Lorenzini gets luck of the draw, wins Green Tree Council seat
To break a tie for the fourth and final open seat on Green Tree Borough Council, lots were cast on Nov. 22, and declared David Lorenzini the winner.
Lorenzini, 48, a Republican, bested Democrat Kristina Pusateri, 50. Both candidates received 497 votes in the Nov. 5 general election.
The casting of lots, a practice that dates back to biblical times, is used to decide tied election races in Allegheny County. A leather jar is filled with 51 individually numbered wooden pellets. The candidate who draws the highest number is declared the winner.
Lorenzini drew 35. Pusateri drew nine.
Mark Wolosik, manager of the county elections division, presided over the proceedings in the county office building. He said there is at least one tie every election cycle.
“There is no way to have a redo vote,” he said. “So this is written into the code.”
This was the only tied race between balloted candidates, he said, though he expects there to be more ties between write-in candidates for positions like inspector and judge of elections.
Lorenzini said he never imagined the race would be decided in such a way.
“I thought it would be by a vote of council . . . never this,” he said.
The results were certified Monday by the county elections board.
Megan Guza is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5810 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Add Megan Guza to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.