So Republicans lose the seat by a vote but they want a 50-50 chance to get the seat anyway. That’s lovely.
Completely agree. How in the world is this fair?!?! Simonds won the recount, challenged by one single ballot, and they refuse to allow her to present her own questionable ballots and throw it to a random drawing?!?
GOOPer policy at its best.
This is great, but instead of picking a name out of a hat, how about settling this election through alternative means, like:
- Roshambo
- Consecutive rounds for each candidate to receive three penalty kicks against their political opponent until one scores more
- A poetry slam
- Picking the short straw
- Darts, but the candidates need to drink a pint for each round
- Guessing how many fingers the other candidate is holding behind their back
Wow, once we open up elections to alternative forms of candidate selection, democracy can be so much fun!
Watch out for the “sticky fingers syndrome”
If they have to decide the election by drawing, Flip a coin instead. That way it cuts down on the ability to try some kind of sleight of hand, aka cheating, from happening from the overly honest goopers.
“politically motivated delays”
You mean like the “Brooks Brothers riots” in Florida? Or perhaps denying Merrick Garland a hearing for six months? I guess it’s only a problem when Democrats do it, huh? Thanks for clearing that up, you hypocrite.
he he …
can you imagine if there were any hanging ’ chads ’ ? ? …
They should submit both candidates to an actual “quiz” on the issues and see who gets the most correct answers. If it’s a tie (which it isn’t, really), then the candidate who knows more should get the seat. Of course, expecting a republican to know much is sort of unfair, isn’t it?
Given that elections are inherently politically motivated activities it is rather asinine to complain about “politically motivated delays” in their determination.
I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 10.
He said that even if the winner’s name is pulled Jan. 4, the House will not be able to seat the winner by the opening day of the legislative session if the loser asks for a recount. That would leave Republicans with a 50-49 majority as the session opens.
Sez who? And why? Conveniently enough, it still gives them a majority. Bug or feature?
I would favor candidates’ exchange of swift kicks to the crotch. Ladies kick first.
That sounds completely fair to me.
Democrats have fought to follow the law, an idea that’s alien to Trump and the Republicans.
Two candidates were marked. The ballot is invalid.
Democrats overwhelmingly won the Assembly when you consider the aggregate vote last November of all Assembly races, and the Republicans accuse Democrats of litigating a legitimate dispute over a seat which only would make us equal in the Assembly. Hypocrisy.
Last week the Board of Elections delayed their “drawing by lots” due to Simond’s lawsuit, saying that it would be better to have the issues adjudicated by the court first (which, depending on the outcome, might make the drawing of lots unnecessary).
Now they’re saying that they’re going to go ahead with the drawing of lots despite the fact that the aforementioned court case hasn’t been resolved yet?
So, what changed in the meantime?
Also, why has their been no hearing yet in the court case?
Is this the Board of Elections’ way of trying to light a fire under the court to do their job?
And for their part, are the judges intentionally dragging their feet, preferring to have the drawing of lots, and any subsequent recount, out of the way first, perhaps because (depending on the outcome) that may relieve them of the need to rule in this case? (If Simonds wins the drawing, and a post-drawing recount again comes up as a tie, there would be little incentive for Simonds to pursue the court case, since she’d already have won.)
By the way, if the “drawing of lots” does go forward, and Simonds wins the drawing, we’ll all be at risk of getting whiplash watching Team Yancy suddenly do a 180 and demand another recount and/or file a lawsuit of their own attempting to delay / overturn the results.
Errrr, no.
I used to know a guy who could “flip” a coin, giving it a wobble that looked like it was tumbling. He would set the coin face up or face down (he’d let you choose) and then would combine the toss with either an overhand or underhand catch of the coin (depending upon if he wanted the results to be “heads” or “tails”) so that he could 100 percent determine the outcome of a coin toss. Neat trick (once you knew what he was doing) but definitely not the best way to determine a random selection.
Maybe something like “If the next Powerball supplemental number is Odd, it’s a Democrat, if it’s Even then republican”. After all, we trust those folks more than we trust the political system right now!
When flipping a coin—as in the beginning of a football game—no one is allowed to catch the coin.
It falls to the ground and is read as it fell.
Okay, but what happens if somebody takes a knee? I imagine we could make a few Republican heads explode - just sayin’…