Ok, on second read, I see where the article says double voting occurred. I guess there was no way to pinpoint precisely which way these votes went. It'd be helpful if the reporter mentioned the total number of votes cast and how many for each candidate prior to the ruling, along with the total number of actual voters. 

The judge's decision to go with "historical averages" seems arbitrary hedging. Reminds me of something William Burroughs wrote: "as one judge said to the other, be just; and if you can't be just, be arbitrary." The judge's ruling is ripe for fineagling to achieve a desired outcome. I''m not suggesting he did, I'm saying those with skin in the game might declare it. So it goes with our jurisprudence. 

Do over –