In the Ward 4 ward councilor race, it would be interesting to know:
- How many Ward 4 voters wrote in Allison Sharma the Ward 4 at-large race
- How many Ward 4 voters wrote in Allison in both the at-large and the ward races (the base coverers)
The second number is key, because the first number is not the measure of possibly confused voters who didn’t get their preference recorded. The base coverers did record their preference in the right race. The difference between the two numbers would be the number of voters who, we can reasonably conclude, intended to vote for Allison in the ward race, but mistakenly voted for her in the at-large race.
It’s unlikely that there’s a theory by which those votes should be counted in the official results. (Got an election law theory that would have them counted? Let us know.) But, it would be nice to have a clear idea of what the Ward 4 voters intended.
Is there a precedent? What’s the protocol for a recount?
I’m confused. Is there a recount or not? If Allison Sharma received votes in the Ward 4 at-large spot, will they be counted as votes for the ward seat?
@Sean, another interesting point to consider is the number of voters who intentionally voted for my opponent because they met or learned about him and decided they wanted him to represent them, vs. the number who knew nothing about the race but filled in the bubble next to him name out of a sense of duty to cast a vote in every race. Of course, there is no way to get that number. But I talked to several folks who had already voted absentee before I canvassed them and who admitted that they always fill in the bubble in an uncontested race even if they know nothing about the candidate.
Regardless of how this ends, I’m confident that more people intentionally voted for me than for my opponent.
I can’t imagine that votes for at-large can be changed to ward only even though they were for the same person but still it would be interesting to know the numbers.
I don’t know if Allison Sharma would have won if the votes had been placed correctly but it will be a real shame if she lost because some voters were confused.
I do know a couple of voters who made that mistake and a couple who were not from ward 4 but wrote her in anyway. There were some last minute Facebook lists that just said to write in Allison Sharma without mentioning the ward number.
Even though she has called for a recount, it will be a recount of votes placed correctly.
I think both candidates ran good campaigns, and certainly Allison Sharma moved many to vote for her. Kudos to her grass roots campaign and to the professional campaign run by Chris Markiewicz.
In all fairness, it also should not be overlooked that in uncontested races (where an opponent’s name is not listed on the ballot), voters may not fill in the oval for the candidate because they believe it is meaningless to do so. There were a few races in this election cycle that were uncontested, and I know that I, for one, did not fill in the ovals for the candidates in these races. I would suspect that I am not alone.
On a ballot, filling in an oval next to a candidate’s name, or leaving it blank, may be flawed, but it is the best signal we have of a voter’s intent. To make inferences around why someone filled in the oval next to a candidate’s name, beyond that they intended to vote for that candidate, seems like a stretch to me.
@Allison Sharma You should be ashamed of yourself. You lost the election. Get over it. Act like an adult and concede. Stop your wild temper tantrum and stop crying about how people don’t know how to use a ballot. It’s unbelievable you would suggest that people who voted for Chris had no intention of actually voting for him. I find it unbelievable that anyone would vote for you when you clearly have no idea about the real issues facing Newton.
Steven:
That’s not a helpful comment. A candidate has the right to ask for a recount. Write-in campaigns are messy. Accusing Allison of having a “wild temper tantrum” is untrue. I don’t know who you are, but the only person having a temper tantrum sir is you. If Scott Lennon wants a recount, I’d be fine with it. If Julie M wants a recount, fine with that too. All a recount does is verify the votes.
Especially considering how Chris became the sole candidate for the spot, I’m shocked you’d even post this. Why don’t you just let the process play out, verify the votes, and stop posting unfair and inflammatory posts until it is done.
Jeez, you are ruining my “Newton is a great community with nice people” buzz. Take the high road and fly right buddy.
I feel no “sense of duty” to fill in the bubbles next to candidates in uncontested races but I guess it’s a possibility. I blank uncontested races.
As someone who lives in Ward 4, I voted No on the Charter and also voted for Chris who also supported No on the Charter. I did not vote for Allison because she supported the Yes vote on the Charter. I found that internally consistent and suspect others in the ward voted for Chris for similar reasons.
The issue obviously is not that absolutely nobody consciously chose to vote for Chris. It seems beyond doubt that a questionable series of events left him as the only candidate on the ballot and some people may have voted for him only because they vote in every race, even uncontested races. Such people certainly exist. Over 25 years of voting I’ve generally been one of them. I voted in every uncontested race yesterday.
It’s also beyond serious question that some voters may have wanted to vote for Allison but did so incorrectly because of confusion with the W4 at-large race or about the rules.
Neither of those premises should be controversial. And Allison should be mighty proud of getting well over 900 votes as a write-in candidate with such a potentially confusing ballot.
Here is the state law on this. Votes written in in one race cannot be counted in another.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elestkr/stkridx.htm
Thanks for finding that, Peter. What I suspected.
It’s hard to stomach a loss due to write-in confusion. That the necessity for the write-in in the first place has still not been explained leaves the integrity of this election process in question.
I think a recount where we learn how many people wrote in Sharma on thecat large race will give useful information. I understand that they don’t legally count. But if it is found that significantly more people ( say 50 or more) had the intent to vote for Allison rather than Chris , but cannot be legally counted, then Chris should at least consider withdrawing in the interests of allowing the will of the people to prevail. That would be up to him of course.
I think Dale has it about right. It’s not just about providing information to reverse the outcome. People can draw different conclusions from the data, but more information about the ballots, along the lines I’ve suggested, will give us an understanding of how we interpret Chris’s victory.
