Leaving it at that brought us to this in 2000:
Without the Rule of Law we'll go there again
Posted on 11/23/2004 1:16:29 PM PST by SolidSupplySide
Leaving it at that brought us to this in 2000:
Without the Rule of Law we'll go there again
Since it's a runoff between the top two, there shouldn't have been a write-in at all. I wondered whether the Frye ballots should even count as votes at all, since they have neither official candidate marked.
Since the SD city charter requires the winner to have 50%, and Murphy has only 34% with Frye and Roberts splitting the rest, it appears nobody qualifies to be mayor unless Frye's votes are equivalent to blank (nonexistent) votes.
In a yes/no election, if you punch the 3rd chad, does that count toward the total votes for that question, or do only the yes and no votes count?
Why on earth is a retired judge deciding this issue?
You will note my use of the term "patently obvious" - which by definition is not subject to rational dispute.
Which, if "patently obvious" is the standard, rather than what the written law clearly states, brings me back to my original question:
Who gets to decide what is "patently obvious", you or me?
I see your point, but my only issue from the very beginning was that patently obvious votes should get counted. I don't think any reasonable person could dispute that someone who wrote a name on the write in line and didn't mark anything else intended to vote for the person they wrote in.
If the law doesn't permit counting such votes for whatever reason, then the law should get changed. I am not talking about dimpled chads or whatever that are very, very reasonably subject to differing interpretations.
I can accept not changing the law in the middle of an election, but the law is still stupid. They should be able to treat these the same as they do double votes for the same person.
On this we agree ... from my post #35 ...
Don't like the rules, rewrite the law.
From San Diego Union-Tribune:
The presiding judge of San Diego Superior Court recused all 124 judges on the bench. Murphy, 61, was a judge in San Diego for 15 years before he was elected mayor in 2000.
OK, well we are basically in agreement. There is a slim chance that I would think they should be counted now, but I would have to read the actual statute to know for certain what it says. If it's a discretionary type of thing, then I would support counting them now. If it's not discretionary, then I support following the law (but changing it at the soonest opportunity as far as this goes).
I think that's really the heart of any dispute we might have. I'm just reserving judgment somewhat since I don't know what the statute actually says. I do not support altering the law in the midst of the election, and I do not support legislating from the bench. My bigger question at this point is why they count write-ins at all if write-ins aren't permitted as several people have said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.