# Questionable Minnesota Ballots: YOU Make the Call! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 20, 2008, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651 "2008-11-20T15:13:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/61 "2008-11-20T20:42:33Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > He did fill in the Lizard People oval for President. If his sole intent was to vote for Franken for Senator, then there was no need to write in Lizard People for that office. Of course he didn’t _need_ to. There are plenty of marks on these questionable ballots that are unneeded. That’s why we’re looking at them. > [@](#): > > The fact that he wrote them in gives me reason to doubt any type of clear intent. You say that there was an “otherwise” clear intent to vote for Franken. Well, why do we dismiss the part before the “otherwise”? Because solely writing in a name is clear intent _only in the absence_ of a correctly marked oval. By “otherwise,” it means that filling in the oval for Franken is a sufficiently clear sign of intent that writing in a name without filling in the oval doesn’t rise to the level of making it ambiguous. It’s like a ballot with a correctly filled in oval with another stray mark on it somewhere else. If he had also filled in the oval next to Lizard People, then it would have been ambiguous, but he didn’t. The sole filled in oval is next to Franken. (My guess as to what happened was that he intended the write-in only for president, but accidentally put it in the senate space first. That’s why it’s in both spaces. He then correctly filled in the ovals to indicate whom he intended to cast the votes for.) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/62 "2008-11-20T20:42:43Z")
Off-topic, but I’d bet money that the Lizard People guy turns up as a fifteen-minutes-of-fame type microcelebrity. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/63 "2008-11-20T21:00:10Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Then you agree that the election judges ignored that law by not counting that as a vote for the Lizard People. I doubt that ‘Lizard People’ is a registered write-in candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/64 "2008-11-20T21:00:30Z")
That’s not an X on the Lizard People ballot; that’s just a messy fill-in. As for the determination that the guy is crazy, he may well be, but it’s not the election judges’ place to make that decision. Crazy people are entitled to the same vote as all the rest of us. How ought the ballot to be judged if the write-in were something more sane, such as “Socialist party”? I use the socialists as an example here, rather than a specific name, since “Lizard people” seems to be a group, not an individual. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/65 "2008-11-20T21:34:28Z")
The question for the Lizard People ballot is, is the intent clear and obvious. I could see it going either way, actually. But in an almost meta way, the mere fact that there is a debate over it, by reasonable unaffiliated people, should men that it is not obvious and should be rejected. The real question is, would you admit it was you who voted for the Lizard People, thereby getting 15 minutes of fame at the expense of a lifetime being labeled a complete tool? ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/66 "2008-11-20T21:45:38Z")
1. Franken. (His is the only bubble filled in. If the other marking were unambiguously an arrow I might give it to Coleman, but it’s not so I won’t.) 2. Accept it. (It is more reasonable to assume the thumbprint was unintentional than that it is a deliberate attempt to communicate the voter’s identity to an optical scanner that presumably is not programmed to read thumbprints.) 3. Franken. (The mark is directly in line with his name and has no other reason for being on the ballot, but I don’t really object to it not being counted if this rule is applied consistently.) 4. Franken. (How hard is to determine that someone who wrote “NO” next to Coleman’s name didn’t intend to vote for Coleman?) 5. Franken. (This voter filled in the bubble for “Lizard People” elsewhere but for Franken here, so he intended to vote for Franken.) 6. Yes. (The voter put a mark next to the candidate’s name AND circled the square. so the intent is clear beyond a reasonable doubt.) 7. Coleman. (A fully filled in bubble beats a stray mark everytime.) 8. Franken. (ditto) 9. Coleman. (An erasure mark is the opposite of a vote!) 10. Barkley. (same as 7 and 8) 11. Coleman. (Crossing out is not underlining, and they know it.) Voter intent is more important than enforcing strict adherence to procedural rules and the fact that overwhelming majorities agree on most interests shows that determining intent is not an arbitrary or capricious process. The one or two cases in which I disagreed with the majority had to do with whether or not to count a ballot at all. When it came to choosing between one candidate or another, there was really no question. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/67 "2008-11-20T21:59:31Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Then you agree that the election judges ignored that law by not counting that as a vote for the Lizard People. What? No! According to the law, writing the name is enough to declare your intention to vote for the name. No bubble needed. Marking a bubble is also declaring your intent to vote. By writing a name, AND marking a DIFFERENT bubble, the law says you were marking your intent to vote for 2 different people, overvoting and invalidating the ballot for that particular election. I agree with that. Think of this: If the voter had marked the bubble, and THEN wrote ‘Lizard People’, do you think you would see a different intent than if the voter wrote ‘Lizard People’ first, and then filled in a different bubble? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/68 "2008-11-20T22:33:47Z")
