@petefitz I stand by my statement that your comments appeared contradictory:
Sentence 1:
As called for by state law in the event of a tie vote in the primary, the Fairfax Republican Committee met this evening and selected Chris Santee as the Republican candidate for House in the fall.
You state the FRC chose a candidate as allowed by law, then:
Sentence 2:
In the end, the Committee felt that the final say should go to the people of the town, and now there are three able candidates in the running for the office.
you state the people should have the final say.
The way it reads is that the FRC picked a candidate, but the voters had the final say. There is information you may have been thinking, but it didn't seem to get into the post as I'm sure it all is very clear to you. And without acknowledging the candidates, the statement: "Now there are three able candidates in the running for office" does come off sounding like an insult, implying those who didn't make the cut weren't able. This likely wasn't your intention and because you know what you meant, you can't see how it could be misconstrued.
@johnmitchell:
Peter did a fine job as chair of the committee and the process worked in the way it was intended. The voters in the town should exercise their right to vote and choose the representative who best represents their views.
This was not about Peter's ability to chair a committee (which I've no doubt was more than fine), political parties, or even voting. It was a matter of clarity and my personal view on committees making such choices. It doesn't matter what flavor, it just seems wrong to me--even if it is allowed by law.
@Thor: Well duh. Any party is going to choose its own candidate. Clearly what took place makes sense; however, the there wasn't any information given as to who the other candidate was. There is still the question of a situation with two or more candidates from the same party that results in a tie (it's happened) how can a committee decide fairly then?
Maybe the take away here is more information, not less. Perhaps we've all become to accustomed to short text messages, etc, but some circumstances require max info--this is one of them.