearly indicate either candidate as a vote for [I]their[/I] candidate, is it really such a leap in judgment to say they'd take it one step further and just rig the fuckin' bowl? The first is a much more complex affair than the second. [editline]7th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;53033823]This should not be legally admissible, and it wouldn't be if the Republicans lost, either. They'd have either demanded a repeat or say the whole idea is bullshit. And it is bullshit, either way. This isn't democracy. This isn't even fair or legit 'random'. This is so insanely easy to rig that I don't doubt that it most likely [I]was[/I] rigged. Only a computer could give you a legitimate 50/50 and honestly just open another fucking voting day or something.[/QUOTE] While I absolutely agree that drawing a name from a hat is an absurd way to settle a tie, the bigger problem here is that this [B]wasn't[/B] a tie. The Democrat won by one vote. It's [B]razor thin[/B], but the simple fact of the matter is that [I]the Democrat won.[/I] They had more votes. The GOP then [B]faked[/B] a tie by illegally admitting a spoiled ballot and ruling that, even though both candidates were selected, the person who fucked it up [I]probably[/I] wanted to vote for the Republican. [B]That's[/B] bullshit.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53032975]Despite extreme gerrymandering, a Democrat won Virginia. The GOP then violated all established election laws to count a faulty vote in favor of their own candidate, creating a false pretense for a tie, and then "conveniently" drawing their candidate's name from a fucking [I]bowl[/I] to break said tie. They fabricated a vote, and then faked a random choice, all because of the will of the people threatened their power. Crooks. The lot of them.[/QUOTE] Where the fuck did they get a fabricated vote? I thought the vote was thrown out which is what created the tie? Source this please? Because if its the vote I'm thinking of, it doesn't clearly mark either candidate and thus was thrown out. Not given to the Republican candidate.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53034443]Where the fuck did they get a fabricated vote? I thought the vote was thrown out which is what created the tie? Source this please? Because if its the vote I'm thinking of, it doesn't clearly mark either candidate and thus was thrown out. Not given to the Republican candidate.[/QUOTE] Other way around. They didn't throw out the vote, and counted it toward the Republican candidate, creating the tie.

[QUOTE=The Vman;53034527]Other way around. They didn't throw out the vote, and counted it toward the Republican candidate, creating the tie.[/QUOTE] When you say "they," you mean a panel of three judges, not the republican politicians in question. Also, the guide book for counting votes in Virginia says, "If there are identical marks for two or more candidates, clarified by an additional mark or marks that appear to indicate support, the ballot shall be counted as a vote for the candidate with the additional, clarifying marks.” ([URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/virginia-election-recount.html[/URL]) So there is clearly an allowance to give a vote to one or the other depending on "clarifying marks." It isn't like any ballot with multiple people being marked is automatically supposed to be thrown out like some seem to think. [editline]8th January 2018[/editline] Personally, I hope they do another full recount because one vote is almost certainly within the margin of error anyway.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53037215]When you say "they," you mean a panel of three judges, not the republican politicians in question. Also, the guide book for counting votes in Virginia says, "If there are identical marks for two or more candidates, clarified by an additional mark or marks that appear to indicate support, the ballot shall be counted as a vote for the candidate with the additional, clarifying marks.” ([URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/virginia-election-recount.html[/URL]) So there is clearly an allowance to give a vote to one or the other depending on "clarifying marks." It isn't like any ballot with multiple people being marked is automatically supposed to be thrown out like some seem to think. [editline]8th January 2018[/editline] Personally, I hope they do another full recount because one vote is almost certainly within the margin of error anyway.[/QUOTE] Even based on that wording, it shouldn't be admitted, since the "clarifying mark" in this case (which really makes things less clear, because of whatever was going on with the Gillespie vote) is used to indicate lack of support, rather than support. Or at least that's the interpretation they went with. [editline]9th January 2018[/editline] Ahh, I see they now can show the actual disputed ballot. Good god, that person is bad at voting.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53037707]Even based on that wording, it shouldn't be admitted, since the "clarifying mark" in this case (which really makes things less clear, because of whatever was going on with the Gillespie vote) is used to indicate lack of support, rather than support. Or at least that's the interpretation they went with.[/QUOTE] I can see arguments for both sides. On one hand, yeah, it's a mark against and not a mark for, but on the other hand, a mark against is meaningfully equivalent to a mark for the other person. The panel took three hours deciding on this single ballot. I'm happy they allowed it just so they can get another recount, and hopefully not have it come down to 1 vote this time.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53037215]Also, the guide book for counting votes in Virginia says, "If there are identical marks for two or more candidates, clarified by an additional mark or marks that appear to indicate support, the ballot shall be counted as a vote for the candidate with the additional, clarifying marks.” ([URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/virginia-election-recount.html[/URL])[/QUOTE] That's fucking terrible. It straight up gives whoever is counting the vote the power to decide who the vote goes to, since they can arbitrarily decide whether a slash means [I]"actually this is my choice"[/I] or [I]"never mind i didn't mean this one"[/I]. [editline]10th January 2018[/editline] That's why the rules must be "mark one and only one or your vote is void", people should be expected to have made up their minds once they put down their mark.