@LauraBerman there were more than a few uncontested races. Of the 25 races, 13 were uncontested. If you count by seat 17 of the 33 seats were uncontested.
As for voting in uncontested elections, I only vote for candidates I approve of – which means I left many of the uncontested elections blank.
But Dale, how does one know whether voters intentionally placed stickers in the at-large portion of the ballot because they felt Allison Sharma’s support of the charter was more in-line with the perspective of an at-large councilor than a ward councilor? How much is it fair to read into a voter’s intent? At some point a line is crossed, and while I’m not sure what that point is, I believe counting votes from another race definitely goes too far.
Dale, to suggest that Chris should withdraw because voters didn’t follow directions, is rather Draconian. Truly, the ballot was not really confusing at all, it’s the same format as in every other election; I’ve heard Allison Sharma went to great lengths to inform voters how to do the write-in as well. He has no obligation nor should he even consider such action. Besides that, 50 misplaced votes wouldn’t be enough, he leads by 178. Last but most importantly, we are a nation, city, of laws; this would be illegal. If you were he, I’m certain you would not be even hinting at this move.
Jon, I meant if counting the votes including the misplaced ones she ended up having more than 50 more than Chris….if it was just 5 or 10 it wouldn’t be as dramatic difference. But there were 60 misplaced votes in one precient. What if it was 240 more votes in total, and she led by 62 “intended ” votes? ( also myunderstanding is that there is a required recount in write in situations and that the gap could be narrowed by those who wrote her in but failed to fill in the bubble, so weren’t scanned. Those votes do count.)
I made it clear I understand he has no legal obligation but it would be sad if the will if the voters did not prevail.
Yes I am an Allison supporter. I find it annoying that Chris hardly campaigned, had maybe 2 or 3 house parties, no other events on his website, never knocked on my door, never left campaign literature, from what I heard, was out of town frequently during the campaign, ( I apologize if perhaps he had a family emergency) , and was frequently heard to complain about the effort involved in campaigning. And yet he probably remains the winner solely because he had enough advance notice that Jay was withdrawing to get his name on the ballot. It doesn’t feel good.
Dale, it’s my understanding that many Ward 4 residents voted for Chris Markiewicz because they felt he was a strong candidate, had applicable experience, a deepunderstanding of the issues, and appreciated his “No” on Charter stance. Chris had a message that resonated with many residents, who in turn went to the polls and voted for him.
@Dale Smith – Please take a look at the following link which outlines rules of write-in campaigns, specifically the section which talks about the rules governing handing out of stickers:
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elestkr/stkridx.htm
Stickers cannot be handed out within 150 ft of the entrance of a polling station. This state law was violated at Burr where supporters were handing out stickers at the crosswalk immediately outside the main entrance.
@Peter: The law is consistent on holding campaign signs and handing out stickers. Both need to be done outside of 150 feet from the polling station. In practice at the Burr location, sign holders stand along the front sidewalk and have been doing that forever as far as I know (or at least for the 17 years I’ve lived in Auburndale and voted there) – and they are always in violation of the law.
Prior to election day, I reviewed the city’s maps showing the 150′ radius at each polling location. When I saw the Burr map and realized that the sign holders are always in violation, I researched further – talking with both the city clerk and an expert on electioneering laws. Both confirmed that holding signs and handing out stickers are governed by the same rules, and that if *in practice*, sign holding typically takes place inside of the 150′ radius, sticker distribution could take place there as well. If someone had asked the police officer on duty at Burr to move my volunteers to the outside of the 150′ radius, the officer would have had to move all of the sign holders to the outside of the 150′ radius as well.
I did my homework on this and am confident that my team didn’t break any rules on election day.
@Lauren Berman: As Robert Fitzpatrick mentioned above, no one is doubting that many people went to the polls and voted for Chris because he had a message that resonated with them. I have friends and neighbors who voted for him because of his tireless work on the Rowe St. project and because of his stance opposing the Charter. Chris absolutely earned their votes.
I also earned the support of many people because *my* message resonated with them. However, getting votes as a write-in candidate is exceptionally difficult. Voters need to go out of their way to remember to write a candidate in… it’s not simply a matter of seeing a name on the ballot and remembering that the candidate had made an good impression on you or that you remembered the candidate had been endorsed by the Tab. I worked incredibly hard to try to overcome the challenges associated with being a write-in candidate. To think that I was indeed able to rally enough folks to remember to write me in, but that some accidentally wrote me in under the at-large spot due to our large and confusing ballot, is beyond frustrating.
The fact that the way in which my opponent ended up on the ballot unopposed has never fully been explained makes the frustration even greater.
No doubt, Allison, you ran a terrific campaign and you, too, impressed many voters! Kudos to you. Write-in campaigns are inherently difficult and an uphill battle. Your support in the community is clear, and you should be proud of everything you accomplished.
Peter:
Can you respond to Allison and acknowledge that not only did she anwer your question, but that her response was well thought out and showed the homework her campaign did. You were effectively calling them cheaters, which is ironic considering how Chris manuevered to be the sole person on the ballet. Just sayin’.
I really hope Allison runs again. Or absent Allison, I really hope Chris gets a challenger next election. Nothing personal. Just think someone should actually make him work for it next time.
Thanks Fig.
@Fig: Well – they got it wrong at Williams. I arrived later in the morning at Williams (front side on Grove Street)an and stood with the Sharma folks and David Olson came by and told us we were too close.