The point of the recount is to correct human errors. We’ve already had human errors in regards to ballot counts, what makes you so sure that these 133 ballots exist, and aren’t just another human error in recording?
And isn’t that what the recount is supposed to correct?
No, that’s not right.
In the 10 precincts I recounted, 5 matched exactly. 4 had differences, mostly due to challenges, and a couple ballots that were skipped by the machine because they weren’t marked in the ovals that the machine reads, but to humans, it was clear which candidate the voter chose. In those 4, we reported the corrected results from the recount.
And the last precinct had 1 paper ballot missing – the total paper ballots was 1 less than the votes recorded by the machine on election day. After multiple recounts of those paper ballots by multiple groups of people in front of multiple observers, we finally agreed that the machine had made an error and overcounted 1 ballot, so the results of the recount (1 less vote) was the certified total for that precinct.
(One of the poll workers there gave an explanation of how a paper ballot could be counted twice – it jams in the machine, a worker opens the machine to retrieve it, smooths it out, and feeds it through again, without remembering to check the machine tally to see if was already counted before it jammed. We agreed that this was most likely what had happened.)
So in that case, we seemed to be missing 1 ballot. But we had no proof that it was actually missing, and a reasonable alternative explanation for the missing vote.
But in Minneapolis precinct 3-01, they have very clear evidence that ballots are missing. They have 4 envelopes, marked “envelope 2 of 5”, “envelope 3 of 5”, etc. – but “envelope 1” is missing! And the total count is off significantly – 133 votes – from the total on election day. Nobody has any convincing explanation for the discrepancy other than that the ballots were lost. Some possible explanations were suggested, but didn’t work out.
So it’s clear that some (6-7%) of the ballots are missing. Therefore the Secretary of State, following state rules, has ordered them to use the election night numbers, as the more accurate ones. I believe the campaign would still be able to challenge ballots in the ones that are not missing. (But I have heard informally that there were almost no challenges in this precinct anyway.)
Was the process of the initial rejections standardized?
Quite right – those absentee ballots are still sealed inside envelopes, so only the voter knows who they will count for. And there are certainly enough of them to tip it either way.
Here’s a few theories, either way:[ul][li]Absentee voters are usually older, so more conservative, so these votes would favor Coleman.[/li][li]Obama & the DFL did a big push to have their loyal workers vote absentee so they could spend election day getting out votes, so these votes are mostly democrats, and would favor Franken.[/li][li]Many of the absentee votes are people in military service, thus more conservative, so these votes would favor Coleman.[/li][li]Young people at college voting absentee are more likely to have had their absentee ballot rejected, and these were mostly Obama, democratic votes, so these votes would favor Franken.[/li][li]Most of the rejected absentee votes came from outstate, rural areas, where the republican poll workers would recognize the names of the democrats in the area, and might be more likely to find a reason to reject those votes, so these votes would favor Franken.[/li][/ul]There are many possible theories on who these votes would favor.
Feel free to make up a few of your own!
But in reality, the campaigns (both of them) got the names of the people whose absentee ballots were rejected weeks ago. They have certainly been looked up on the party databases by now. And no doubt campaign workers have phoned or visited every one of them, and asked them who they voted for. It’s quite possible that all these 500-1000 people have been personally called by the candidates. Some people won’t tell, of course, but many will. I imagine the campaigns internally have a fairly good idea how these absentee ballots split. (And the fact that the Franken campaign wants them counted, and the Coleman campaign does not, tells me that both campaigns came up with the same end result from this count.)
t-bonham explained it well already: there isn’t much debate at this point that an envelope of votes has gone missing. The issue is only what is the least unjust way to deal with it.
I just read that about 125 absentee ballots were rejected in Duluth because the signatures on them were not dated. There is no requirement to date signatures so they were invalidly omitted from the count. Since Duluth is heavily Democratic this is good news for Franken unless Coleman can stop them from being counted.
I wondered where that t-shirt came from!
(Yes, I actually have seen such a t-shirt. Worn by an elderly Jewish lady-friend of mine, MSRIP.)
Watch it live!
I’ve been watching this on and off the last two days and can make some observations.
There is no way of screwing up a ballot that people won’t do. Some of the ballots are hilarious. Not supposed to put identifying marks on your ballot? Might as well write include your name, address and Social Security number then. Brett Favre got 3 votes while Mickey Mouse and Chuck Norris had two each that I noticed.
They have done all the Franken challenges in the first two days. The majority of the challenges were rejected, but not in the numbers I was expecting. Coleman’s lead went up by about 166 votes out of about 414 challenged ballots. The Franken campaign withdrew most of it’s challenges so that undoubtedly left a higher percentage of quality ones. Coleman on the other hand has increased the number of challenges since yesterday leaving him with around three times as many challenges as Franken. I’m sure the board is hoping he will withdraw hundreds more by tomorrow, but there is no sign of that.
Coleman’s lawyer was a lot more combative today than he was yesterday. At one time he jumped up to protest a ruling until the board pointed out to him that Ritchie had cast the deciding vote on the ballot in Coleman’s favor. By the way, that guy is totally disheveled.
At the end of today’s proceedings the canvassing board was prevented from taking up the Coleman challenges by the Coleman attorney’s insinuation that numerous ballots were counted twice. I didn’t see any evidence of this, but it ground things to a halt and I don’t think the issue will be resolved real soon.
Many of the challenges were frivolous, but many challenged ballots were so obviously miscounted it makes one wonder who the election judge was that saw it in such a skewed way.
Very few of the ballots were decided by 3-2 votes. Consensus has ruled so far.
I just heard on the radio that Coleman’s lead is now down to a mere 7 votes. That’s not a typo. It’s seven votes.
According to the Star-Tribune live coverage site that Captain Lance Murdoch links to above, it’s now Coleman +5, with 883 challenges reviewed.
MPR has Coleman’s lead at 2. If the board had continued for a few more minutes Franken would have gone ahead. There are a lot more Coleman challenges to be dealt with tomorrow so there is no doubt Franken will go into the lead by more than 100 votes.
But that won’t be the end of it.
The state SC ordered the two campaigns to reach their own agreement on what to do with wrongly rejected absentee votes. This could be tough given that Coleman has fought to prevent all of them from being counted, but with Coleman trailing he might become more flexible on that issue.
By the way the infamous Lizard People ballot was tossed, but a write in of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was counted. The board said there could possibly be someone called “Lizard People” while FSM was ridiculous.
In your state maybe.
:mad: Great FSM, smite the blasphemers!
And yet the write in of Brett Favre was also accepted. Presumably the idea of a Minnesotan voting for Brett Favre for President is also ridiculous?
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/brett-favre-beats-lizard-people.html
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/the_worst_ballot_challenge_of.php
Offered without comment, save for standard liberal site cootie warning…
And from the comments in that TPM article, I found this gem too …
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24603798/the_last_recount
Sounds like Coleman loses either way (especially page three).
Franken projected winner, knock wood.
CNN says this Friday morning that Coleman has a 2 vote lead. That should change as the day goes on with the election tipping to Franken and probably will NOT tip back.