Random drawing determines winner of primary voting tie
A random drawing last week determined the winner of a Republican primary in Monroeville that ended in a tie last month.
Republican candidate Dan Alexander won his party's nomination for the Ward 3 seat on Monroeville Council in the Nov. 5 general election.
He'll face Democrat Ron Harvey for the council seat.
Alexander and Republican opponent Len Young both received 109 votes in the May 21 primary, so their political fate was determined by a leather jug and tiny dice numbered 1 through 51. Alexander picked 51. He said the drawing was cordial.
“While candidates are often attacking each other during a campaign, Len Young and myself were able to maintain a friendly and respectful relationship throughout this process,” Alexander said.
“We often spoke with each other and even joked about the outcome of today's drawing. It was very refreshing to have an opponent with such class and respect.”
Young said he doesn't plan to campaign as a write-in.
The random drawing has been used since at least 1937, said Allegheny County Elections Division Manager Mark Wolosik.
Young snapped a photo of the tiny dice and leather jug.
“It's very old fashioned,” he said.
Wolosik said it still is the best way to settle a tie.
Even if the same people who voted the first time were ushered back to the poles for a re-vote, there's a chance it would result in another tie, he said.
There usually is at least one tie each primary in one of the municipal races, Wolosik said.
Kyle Lawson is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8755, or email@example.com.
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 â 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.