Is anyone surprised? Wilkerson and Chang-Diaz have sought paperwork for a re-count.
Interesting to see how Wilkerson can master that recount paperwork, but not actually filing for elections or campaign finance reporting (twice.)
I thought Wilkerson might want another public office. Playing the sore loser in denial is not the best way to decorate that stage.
Two years ago, it was Chang-Díaz who got the recount moving. Then though, it was all sticker, many write-in ballots were iffy, and the city elections folk suddenly discovered over two and one-half thousand uncounted ballots the next day in what had been a 141-vote Wilkerson victory. It ended up being almost 700 with the missing ballots.
Who's figuring that the Wilkerson camp will portray this is proving her fighting spirit instead of dumbness?
50.57% to 49.3%? In some places, a race that close would be considered an automatic recount unless the candidates agreed to the results. As you noted, things sometimes go missing or get overlooked unless it is so close.
Especially when they might mysteriously find another big chunk of ballots, the large majority of which are for Wilkerson.
Funny how that worked last election...
That which can be ascribed to sheer incompetence. As somebody else has already mentioned here, the Boston elections department has not exactly crowned itself in glory in recent elections.
They could have been "discovered", but they may also have been "misplaced" in a massively selective fashion.
That could work both ways.
I voted in this election, and it appears that they had election monitors in the polling places. Really bored looking ones, but monitors nonetheless. Might be hard to explain a big chunk of ballots "appearing."
If the count does turn out wrong, it'd likely be the optical scan voting machines. How about bringing back the big behemoths with all of the dials and levers? They may not have been accurate, but at least you felt like you were doing something significant with all of the clunks and whirrs.
In fact, they have the exact same problem as modern electronic voting machines: no way to verify that a vote was really counted. Paper ballots are a much better way to go.
Only New York state still uses these ancient things, which aren't even manufactured anymore.
I worked the polls (inspector is the title for most of us) this year for the first time. Candidates had their observers; ours happened to include Sonia's mother. Federal officials still float around among polls checking for ADA compliance and such. The city has its own elections folk checking in.
Nonetheless, there's many chance for incidental human bumbling. Cops per voting precinct take blue envelopes with the tallies the automated scanners spit out. The actual ballots go into big manila envelopes, separated, with those that have write-in votes in one for example. All the key material moves to the polling places and then at the end of evening to city hall, all locked and moved by police officers.
The cops take the boxes with all the goodies down to city hall for tabulation, checking, and recording of types and write-ins, and then safekeeping. Just in the Boston area there are many thousands of ballots and dozens of tally tapes from the machines, as well as those that require hand tabulation.
While the tapes should indicate if a wad of ballots is missing, that may take a bit to discover and rectify. By now though, the ballots cast almost certainly equals those in hand and counted.
While largely automated, there's chances for errors. Any changes in this election should be few though, unlike the largely visually and manually recorded stickers two years ago.
I used to do alot more campaign stuff and its funny how different every city and town are. I think the problem with Boston is its so big, Im used to dealing with smaller places where every single ballot goes to the same building to the same person. Its always great watching the police escorted ballot boxes making their way into city hall one by one and dropped on a desk as they were entered.
The cop in one of our two precincts at our polling place lives on the block. The one(s) from the other precinct swapped off, but Mike did the whole 15-hour shift -- and voted. He was dragging a bit by 9 p.m. when he wheeled out the silver box and hand carried the magic blue envelope. I think I'd like to watch the scene at city hall when all those boxes arrive and get processed.
My father used to do that duty in the 1950s. Unpaid. He had to work his regular night shift, then work the day at the voting place, and then take the box on the trolly with him to City hall. Then go back to work his regular shift.
That was how things were before the union got in.
Does Boston have a central vote counting area? It would seem kind of weird to me if all the boxes went back to city hall, thats a pretty long haul.
The Election Department at Boston City Hall is the central location.
I meant to say for each area, but apparently didnt type that.
I would have to say that department must just be insane on election night. Ive only been in the room in cities much smaller then Boston (100,000 and less) and even then things are a bit crazy.
With a result this close, I'm happy to see a recount occur, if only as a check on the integrity of the voting process. Boston's election department has had serious problems in the past, and I'd like to see if they have been fixed.
...to the comments and actions of the candidates. Tally up the graceful v. sore loser entries as this goes on and completes.
I agree but reserve judgement until she comes out and says something really stupid and offensive lol
I dont like her but its so close a recount is the obvious thing to do. Its just funny because if she was as proactive about getting her signatures in for her last election as she is for this recount she never would have had someone like Chang Diaz show up and steal her thunder.
I wonder when these photos were taken? Wilkerson doesnt look all too pleased in it.
That's her happy face.
Yes, I agree with those who say that the recount is warranted, given the results. And, wouldn't it be automatic? (It's what, greater than .5%? of votes tallied?)
Dianne can be gracious when the final results are in.
The diff is 228 votes out of almost 18 thousand -- about 1.5%.
At least, I don't see any provision for them on Secretary Galvin's web page How to Request a Recount.
There is a special simplified procedure (with far lower signature requirements) for requesting a district-wide recount if the margin of victory is less than 0.5%. But that doesn't apply here.
PolitickerMA has the list, but basically it'll be the Roxbury, Dorchester and the South End bits of the district for Wilkerson and Jamaica Plain for Chang-Diaz.
Because of the expected massive turnout in November and her high name recognition, Wilkerson has an excellent chance of winning a sticker campaign.
If I were her, I would go for it and start printing and distributing the stickers now.
Yes there will be a massive turnout, which is bad for a sticker campaign. Many of the voters will vote before election day via absentee ballots, and those would by a large margin normally be Wilkerson people (older people tend to go with the machine, just the way it is) with no wilkerson on the ballot they will draw a line for the person on the ballot, Chang Diaz. Massive turnout also means you need to get stickers in the hands of more people to win the campaign. Chang Diaz is on the ballot so she already has that going for her, many people will just draw the line for her. She can also go out and campaign adding even more people to her tally. Wilkerson is not on the ballot so every person she gets has to know she is running, and she has to get those stickers in their hands. Wilkerson also has to compete with the media market because it will be covering the prez race, and a good chunk of the institutional volunteers she may have been able to pull from may very well be phone banking and in NH campaigning for Obama. Also dont expect her friends to stick by her against a Democrat on the ticket, they may not campaign against her but they will not come running to her side now.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2022 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy