Two guys I know are having a friendly — and I hope it stays that way — argument over a bet they made. We'll call them Mutt and Jeff. Mutt bet Jeff an expensive dinner that Kevin McCarthy would become Speaker of the House. Jeff bet against him but they both agree Jeff's phrasing was "I'll bet that he never gets 218 votes."
So now Mutt is claiming victory because McCarthy got elected and Jeff is claiming victory because McCarthy never got to 218 votes. McCarthy won on the fifteenth (!) ballot with 216 because six G.O.P. holdouts voted "Present." You see the problem.
Last night, they exchanged a series of e-mails with each claiming to have won the wager…and just when it began to get a bit heated, Mutt suggested that they pick some mutual friend to play "judge" in this matter and Jeff suggested me. Mutt agreed and each of them sent me the whole message thread and a pledge that, no matter how I ruled, they would abide by my decision and remain my friend. They said nothing about remaining friends with each other.
Following due deliberation, I just sent each the following…
Unless there are Dominion voting machines involved or Mike Lindell comes up with more of his always-airtight evidence of voter fraud, I'm going to rule that you both were right so you both won. Go to dinner. Get separate checks. And each of you pays the other guy's check (including tip) as long as the total isn't more than 20% higher than the one you run up. If it is, the person who ran up the check pays the overage.
That is my final ruling. Court stands adjourned.
As I was writing this post, Jeff e-mailed me that he will comply. We're waiting to hear from Mutt.