The Autograph. I know the law says to reject ballots with identifying marks, but somehow I don’t care. Count for Coleman.
The Pencil. Count for Franken (even though this could be fraud, it might not be. I err on the side of acceptance.)
The X. I forget how I voted on the online poll. I’m confused. Is “X” the designated way to cross out a mistaken vote? If so, than treat as such. Otherwise, it’s a judgment call. I think I voted to keep it a Coleman vote.
Bachmen. I think I voted not to count this, but I’ve changed my mind. The circle next to “Bachmen” is not marked, indicating that Coleman was chosen over “Bachmen.” It occurs to me that I may have actually done this myself, write in a write-in candidate & then vote for someone else. To Coleman.
The Arrow. Vague. To neither.
The Thumbprint. Unintentional smear. To McCain.
Outside the lines. To no one.
The NO Ballot. Clearly a correction of mistakenly marking Coleman. To Franken.
Lizard People. To Franken. Note that the voter wrote “Lizard People” in several spots, marked the oval next to some of them, but not next to this one.
The Checkmark. I vote no. Insufficient evidence of intent. I stipulate that the voter may have preferred Franken, but this seems like an act of uncertainty.
The Oops. I forget how I voted on the site, but it sure looks like a Coleman vote. By law, perhaps to neither.
The Dot. To Franken. Just a stray dot on the other guy.
Erasure. To Barkley. (even though this could be fraud, it might not be. I err on the side of acceptance.)
Confusion. Barkley. Just stray marks on the other guys.
The “underline.” I honestly can’t tell if that’s emphasis or rejection. To neither.
I thought that it would only be a problem if voters could be identified in general, but not in cases where people did it on purpose even though it’s not required. I didn’t think of the scenario you put up, which would require the bad guys to have access to all ballots though.
The Bachmen one is interesting because it is similar to the Lizard Men one, except one benefits Coleman the other Franken. Hopefully there is somebody setting down consistent guidelines for these.
The X I give to Coleman because I can easily see a situation where a person putsi n X’s first and then later realizes that they need to fill in the whole circle.
True. And I can see a situation where a person filled in the bubble and decided to cross it out. How can we devine the clear intent of the voter in that situation?
Wow…these ballots are like crack cocaine for me. Keep 'em coming.
Day 2, #1: Invalid vote. Isn’t a signature specifically called out as an example of an identifying mark? #2: Valid vote for Franken. Maybe the pen ran out after one bubble, and the voter used a pencil as a backup. #3: Norm Coleman. If the voter had made a non-Xed oval for one of the other candidates, I could see the argument that the X was meant to cancel the oval, but I can’t see someone caring enough to cancel a vote without also caring enough to vote for someone else. #4: Probably Norm Coleman, for the same reason as I argued for Franken on the lizard-ballot. But this one is less clear, since first, the “correct” choice isn’t as clearly marked (X instead of oval), second, the write-in is a reference to an individual, not a group, and third, because we lack the contextual evidence present in the other ballot that the voter intended to fill in write-in ovals.
Accept, because I’m not at all convinced that the mark is a signature or identifying mark rather than a scribble.
Accept – intent is clear, the voter’s pen probably just ran out of ink.
Accept; again, the voter’s intent to vote for Coleman is clear. (I would, however, reject it if any of the other ovals were marked, even if not completely filled in.)
Coleman, for the same reason I’d count “Lizard People” as a vote for Franken. (Also, I think it’s just as likely to say “Bad men” as “Bachmen”; maybe the voter just wanted to underscore the fact that he really doesn’t like the other candidates.)
… And on posting, I see Drain Bead had the same thought about #4, so “random commentary about the candidates” is a definite possibility.
Was a vote counted for that individual? (We’ll assume arguendo that ‘Lizard People’ is an individual.) No.
So either some other part of the law blocked the application of this specific clause, or the election judges blew it. You make the call.
Could you point out to me where the law says that? I don’t see it anywhere. That is your interpretation of the law, presumably of how Subd. 3 and Subd. 4 should interact. Maybe it’s right, and maybe it’s wrong. Maybe there’s some prior law or other guidance on how this interaction between the two should be interpreted, maybe there’s not.
I’m not saying anything about time. I’m saying we no longer have a situation where Subd. 4 rules. ‘Lizard People’ was not counted as the vote of this voter in this race.
Before the recount started this scenario was used on the news as an example of a ballot that would count for the non-exed party as the "x"would be taken as a sign of intent to cancel the bad vote. Why would he “x” his vote, then realize his mistake and then vote for the other guy?
I don’t see any connection between your law cite and my statement. Are you saying any kind of expression invalidates a ballot under the belief it identifies the voter? All voting is an act of expression. There is nothing there that tells us who cast this ballot.
Your cite does invalidate the guy who autographed his Coleman vote though.
Coleman - but only based on the given info. If no other choices on the ballot show an “X”, I might change my mind.
Coleman - but I want to see the rest of the ballot to confirm. If this was the only “X” style vote, I would re-think it
Day 1:
Reject - unclear
Accept - another easy one
Reject - far from clear
Franken - easy
Franken - but another one where I want to see the whole ballot. Maybe he wrote in the Lizard People for every race and then voted, sometimes for the LP, sometimes not.
Reject - unless all his votes were the same style, then I’d go with Franken
Coleman - tough one though. I wouldn’t argue with rejecting it
Franken - easy
Barkley - maybe the easiest of them all
Barkley
Reject - I don’t know how anyone can be sure this is a cross-out vs. a stray mark. I could be convinced that it’s an underline if all the votes on the ballot were underlined.
Reject - (I think s/he might have meant Franken, but not clear enough.)
Reject - (I think s/he might have meant Coleman, but not clear enough.)
Franken (stray mark)
Barkley
Barkley (stray mark)
Neither
On the day 2 ballots
Reject - That’s a signature you moron.
Accept - pencil leads break, pens run out of ink, and there’s nothing in the listed statutes that says you can’t fill in rainbow colored bubbles on your ballot like a 7 year-old girl if you like.
Reject - the correctly marked “yes” calls into question what the hell s/he was trying to do there.
Reject - and in a race between the Lizard people and Bachmen, I choose the Lizards.
The autograph: disqualify. My wife can vouch that that’s as legible as my own signature.
The pencil: I don’t see anything about pen or pencil in the statutes provided, so it’s valid.
The X factor: if the voter had drawn an X through that bubble and filled in another one, the message I’d get would be “no, not this one - the other one.” Here, there is no other one. The voter might’ve been doubling down on his enthusiasm for Coleman. I’d call it a vote.
Bachmen. Same deal as the Lizard People - no bubble filled in next to the written-in name, but a filled-in bubble next to someone else. I’m saying the ‘someone else’ should the vote. The idjit thinks Bachmann (I presume) should be on the ballot, but since she isn’t, the idjit will grit his teeth and vote for Coleman.
The voter might be batshit crazy. Your interpretation is a reasonable one. Another reasonable interpretation is that the voter bubbled in Coleman as the lesser of two evils and then decided to X him out because he couldn’t stomach voting for him.
Even if we had a mind reading device, it still wouldn’t work because we don’t know whose mind to read. That is why this type of recount needs to be done away with by law…
I don’t get this mentality. As a large number of these examples show, the voter’s intent is often quite clear, even if it’s unintelligible to an optical scanner. For the few (what, a couple hundred out of a couple million?) that are unintelligible to human eyes, just disregard the vote. That way, you can still count the vote of those whose pens might have slipped.
I believe some other part of the law blocked the application. Only registered write-in candidates may be counted as receiving write-in votes, and I seriously doubt “Lizard People” is a registered write-in candidate.