Questionable Minnesota Ballots: YOU Make the Call!

Great Debates
1

Courtesy of Minnesota Public Radio, which also links to the applicable statutes.

(Mods, I realize this is a little IMHOey for GD, but I’d be surprised if a debate didn’t break out. But your call, as always.)

Here’s the calls I’d make on the ballots at the link:

  1. Neither
  2. Accept
  3. Neither
  4. Al
  5. Al
  6. Accept
  7. Norm
  8. Al
  9. Dean
  10. Dean
  11. Neither

So, how would you call these, and why?

2

I didn’t keep track but each of my answers was the majority opinion when I hit “Vote”. Which leads me to believe that it shouldn’t be too hard to sift through the ballots. I was also somewhat amazed at how people can screw up a ballot.

And would the Lizard People be representing Minnesota collectively?

3

1 Franken (I’m really not sure how you get an arrow out of those marks.)
2 Accept (A thumbprint??? really?)
3 Nobody
4 Franken
5 Franken (I really wanted to vote “Lizard People” but oh well.)
6 Franken
7 Coleman
8 Franken
9 Dean
10 Dean
11 Neither (though I could see a case for Coleman here)

Sad to see that both campaigns are being complete douchebags about these votes. But not all that surprising.

4

Stevens lost in Alaska, Chambliss is likely to lose the runoff in Georgia – what’s at stake here is nothing less than a filibuster-proof Dem majority in the Senate.

5
  1. Franken - There are other marks on the page - I think the “arrow” shape is coincidental.
  2. Accept - It’s only a “distinguishing” mark if you use a thumbprint system (not generally available) to look it up. However, if the ballot is going to be retained, the print should be redacted enough to make it unreadable.
  3. Reject - No clear intent. The mark isn’t even aligned with the bubble.
  4. Franken - How much clearer can you get than “NO”?
  5. Franken - Look at the mark for Lizard People in the race above, that fill-in and the Franken fill-in look very similar. Plus there was no attempt to fill in the bubble for Lizard People for Senate.
  6. Accept - I’m not sure if I’d accept the check or the circle either by themselves, but together they indicate intent to me.
  7. Coleman - The complete fill-in for Coleman with a very partial fill-in for Franken indicates intent to me.
  8. Franken - Doesn’t get much easier than this IMHO.
  9. Barkley - I’m a little disappointed in the Franken campaign for this one.
  10. Barkley - Ditto the Coleman campaign.
  11. Coleman - Probably the trickiest one (or equal with six). I would personally call this one for Coleman based on the continous nature of the line through Franken’s name (indicating realization of the mistake while filling in the bubble, not “after the fact” emphasis), but if this one got rejected it wouldn’t hurt my feelings either.

I was in the majority (based on the poll) for all except 7 and 11.

6

What’s your reasoning on #1? The “arrow” looks like stray marks to me (given the other stray marks), so I think the voter’s intent to vote for Franken is clear enough to give Franken the vote.

I think I went with the majority on all the others. Could you maybe say which ones you disagreed with the majority on to make it easier to compare answers?

7

I know, but I still wish the Franken campaign wasn’t making arguments like the thumbprint ballot or the erase-mark ballot (#2 and #9).

There really ought to be a quote about the high ground along the lines of Jim Hightower’s “The only things in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos”, but still…

8
  1. Accept (Franken)
  2. Accept (Coleman) - this is a stupid challenge
  3. Reject
  4. Accept (Franken)
  5. Accept (Franken)
  6. Accept (Franken)
  7. Reject
  8. Accept (Franken)
  9. Accept (Barkley) - another silly challenge
  10. Accept (Barkley)
  11. Reject
9

Most of these are pretty dumb. Almost any ballot would have fingerprints on it if you dusted them. The tough ones are #7 and #11. I would reject both of them.

Other media sites I’ve seen have showed other ballots that weren’t too tough too figure out either. It leads me to believe that most challenges are going to fail.

10

Incidentally, on #3, I think we don’t quite have enough context to judge: if the guy filled out all the races in the same weird way, I’d judge it for Franken. But given what we can see, it’s a serious stretch.

11

The Lizard People are NOT pleased with this decision. When their time comes, you will be first to serve as living incubators for their millions of tiny young.

12

Fun!

  1. Coleman
  2. Count it
  3. Don’t count it
  4. Franken
  5. Icke vote intended for “Lizard People”
  6. Franken
  7. Coleman
  8. Franken
  9. Barkley
  10. Don’t count it
  11. Intended as a Coleman vote (underlines go UNDER a name, not THROUGH it)

Based on the law, I’m not sure if sub. 3 (about overvotes) means ballots 4 and 11 should be disregarded automatically, or if they can be counted if the intent is clear. I would say the intent is clear in those cases.

13

I didn’t think you had to vote for a Lizard KING!

14

Why do you say Chambliss is likely to lose? No less than Nate Silver has said that he thinks it’s a tossup at this point.

As for the ballots:

  1. Neither. The intent is unclear to me, though I wouldn’t be sad if the vote went to Franken.
  2. Accept. That thumbprint argument is ridiculous.
  3. Nobody. That vague mark isn’t enough to establish intent, IMO.
  4. Franken. Looks clear to me with the NO in there that someone accidentally filled in Coleman’s bubble and realized the mistake afterwards.
  5. Reject. Filling in the bubble for a candidate and also writing in someone’s name is completely unclear. Also, this person is insane.
  6. Franken. A circle and a check is pretty clear.
  7. Reject, since both bubbles are sort of filled in, but I wouldn’t be sad if it went to Coleman.
  8. Franken. This is absurd. One dot does not a vote make.
  9. Barkley. Erasing over the bubble indicates pretty clearly to me that you don’t want to vote for that candidate.
  10. Barkley. Coleman’s being absurd here. Barkley’s bubble was completely filled in, and the dot in Coleman’s bubble combined with the line of Franken’s name looks like somebody got jostled while voting.
  11. Neither. Both bubbles are filled in, and that line doesn’t indicate clear intent to me. It might be crossing out Franken’s name, or it might just be a scribble. If I had voted for someone by accident, and couldn’t erase the pen, I’d damn well do a better job of crossing out than that.
15
  1. Coleman
  2. Accept
  3. Reject
  4. Franken
  5. Reject
  6. Franken
  7. Reject
  8. Franken
  9. Barkley
  10. Barkley
  11. Coleman

I want to hear more from the Lizard People Party…

16

No. He was an excited Coleman voter who was about to write “NORM!” but said to hell with it halfway through…:wink:

17

Sounds like voter intimadation to me. Or is this a case of IOKIYALP (It’s OK If You’re A Lizard Person)?

18

Good question. To me, the arrow (and I make arrows like this all the time, so it looked like one to me) looked like it could have been intentional, but it was iffy enough that I was far from sure that it was.

Since I couldn’t be particularly sure of intent either way, I wouldn’t count it either way.

Sure. With #7 (which is running neck-and-neck between Coleman and Neither), I went with Coleman, because I regarded the mark in the Franken bubble as being much more like a stray mark than an attempt to fully fill in the bubble. (That dictated my responses to 8-10 where the stray marks were even more clearly stray.)

And in #11, both the bubbles were fully filled in, and was the line an attempt to underline Franken? Cross him out? Damned if I know. Accordingly, there seemed to be no edge whatever for either candidate in determining the voter’s intent.

19

People like you are the reason why we can’t have a viable third party in this country.

As for #1, if I didn’t read the note saying “It looks like an arrow”, I never would have thought “That looks like an arrow”.

20

Platform:

  1. Descend on Earth.
  2. Eat all the Earthlings.

They’ve got my vote. :wink: