Jude 2

Should write in votes be counted and recorded for what they are?

I was told, but will be looking into it myself this next week, that in TN write in votes are tallied as one and put in a pile. They are recoded as x amount of write in votes instead of x amount of votes for John Doe and x amount of votes for so and so, etc.

the time this would take isn't really needed. If the total number of write ins is less than one of the other candidates, then they didn't win, remember the goal of this is to find the winner.

Not really much point in counting individual write-in votes that like add up to less than 1% of the vote total. If -- and it is a huge "IF" -- there was an election year in which voter disgust caused such a massive write-in effort that it was, say. 30% of the votes cast, I'd be all for a total tally that detailed all write-ins.

Does a state have the right to pass legislation that says they don't have to be counted though? If they do pass such then say a crazy year pops up and someone gets 30%; the law would say they don't have to be counted.

Supposedly such a law has been passed in TN. I am going to check.

They are counted, but the expression on them is not singled out. If a candidate has not met the threshhold for ballot access, it is not unreasonable that the government would lump all write-ins (votes that are counted, but whose stated preference is not otherwise categorized and published as such) in "a pile". There is no detriment to any candidate who is trying to help a party's ballot access future, and there is no disenfranchisement. The fact that a voter (or 100 or 1000 voters) writes in a candidate does not mean, constitutionally, that the candidate of their preference deserves any particular recognition as a losing candidate.

If being counted as a candidate is the goal, then ballot access is the means. Now, we can probably agree that states' access requirements get ridiculously high and are designed to protect the two parties in power.

Dolfan, let's get hypothetical. What if Hillary actually got more write in votes than Obama gets votes in any given state?

Full Quiver wrote:Dolfan, let's get hypothetical. What if Hillary actually got more write in votes than Obama gets votes in any given state?

They'd get counted and she'd get "credit". In that case, the statistical significance of the write-in vote total would trigger counts either through (a) statutory procedure, (b) administrative decisions by state election officials, or (c) a judge in the course of someone litigating it.

But, what difference would it make, really, unless it happened in enough states to make the Electoral College count a close call?? Probably, if there were only 1 or 2 states that she won under that situation, the electors would vote for Obama unless he won by an electoral landslide.

if there were only 1 or 2 states that she won under that situation, the electors would vote for Obama unless he won by an electoral landslide.

really?

Well, , I believe they would, but who knows?