> And the fact that the vast majority were for one candidate. That struck me as weird too. Why would so many of Hutchinson's votes be second-rank, with no firs

> And the fact that the vast majority were for one candidate. That struck me as weird too. Why would so many of Hutchinson's votes be second-rank, with no first-ranked candidate? Hutchinson was the incumbent; one might divine from tealeaf reading that these voters knew about Hutchinson, and based on his record, did't care to rank him first. But they didn't like any other candidate well-enough to give him first rank. I think perhaps naive voters treat the ranks they award like gold stars on a student's workbook; more a mark of approval than a vote in election. But who's to say?