In order to comply with the Open Meeting Law, this warning is being submitted in anticipation of the BCA’s decision today to proceed with a recount of the March 1 vote. If the recount request is denied or another date and time is chosen, this meeting will be cancelled and another scheduled.
….
BRATTLEBORO BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
Selectboard Meeting Room
Thursday, March 17, 2016
10:30 AM
AGENDA
1. CONVENE MEETING
2. PROCEED WITH BALLOT RECOUNT OF MARCH 1 ELECTION FOR RACE OF SELECTBOARD FOR ONE YEAR
3. OTHER BUSINESS
5. ADJOURN
Annette L. Cappy
Brattleboro Town Clerk
230 Main Street, Suite 108
Brattleboro. VT 05301
acappy@brattleboro.org
ph 802-251-8129
fax 802-257-2312
Results - DeGray by 1 Vote
DeGray 1506
Gartenstein 2019
Schwenk 1505
Odd
Original count plus 2 recounts result in 3 different totals? That seems really odd to me. I guess we resign ourselves to another year of same old/same old.
Too bad – this board could have really used some new blood and forward thinking.
3rd time's a charm
It does make one wonder what the results of another count would be. Would it match any of the previous numbers?
The new margin seems close enough to call for a recount! : )
I second a recount of the recounts
If recounts are really that important to the process this is a good opportunity for the Town Clerk’s office to assure us of the final count. Moreover, using different people.
I wonder if a second machine count is possible?
Like
Chris, we need a like button on here! So I can like this comment.
Today is brought to you by the number... um
I’m pretty sure we’ve had 2 general elections and 6 recounts so far. If we have another, we’ll have had 4 general elections and 2 recounts! Or perhaps 1 general and 4 recounts. I’ll count again.
: )
One
I guess the future will have to wait.
3 counts, 3 different totals
Anyone for 3 out of 5? What is going on with this?
I think they need to do
I think they need to do another recount, they need to come up with the same number twice in this case since the margin of error is beyond narrow.
It's beyond bizarre. How can
It’s beyond bizarre. How can anyone be declared the winner OR loser when there are 3 different totals? This certainly doesn’t prove anything except, possibly, that counting is not the skill set of some Brattleboro residents. I hope Avery follows through on questioning this – who knows what the next total might be?
Candidates in flux
Glad you got this going, I was wondering the same. It’s the cosmic uncertainty principle. “Attempts to increase the precision of one measurement result in less precise measures of the other member of the pair.
Seems only a revote can nullify this quantum phenomena.
Schrödinger's cat
iBrattleboro’s philosopher in residence, Spinoza, has nailed it: There is nothing wrong with the vote tabulation machines; there was nothing wrong with either of the two re-counts: The varying results of the recent Selectboard election are simply due to an ordinary, everyday quantum phenomena, originally brought to the world’s attention in 1927 by the great German physicist, Werner Heisenberg.
For those of us who are mathematically inclined, Heisenberg formulated the underlying principle with the rather elegant equation:
ÓxÓp≥ h/2
In 1935, the Austrian physicist, Erwin Schrödinger devised a way to test the uncertainty principal through animal experimentation. (This was well before the animal rights movement.) Schrödinger placed his cat into an apparatus which simultaneously killed the cat, while leaving the cat alive.
This apparatus was remarkably similar to the voting machines, with the major difference being that, instead of placing a cat into the apparatus, we place our ballots into the voting machine. While inside of the voting machine, like Schrödinger’s cat which is both alive and dead, Avery Schwenk has been elected to the Brattleboro Selectboard and Dick DeGray defeated; while simultaneously DeGray has been elected and Schwenk defeated.
In 1927, few were able to understand that a cat may be simultaneously dead and alive. That was 89 years ago in a much less sophisticated era. These days, of course, any educated person takes it as a matter of course that something can be, at the same time, both true and untrue.
Once you accept that something can be true and untrue at the same time, you realize that anything is possible. A beautiful princess may kiss Dick DeGray and turn him into a handsome prince. Or, simultaneously, he may remain a frog.
A little closer to home
Quantum mechanics is rife with theorems, interpretations and speculative natures that are too much math and too little practical applications for most of our 7.3 billion brains on this planet, our philosopher in residence spinoza’s present company, excepted, of course.
Aside from lacking inline citations, and as entertaining as the absurdity of this Schrödinger’s Cat theoretical discussion is in this comment, I would think the less erudite real cause and effect of the SB vote is a little closer to home.
Uncertainty & Hedgehogs
All we have to do is roll candidates at a wall enough times. One will go through.
Quantum Leap
Since there is no simple way to have a neat, clean closure on this vote, except more dubious recounts, I suppose we could move it into the nuance of calibrated mathematics to entertain a quantum leap of sorts.
Wait. So that's it?
3 counts with 3 differing results and it’s put to bed?
Yeah, don't you think they
Yeah, don’t you think they should at least have to do it until they get the same number twice?
Yes!
You wouldn’t get away with giving 3 different answers on a 3rd grade math quiz! This is unacceptable. Not to mention why is this happening at all and what about everything else we vote on? How can we trust any of the numbers to be accurate?
Twice Would Be Nice
Twice would be reassuring for all involved.