Here’s [one](http://www.startribune.com/photos/?c=y&img=1ballot.jpg). This was ruled an over vote. Franken is appealing it. He has an excellent case I would say. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/69 "2008-11-20T22:38:34Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > What? No! According to the law, writing the name is enough to declare your intention to vote for the name. No bubble needed. Marking a bubble is also declaring your intent to vote. > > By writing a name, AND marking a DIFFERENT bubble, the law says you were marking your intent to vote for 2 different people, overvoting and invalidating the ballot for that particular election. I agree with that. > > Think of this: If the voter had marked the bubble, and THEN wrote ‘Lizard People’, do you think you would see a different intent than if the voter wrote ‘Lizard People’ first, and then filled in a different bubble? Or it could be a form of expression. If he had written “fuck you” in the space would that be a vote for fuck you? It seems to me the intent was to vote for Franken and to make a joke. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/70 "2008-11-20T22:44:32Z")
> [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](#): > > Or it could be a form of expression. If he had written “fuck you” in the space would that be a vote for fuck you? It seems to me the intent was to vote for Franken and to make a joke. But in the Presidential race, he wrote in Lizard People, and colored the bubble. He wasn’t very consistent with his “joke” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/71 "2008-11-20T22:46:07Z")
> [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](#): > > Here’s [one](http://www.startribune.com/photos/?c=y&img=1ballot.jpg). > > This was ruled an over vote. Franken is appealing it. He has an excellent case I would say. He might. But why didn’t the voter spoil his ballot as provided by law? Did he not know that a computer could not discern his x mark? If not, is he intelligent enough for his ballot to count? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/72 "2008-11-20T22:53:33Z")
> [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](#): > > Or it could be a form of expression. That still invalidate the vote. > [@Subd. 13.](#): > > Identifying ballot. If a ballot is marked by distinguishing characteristics in a > manner making it evident that the voter intended to identify the ballot, the entire ballot is > defective. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/73 "2008-11-20T22:58:35Z")
Under that standard, any ballot with a unique write-in would be invalid. . . . Can we address the underlying issue here? – Why are there so many fucked up ballots? When I went to vote, there were signs all over the freaking place showing you how to mark a ballot. And it was made clear that you could ask for a replacement if you spoiled it. While we stood in line, we could watch a video presentation on how to mark ballots. Finally, when you were done, the machine scanned your ballot to ensure that it was properly marked. What’s the malfunction here? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/74 "2008-11-20T23:04:49Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Under that standard, any ballot with a unique write-in would be invalid. > > . > . > . > > Can we address the underlying issue here? – Why are there so many fucked up ballots? When I went to vote, there were signs all over the freaking place showing you how to mark a ballot. And it was made clear that you could ask for a replacement if you spoiled it. While we stood in line, we could watch a video presentation on how to mark ballots. Finally, when you were done, the machine scanned your ballot to ensure that it was properly marked. What’s the malfunction here? Because in the end, if someone makes a mistake, fills in the wrong circle or for whatever reasons doesn’t doa great job, they don;t think it is worth the trouble to create a new ballot thus having to re-do ALL the votes on the ballot, given the fact that it is unlikely that their one vote is really going to matter. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/75 "2008-11-20T23:06:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Can we address the underlying issue here? – Why are there so many fucked up ballots? Because they’re filled in by humans. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/76 "2008-11-20T23:09:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Because they’re filled in by humans. Huge flaw in the system. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/77 "2008-11-20T23:17:26Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Of course it matters why. We are trying to discern his intent. > > He did fill in the Lizard People oval for President. If his sole intent was to vote for Franken for Senator, then there was no need to write in Lizard People for that office. He wanted to vote a straight Lizard People ballot. When he got to Senator, he realized there was already a lizard person registered 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/78 "2008-11-20T23:31:20Z")
I think you should do away with the pens, here we just put the right pre-printed paper in the envelope. That should solve this problem. And what’s the problem with identifying marks? Why would that invalidate a ballot? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/79 "2008-11-20T23:36:35Z")
> [@Henrichek](#): > > And what’s the problem with identifying marks? Why would that invalidate a ballot? The ballot is secret. You shouldn’t be able to identify who filled out the ballot paper. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651/80 "2008-11-20T23:37:57Z")
> [@](#): > > And what’s the problem with identifying marks? Why would that invalidate a ballot? It would make it no longer a secret ballot. If there’s a way to determine after the fact who voted for whom, then a political boss could bribe, threaten, or cajole a voter to vote a particular way. “If there’s not a ballot collected with a checkmark next to Tweed’s name and your signature on the bottom, well, it’d just be too bad if you got fired, now wouldn’t it?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questionable-minnesota-ballots-you-make-the-call/473651.md?page=5)