-
A Thought Experiment About Elections
A hypothetical for the good people of domebo:
Suppose the state of Wisconsin recently held an election for dog-catcher. It was a heated battle. Many first-time voters were registered. Among the instructions given to first-time voters was this: "Be sure to fill out every line of the ballot." This instruction was given so that absentee voters were sure to fill in all the necessary parts, and because both sides wanted to be sure their new registrants also voted for the various party members following along on their coattails. (These were some popular dog-catchers.)
At the conclusion of the election, there was a tie. One million people voted for Patrick Poochlover, and one million voted for Debby Dogcoddler. After an automatic recount, it was revealed that thousands of ballots had been disqualified because voters filled in both the box indicating their candidate of choice, and filled in that candidate's name in the write-in section. Of these, 60% were for Debbie Dogcoddler. Such ballots looked like this:
____________________________
Vote for dog-catcher:
[X] Debbie Dogcoddler
[ ] Patrick Poochlover
[ ] Frank Fartface
[X] Other: Debbie Dogslapper
____________________________
Wisconsin law provides that a voter must "only fill in one bubble per election on the ballot," but also provides that in cases of disputed ballots "the intent of the voter" shall be the guide. In the event of a tie, the election will be decided by coin toss.
If you were forced to declare the winner of the election, would you include the ballots on which people filled out the candidate's name twice? Please offer your reasoning, as I'm curious about people's thinking on this.
-
Re: A Thought Experiment About Elections
It the example given, the intent of the voter is impossible to determine, therefore the ballot doesn't count.
Debbie Dogcoddler was checked.
Debbie Dogslapper was written in.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
Blümchen—My Avatar
Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
Mentes Liberae et Mercat?s Liberi
-
Re: A Thought Experiment About Elections
Shit. Pretend I didn't fuck that up.
(I decided at the last minute that Dogslapper might be prejudicial.)
-
Re: A Thought Experiment About Elections
I'd count those ballots towards Slapper.
Writing in the name is enough to show intent without checking it. Thus, Slapper would get two intent points, and coddler would get one.
2 > 1, so
Slapper.
-
Re: A Thought Experiment About Elections
I think the OP intended for the name checked to match the name written in. If so, the ballot may have been kicked out by machine scoring as an "over-vote". A human review would reveal obvious voter intent, so the ballot should count under the standard given.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
Blümchen—My Avatar
Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
Mentes Liberae et Mercat?s Liberi
-
Re: A Thought Experiment About Elections
That was indeed my intent. Though we should appreciate that meta-moment of you divining my intent.
-
Indifferent to bacon
Re: A Thought Experiment About Elections
If the names matched, I think they should count as votes for the named person.
"Lizard People" doesn't count, though, no matter how lizardy Debbie might be.
-
Re: A Thought Experiment About Elections
Well i have two opinions.
Do these ballots count as "disputed ballots" or "invalid ballots"
If they are "disputed" i would say what is the argument?
If the law states that the intent of the voter must be the guide, then who can argue that the voter didn't intend to vote for Debbie Dogcoddler?
J
Posting rules
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum rules