In either case the voters seem divided pretty much 50-50 on this, regardless of who “wins”. Both could go to all meetings. Nothing can prevent the “loser” from representing their constituency and lending their wisdom to town affairs by attending and participating in all Selectboard meetings (uncompensated, of course, and without an official vote). Unelected participants at Selectboard meetings sometimes have as much impact as those on the board.
Mixed deal
When the dealer in poker messes up, doesn’t the house do a do-over?
Your point about influence from the audience also having an impact doesn’t cut it, especially given the frequency of executive session.
Is the notion of a revote too outrageous, or too much trouble to consider?
What's that smell?
I believe- although I could be wrong- that Avery has 10 days to dispute this count and bring it before the court. Anyone know more about that procedure?
I agree that this is not only crazy that there were 3 different totals but that few people seem concerned about it and what it could potentially mean for other elections. Will we have to have numerous recounts every time we vote on something ? I can’t think of another situation where 3 different totals would be acceptable. This has a little bit of a foul odor.
It reeks
There needs to be some explanation, at the very very least.
This is unacceptable.
Let's be honest...
If Avery had won on the second recount, would we be hearing such outrage about three, differing vote counts: or would there just be relief?
Are all these complaints basically principled, or are we all just disgusted at the thought having to endure the uncouth DeGray for another year?
Speaking for myself
The idea that recounts turn up different results every time is alarming, period. I don’t care who wins if it’s a viable count. But that there are 3 different totals from 3 counts stinks out loud. What does that bode for any election? Why are there 3 different totals? What’s the discrepency coming from? And why is this not a huge issue? It’s our electoral process, for godssakes! It should freakin matter!
Recount
I believe that when the 2nd recount was done the new state regs were followed. So…votes would have been first tallied by the teams in certain roles. Then they would have been tallied again with the teams switching roles. This would be done until the 2 tallies match.
There needs to be some
There needs to be some clarification on this. If in fact they did recounts until they had two matching votes that’s one thing but we need to know how many recounts it took and if in fact this wasn’t done then there needs to be a recount until there are two matching counts.
Method of the recount
Here is a link to a video of the March 16, 2016 meeting of the Brattleboro Board of Civil Authority, where they discuss why the first recount was faulty; discuss what the recount statute actually requires, and go over their plan for conducting a properly-done recount on the 17th:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXPiR4G-yuw
The entire video is 16 minutes.
Anomalous or Common?
Is this vote vortex which feels out of a Vonnegut story a ‘one and only Brattleboro’ thing? Or are outcomes of votes variable all over, on every level, again and again?
I like to think of a revote because it seems like it’d be so much more accurate by virtue of the intentionality. Feels like the SB election- which was lumped in with National Primary vote -happened on a certain plane of consciousness. Almost a sleepwalking state. Even though I know it’s fantasy civics, can’t distain the idea of a less somnambulistic selection for that seat in light of our “chronosynclastic infundibulum” triggering this wake-up call opportunity.
Good point. This might call
Good point. This might call for a revote since the margin is so insanely close and they can’t seem to get the same number each time they count. Off 1 here, 1 there.
It's close but
Supreme Court says Bush won…. that will work out okay for us, won’t it? : )
OK
So how does a revote get rolling?
A vote is a vote is a vote
Initially, my revote idea came out of there being different results with each tally. It was as if a horse race had a photo finish, but the shots were from diverse angles so that no clear winner could be discerned. How could a payout be justified with such uncertainty? If there were an actual tie, wouldn’t a revote seem like a fair response? The fact that no duplicable counts have been achieved- that I know of- the minuscule difference speaks to a clean shot, a new vote getting the desired result, a clear winner of the contest.
I’m not sure how this works in practical terms. There’s the logistic angle, but also considerations of how previous voting should impact outcome versus the addition of new voters pulled into the election. Knowing the quirkiness of how this town works, I’d guess they’d veer from from anything so fickle as say, survey monkey, to gauge the will of the people. There’d be little chance of leaving it up to chance, flipping a coin. And getting creative like having a Rap Battle between candidates is out of the question.
So my best bet is that a revote would get rolling when a certain number of signatures on a petition call for it. But I can see that method being contested. And I can see that result being appealed, on and on, all the way up to the Supreme Court, which due to current obstructionist policies might end in a even four/four split, another tie…
All I know, as a skater, if you want to claim you’ve learned and earned a new trick, you have to land it more than once. Otherwise how do you know your victory is not just dumb luck?
Commons report on recount
“On March 17, the BCA gathered again for a second recount. This time, five groups of four people counted packets of 50 ballots, compared to the previous four groups of three. Each packet was counted twice, and the two resulting tally sheets needed to match. If they did not, the ballots were recounted until the results
were consistent.
Because the words “Schwenk” and “blank” sound very much alike, Cappy also instructed the counters to use the candi- dates’ first names on the second recount.
The first recount took approx- imately three hours. The second recount took closer to seven.
In the end, DeGray received 1,506 votes and Schwenk 1,505 — the same number as on March 1.
After the second recount, Schwenk, who had observed the count, said that he witnessed a lot of human error. But, he added, it was great to see how the process “caught and recti- fied” the errors.
“I have nothing to complain about,” he said. “I’m feeling good about it.”
Cappy was the most relieved by the second recount. The results came closer to the March 1 election results and electronic tabulation machines.
“I do feel better that it’s so close to election day,” she said.”