The Lighthouse Keeper
BY DANIEL W. DRAKE
An off-island story this week caught our attention. It was about a deer; a deer with, broadly speaking, seven legs and other features not common to a single animal. According to the news reports, such a beast was discovered in the woods of Wisconsin. The circumstances were reported in a detail which need not be repeated here, both because they weren’t very pleasant and because they were fairly pedestrian. (If the reader wishes more, there is always Google.)

Despite that, two aspects of the story were worth noting. One was that this anomaly of nature was not preserved for scientific investigation, but rather dealt with in the usual fashion. The second, which resulted in part, no doubt, from the fact that the evidence had been destroyed, was that the story developed a certain fluidity, changing and growing in the retelling.

It certainly isn’t every day or even — for most of us — once in a life time, that one comes across a seven-legged deer. Whether, under similar circumstances, we would have the presence of mind to turn the animal over to science rather than following the primeval urge to eviscerate and consume it, is something about which we can only speculate. After all, human frailties often intervene in an otherwise rational process.

By the same token, if we were the person who had this experience, we can be sure that the tale would be told and retold, and the story would soon take on a life of its own. Whether or not everything said about this particular deer is true can never be verified. But, whatever the truth, we can be certain that the person who ran into this animal had a unique experience.

To one observer, the vote recount held this past Saturday for the selectman’s special election had some similar characteristics. The recount happened. The result of the original ballot count was reconfirmed. It was all over in about an hour. Like the deer, the recount was a done deal, with no way to go back and verify what happened. And, as with the deer, by the time cocktail hour came around Saturday evening the stories were out there as topic of discussion #1 and growing with the retelling.

Walking in a few minutes before 8 a.m., when the tally was scheduled to begin, one found the high school cafeteria divided into two sections by a plastic chain. The official side had a number at which 20 teams of two people were poised to begin the recount. Beyond those tables, by the windows, there was another long table from which Assistant Town Clerk James Grieder presided over the process. Clusters of election officials, including the registrars – the arbiters of challenged ballots, surrounded the long table.

On the unofficial side of the chain were observers, both official and unofficial, milling around or already looking bored in their seats. On a beautiful Saturday morning in December, several expressed the preference of being elsewhere.

At almost the stroke of 8 o’clock, Paul DeRensis walked in, donned a name tag on which was written “Town Counsel” and joined the crowd at the long table. That, apparently, was the signal for the official observers to cross to the official side of the chain and take up their posts looking over the shoulders of the counting teams.

The teams were each given a packet or “block” of 50 ballots to tally. As any ballots were challenged, they were brought to the registrars, who determined, based on what they saw, how the votes had been cast. After each team finished the first block by listing the outcome on a ledger and then counting the ballots for each candidate to make sure the totals on the ledger sheet were equal to the ballots for each candidate, they were given a second block to repeat the process. (The actual recount took less than 30 minutes.) The recounted blocks were returned to the long table for the cumulative vote count to be tallied by hand on another ledger sheet.

From behind the chain, at first everything seemed very normal. The ballots one could see were cleanly marked and many of the teams finished their counting work expeditiously. As most of the teams finished, however, it became apparent that a few of the teams were struggling. The teams with the last two blocks to be counted were having some real difficulty, not in reading the ballots, but in getting the totals to add up. One was even given a new ledger sheet to start the tally all over again.

After the challenged ballots were decided and the cumulative ledger totaled, Mr. Grieder announced the outcome. 2007 ballots were cast. Two contested ballots were decided in favor of Ms. Roggeveen and seven challenged ballots had been segregated for potential judicial review. The registrars would meet on Monday to confirm the outcome. And in the main event, Ms. Flanagan Stover again prevailed, this time by one vote, 805-804.

Then everyone packed up and went off to enjoy their beautiful Saturday. As with the deer, it was over and done. At the same time, the conversations started up again.

Since the election on November 21, with the outcome then by a two-vote margin and the statistically improbable change in fortunes between Flanagan Stover and Roggeveen when the results of the ballots rejected by the machine were added to the machine-count total, stories have been flying around town. They have been aimed at both candidates. The even closer outcome of the recount; the fact that three ballots more were in the recount total than after the election itself; the certification of the election not happening for a couple of more days; and some stories recounted by election officials and official observers only added fuel to the flames of speculation.

But even as they related their experiences or perceptions - some of which were not very kind, those involved in the recount did raise and agree on one point: the election process is run by humans and humans sometimes make mistakes. There was agreement that, ideally, things might run better, but the process does work — most of the time. And if and when it doesn’t work so smoothly, well that is the cost of having a free election process. That was good news.

The better news is that the election should be over. Patty Roggeveen said that there would be no further challenge of the results, so with the vote certified by the registrars, everyone can move forward into the new year. What a great Christmas present!

Despite the hyperbole surrounding both the strange deer and the strange special election of 2007, the tales will recede to the backs of people minds, to be replaced by conversation about the next – whatever.

Merry Christmas, Best Wishes for the Holiday Season and a very Happy New Year.

• • • I

The “Lighthouse Keeper” reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the editorial position of The Nantucket Independent. Please send any comments to drake@nantucketindependent.com