Not sure it’s wise to use pencils, precisely because it would be too easy for someone to tamper with the ballots after the fact, which means they could get counted differently in the event of a recount.
Using a pen, and having people exchange their spoiled ballot for a new one if necessary, makes more sense to me.
No system is perfect, and once in a blue moon there will be one of these cases of a razor-thin margin where a couple of questionably-marked ballots will make the difference. But of all the problems with our election systems, this is an extremely rare one.
The “drawing lots to break a tie” thing seems kind of crazy at first glance. But in a race this close I’m not sure it’s any less fair than determining the outcome based on subjective judgments of a handful of questionably-marked ballots.
It seems to me that the bigger flaw in their system is having an even number of representatives in the House of Delegates, with no tie-breaker. That’s just stupid.
Using pencils was necessary in the days of electrosensing – graphite conducts electricity while ink does not. I’m sure that some jurisdictions have stuck with tradition (pencils) even though the technology is now optical scanning and ink is better for that than pencil.
As far as this particular ballot goes, I think it really ought to have been thrown out as an overvote / spoiled ballot. Arguments that the voter chose Republicans in other races are irrelevant except as a PR point, so let’s put that aside. But if it was just a case of marking both bubbles and then clearly crossing one out, I would be open to the argument that the voter’s intent was clear enough. But in this case the voter also filled in the bubble and made an “x” over (or under) the filled in bubble for Gillespie in the race for governor as well.
Was that counted as a vote for Gillespie? Or was that vote disqualified because it wasn’t clear whether the voter first marked it with the “x,” intending that as a vote for Gillespie, and then realized they were supposed to fill the bubble in, so also filled in the bubble to reinforce their intent, or whether the voter filled in the bubble first, then realized they didn’t want to vote for Gillespie and marked over that with an “x” to indicate they didn’t want to vote for Gillespie after all?
It seems like in this case, the GOP lawyers argued (successfully) that the single slash through the Dem’s name in the House of Delegates race clearly meant the voter didn’t want to vote for the Dem, because there was also a bubble filled in (with no slash through it) for the GOP candidate. That may well be the case, but it’s a pretty weak argument.
Only one thing is really clear about this ballot – the voter was either impaired in some way, or just really careless/sloppy, or just really, really stupid. I’m all for counting every ballot where the voter’s intent can be clearly discerned, but this does not seem nearly clear enough to me. Should have been ruled as a spoiled ballot.
Oh Wow. What a surprise. Why am I not as optimistic as others about 2018? Any Democrat that thinks Republicans aren’t going to lie, cheat and steal with vicious ferocity to maintain majorities is deluded.
All of these, I suspect. Unable to read and comprehend instructions fulfills the really, really stupid criterion. Careless and sloppy is demonstrated in the ballot itself. All the votes for GOP candidates shows some definite cognitive impairment.
Really? Set up a special election and all the hardware and people and expense? And when do we hold that election? Can’t be next week. Maybe March? What happens in the meantime?
Pull off the bandaid now. Get it over with.
