This is crazy. It's also why nobody should ever pretend that their vote doesn't count.

Can't trust them at all.

Tails you lose.

This game is rigged.

Heads, I win, tails, you lose.

more than likelys got 2 heads

You beat me to it.

If you win again, we throw everything out and flip a coin.
Either way I win. That's the Republican way of doing things.
They can't win unless they cheat.

In fact, the toss had better be held on live TV with several different camera angles!

You KNOW they'd slip a two-headed coin in there if they thought they'd get away with it.

(Channeling Gilbert and Sullivan.)

how do you count a questionable ballot?

Let me guess - GOPig appointed judges?

Hence the new tie that we have. If it was counted as Republican, the Republican would be ahead.

The article says that a questionable ballot was counted for the R, not that it was thrown out. That would have to mean that a ballot that was thrown out in the recount as invalid was successfully contested by the GOPigs as a vote in their favor, resulting in a tie.

... but it's now being counted in favor of the Republican.

Here's the ballot in question:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/court-tosses-out-one-vote-victory-in-recount-that-had-briefly-ended-a-republican-majority-in-virginia/2017/12/20/ed979a70-e5b9-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?pushid=5a3abd71873fb41d0000000d&tidr=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.96ecc6cb12bb

It was originally discarded as a double-vote, giving the Democrats a 1 vote win. It is now being counted as a Republican vote (based on the line through the Democratic candidate's bubble & the solid Republican votes on the rest of the ballot). That makes it a tie.

The dumbass was obviously voting all Republican. I don't support voter disenfranchisement, even if the voter is a moron.

Of course this begs the question on if there were any other ballots like that where the voter was obviously voting Democrat?

I feel like I read a totally different article earlier today, because I had a completely different impression of what happened.

Was it discarded under a decision earlier accepted by both parties?

Now they are contesting it?

Both the circles for the Republican and Democrat are filled in, but the Democratic bubble has a slash through it, like they filled it in, realized they made a mistake and crossed it out.

Why wouldn't someone just request a new ballot if they screwed up? I suppose there could always be shenanigans taking place on either side, but how are judges supposed to know which was the actual intended vote from that specific ballot?

*do you have a link to this other thread?

Who's to say this ballot wasn't flipped until after the polls closed?

The ballot should be thrown out.

... upon inserting the ballot into the tallying/reading machine. The voter may then choose to receive a new ballot to try again, or the voter can refuse a new ballot and allow their spoiled (double-vote) ballot to be processed anyway. In the latter case, all votes EXCEPT the double-vote would still be counted.

Ran outside real quick. A recount official appointed by Yancey’s side has submitted a letter to the court saying that a ballot that was thrown out yestersaynshould have been counted for Yancey.

Link to tweet

If you’re just tuning in NOW: three judges considered one overvote issue presented this morning and decided it was for Yancey. He and Simonds are tied in the 94th District; tiebreakers happen by drawing lots. The balance of power in the House rests on drawing sticks.

Link to tweet

and that a good ballot was the one that Dems won on?

After the election was given to the Democrat by one vote, the Repubs went back & got the previously tossed double ballot & got it counted as a Republican vote. That caused the tie.

They have a million ways to take away our votes and it will never end

I suuuuuuuuuuuuuupose I'll go try to do some research on this. *sigh*

with a slash mark through the mark for the Democratic candidate.

Under Virginia law, the role of the recount court is to attempt to determine the intent of the voter in situations such as this. There are detailed examples given to the court as guidance. One of the situations described is where two names are marked but there is an additional mark on one of the names that reflects an intent for that mark not to count.

It appears that the court relied on that guidance in reviewing this ballot.

I literally cannot "internet" correctly anymore.

I'm sure there's more than one "questionable" ballot.

So what happens now? A freakin' coin toss? How scientific of them. Can't they do another recount?

to a tie simply ignored other questionable ballots?

thrown by a repug judge. Fuck these people.

"Hanging chads".

In Florida, the problem was that the recount did not consider clear evidence of the voter's intent. Thus, for example, a ballot that punched Al Gore's name and also wrote in his name was treated as an over-vote and rejected.

