I watched the draw life and it made me sick. I realize it's "fair" but I don't think that chicken scratch ballot should've been counted. I had to turn it off after they signed the papers.

This whole thing was hilarious. If it went in your favor, then you will swear that the system worked as it should have, and justice prevailed! If it didn't, you will swear the whole thing was rigged and the seat was stolen!

Vote, people, Vote! (and have enough sense to ask for another ballot if you mess up)

No, the VA House of Delegates is not now 50-50.
The Republican won the coin toss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Sure looks like a vote for Yancey to me. Simmonds was crossed out. Voted also for other Republicans.

How is Simmonds considered "crossed out" yet Gillespie is not? By your standard, it appears the voter did not select anyone as Governor.
Similarly, if the voter intended to "cross out" Simmonds then why didn't this person cross out her entire name?
Third, couldn't the mark next to Simmonds name actually be a check mark, indicating that Simmonds is the person this voter intended? Gillespie has a similar mark next to his name.

Be consistent, that's how the rule of law is intended to operate.

1. The vote for Gillespie was an "x" and it was the ONLY bubble filled in for governor.
2. The vote for Symonds was slashed through and the bubble for Yancy was filled in. It actually looked just like the sample guidance given by the State Elections for deciding whether a vote is to count or not.

Most all of the ballot changes at the recount involved questionable ballots. So, if you do not like it, let's go back to the ones that were clear and counted by the machine--the ones that gave Yancy a 10 vote lead!

Anonymous wrote:If we are going to accept this as a Republican vote, we then need to go back an examine any other votes that were disqualified for double markings. That's only fair, right? And then the judges will need to somehow divine the voters' true intention.

Because I took an Oath, I didn't count a ballot that was for a D because the ballot was cut off Absentee ballot and couldn't be 100% that person voted for that delegates.... that person voted STRAIGHT LINE D. Reason it wasn't I took an oath, this not right. Knowing this I would have counted the ballot

Anonymous wrote:^^ Sure looks like a vote for Yancey to me. Simmonds was crossed out. Voted also for other Republicans.

How is Simmonds considered "crossed out" yet Gillespie is not? By your standard, it appears the voter did not select anyone as Governor.
Similarly, if the voter intended to "cross out" Simmonds then why didn't this person cross out her entire name?
Third, couldn't the mark next to Simmonds name actually be a check mark, indicating that Simmonds is the person this voter intended? Gillespie has a similar mark next to his name.

Be consistent, that's how the rule of law is intended to operate.

The judiciary isn't even following the rules clearly written on the ballot

If we are going to accept this as a Republican vote, we then need to go back an examine any other votes that were disqualified for double markings. That's only fair, right? And then the judges will need to somehow divine the voters' true intention.

^^ It does not matter what any of you think might have happened. The courts will decide the outcome, not anonymous posters here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Sure looks like a vote for Yancey to me. Simmonds was crossed out. Voted also for other Republicans.

The mark made for Simonds (D) is similar to the one made for Gillespie (R). I don't know how you discount the Simonds vote while stating that the voter chose the other R candidates.

Because the PP wants to win at all costs. Common sense and rule of law flies out the window. Apparently we can presume someone made a vote for a Republican, but we can't presume they voted for a Democrat. Which is a logical fallacy, of course.

Anyways, this is definitely getting litigated.

Anonymous wrote:^^ Sure looks like a vote for Yancey to me. Simmonds was crossed out. Voted also for other Republicans.

The mark made for Simonds (D) is similar to the one made for Gillespie (R). I don't know how you discount the Simonds vote while stating that the voter chose the other R candidates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Sure looks like a vote for Yancey to me. Simmonds was crossed out. Voted also for other Republicans.

Gillespie was crossed out as well, should his vote for Gillespie also be invalidated? And then lets go back through all of the ballots, and if there are lines outside the bubble on any of them, should we invalidate those too?

People sometimes vote split tickets, you can't presume they intended to vote republican in one race because they voted republican in other races.

That's irrelevant and a stupid point. Gillespie lost by more than one. I'm just saying it looks like an across the board Republican voter which most of us are. I didn't say anything about Gillespie. It looks like what it looks like - she or he voted republican across candidates - made a mistake and scratched out Simmonds. It's pretty clear at least to me.

It's disingenuous to claim there is no ambiguity. If there is ambiguity, neither the elections board nor a judge should be substituting their judgment. At least that's hiw people with character and integrity would handle it.

Sorry to disagree. Looks clearly like they crossed out Simmonds and voted for Yancey. That's what I see. Your results obviously vary but don't call me disingenuous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Sure looks like a vote for Yancey to me. Simmonds was crossed out. Voted also for other Republicans.

Gillespie was crossed out as well, should his vote for Gillespie also be invalidated? And then lets go back through all of the ballots, and if there are lines outside the bubble on any of them, should we invalidate those too?

People sometimes vote split tickets, you can't presume they intended to vote republican in one race because they voted republican in other races.

That's irrelevant and a stupid point. Gillespie lost by more than one. I'm just saying it looks like an across the board Republican voter which most of us are. I didn't say anything about Gillespie. It looks like what it looks like - she or he voted republican across candidates - made a mistake and scratched out Simmonds. It's pretty clear at least to me.

It's disingenuous to claim there is no ambiguity. If there is ambiguity, neither the elections board nor a judge should be substituting their judgment. At least that's hiw people with character and integrity would handle it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Sure looks like a vote for Yancey to me. Simmonds was crossed out. Voted also for other Republicans.

Gillespie was crossed out as well, should his vote for Gillespie also be invalidated? And then lets go back through all of the ballots, and if there are lines outside the bubble on any of them, should we invalidate those too?

People sometimes vote split tickets, you can't presume they intended to vote republican in one race because they voted republican in other races.

That's irrelevant and a stupid point. Gillespie lost by more than one. I'm just saying it looks like an across the board Republican voter which most of us are. I didn't say anything about Gillespie. It looks like what it looks like - she or he voted republican across candidates - made a mistake and scratched out Simmonds. It's pretty clear at least to me.

Anonymous wrote:^^ Sure looks like a vote for Yancey to me. Simmonds was crossed out. Voted also for other Republicans.

Gillespie was crossed out as well, should his vote for Gillespie also be invalidated? And then lets go back through all of the ballots, and if there are lines outside the bubble on any of them, should we invalidate those too?

People sometimes vote split tickets, you can't presume they intended to vote republican in one race because they voted republican in other races.