Everyone check out this post by sometime LoCO commenter Mitch Trachtenberg, a volunteer for and co-instigator of the groundbreaking Humboldt County Election Transparency Project.

In short, the Election Transparency Project’s first run through the squeaky-close Bergel/Newman Eureka City Council race came up with slightly different numbers than the elections office did. The project calls two more votes for Bergel and four fewer votes for Newman than the election office’s semi-final report did on Friday.

How can this be? Is our tallying software broken? Are our officials corrupt?

Not at all. What Trachtenberg shows is what your Lost Coast Outpost witnessed Friday, as elections manager Kelly Sanders and county clerk-recorder Carolyn Crnich prepared to publish an election update: A surprising number of people completely mess up their ballots. When they do, a surprising amount of human judgment comes in to play. Did this voter intend to vote for Candidate X or Candidate Y? Or neither? Or (erroneously) both?

When an ambiguous case like this arises, a human being must attempt to discern the intent of the confused voter. They study the ambiguous ballot, then they make a snap call.

Take a look at the ballot below, which Trachtenberg posted as illustration. Do you call it for Newman, Bergel or neither? What was the voter’s intent?

Trachtenberg thought Bergel, because of the “no” next to Newman’s name and the arrow pointing to Bergel. Myself, I would be tempted to call it for Newman, on the theory that the “no” goes with the arrow because the Bergel box is barely marked. But it’s all largely guesswork.

The relief is that there are not enough such ambiguous cases to change the results — this time around. But what do you say? How would you call this vote?