In this instance, the court is attempting to ascertain the voter's intent. I'm pretty sure if the tables were turned and the vote with the slash mark was for the repub, we'd be screaming for it to be counted for the Democrat.

It sucks, but it's not totally outrageous based on what I've read so far.

Let's hope the Democrat wins the coin toss.

As a Virginia resident, was super-excited that we might have split control of the house (and we still might based on a coin toss). I'm more irritated that a Republican rep initially agreed that this ballot was tainted, then changed his/her mind when the Republican lost by 1 vote.

I think the intent of the voter is pretty clear. Stupid, but clear. I actually like that the law in that state requires that an effort be made to determine the intent rather than tossing the vote out.

I'm not certain what your anger is about.

A “heads” they win and “tails” we lose?

Smh

be appealed?

the coin bounces off 8 walls first

and that STILL isn't enough to get a majority in the VA House

That cannot be a legal ballot, I think.

BREAKING: We obtained the actual ballot submitted to the court.
Dissect away.

Link to tweet

That should be a "no vote". Anything other is just making shit up.

if there are additional markings on the ballot that indicate which candidate was the intended recipient of the voter's ballot. The additional marking can be something like a circle around the one the voter wanted to elect, or a mark through the one that the voter did not intend to elect.

I don't like the result, but I don't think its wrong under Virginia law. And I'm pretty sure we'd be taking the opposite position if the shoe was on the other foot and the strike through was on the republican's name.

One of the things that pissed me off about the Gore-Bush election is that ballots that were punched for Gore and also had his name written in were treated as overvotes and discarded, even though the evidence was that the voter intended to vote for Gore. I prefer systems that try, at least in some instances, to ascertain the voter's intent over systems that are quick to discard votes.

The only part of the ballot reviewed was for the delegate seat.

intended to vote straight Republican and on that basis, the otherwise double voting in the district election can be considered a vote for the Republican. It is NOT unambiguous that that was the voter’s intent. Several have made that claim on this thread.

is the one being reviewed.

And if the other votes were considered, the better argument probably would be that the voter did not cast a single other vote for a Democrat and most likely didn't want to vote for anyone for Governor but otherwise wanted to vote for republicans.

I would demand a fucking recount...................

Link to tweet

of course, you can get more votes & still lose
Hillary 3 mil
Gore 500 in FL & lost the state & therefore the election

Do you have an issue with the OP you need to go mediate somewhere?

Our government is fixed. It's all for the fat cats and the corrupt. I'm thoroughly disgusted with it all. And Franken tosses in the towel. Right. WTG. I can't even turn on the TV anymore....I'm so fucking disgusted with all the news. Glad my days are coming to an end. A shame they won. Bled and died for nothing.

Wake me when there is some good news for the future of this banana republic.

Link to tweet

Virginia law doesn't treat a vote as an overvote (and thus reject it) simply because the voter has marked the ballot for more than one candidate. If there are additional markings on the ballot that indicate that the voter intended to vote for a particular candidate (for example by circling one of the marks or striking through one of the marks) it is considered a good ballot.

I don't like the result, but it seems consistent with Virginia election recount procedure.

but because the voter crossed out Gillespie's name, the claim that the other R votes substantiate the voter intent to vote straight R isn't certain. I guess I'd be asking if the vote was counted by the optical scanner for Gillespie since no other bubble was filled in. It's kind of odd for a voter to not vote the very top of the ballot, yet vote for every other race. If the voter didn't like Gillespie, I'd figure there'd be a write in vote, not a blank. And why not put an "x" as the voter did for Gillespie's name instead of just a little slash?

in the bubble then realized it requires a filled-in bubble. A lot of people try to put Xes in Scantron fields.

Years ago when forms were only partly automated, a co-worker quipped to me it was amazing how creative people were (filling in a few standard spaces on a form) when you don't want them to be.

Really surprised by some if the comments that because the voter made an error that the vote should be invalidated. Is that really how we think elections should be handled?

and that's what is considered in their state, rather than simply tossing the ballot. I'm okay with the decision.

Let me guess the political makeup of that panel!