Al Franken is Challenging This Ballot

[PapaG]

Um, OK then...

http://www.spectator.org/blog/2008/11/19/al-franken-is-challenging-this

 

[rocketeer]

as what, a non vote?

 

[PapaG]

as what, a non vote?

As not being a vote for Coleman.

 

[DaRizzle]

As not being a vote for Coleman.

it isnt...the person marked it then "X"ed it out

 

[DaRizzle]

either that or its the blueprints to a roller coaster

 

[bodyman5001]

Old people with Parkinsons can't vote then because that looks like a vote for Coleman to me.

 

[barfo]

Old people with Parkinsons can't vote then because that looks like a vote for Coleman to me.

I'd wanna see what the rest of the ballot looks like. If the other votes look similar, then this probably is a Coleman vote. If the other votes are all anally neat ovals, then something is funny here.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Looks like it's x'd out, or done by a drunk.

 

[Denny Crane]

You can't divine what the voter's intent was. He marked for Coleman and not for anyone else, it's clearly a vote for Coleman.

 

[julius]

I'd wanna see what the rest of the ballot looks like. If the other votes look similar, then this probably is a Coleman vote. If the other votes are all anally neat ovals, then something is funny here.

barfo

I think the rest of the votes (on that ballot) do matter. If all the votes are like that (sloppy), then it should. But if it's the only one, you could question it.

It also depends on if the rule is that it has to be like a "scantron" type vote, where if you draw outside of the line, it's null. But if that's the case, the vote wouldn't have counted anyway (via a scanner).

 

[Minstrel]

You can't divine what the voter's intent was.

That's not the conceptual basis for recounts, so far as I've seen. Recounting ballots is always about divining voter intent. Both sides argue over what the intent was on questionable or challenged ballots.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's not the conceptual basis for recounts, so far as I've seen. Recounting ballots is always about divining voter intent. Both sides argue over what the intent was on questionable or challenged ballots.

OK, I'll divine voter intent: every ballot you think was for Franken was really for Coleman because that was the voter's intent. Clearly. The ballots for Coleman are for Coleman, too.

So let's argue about that! The best lawyers win this argument - fuck the voters. (LOL)

If this ballot were marked for both candidates, it'd be a spoiled ballot, though the speculation as to who the voter meant to vote for might be interesting but hardly binding.

 

[MARIS61]

On further reflection I'd say the haphazard, chaotic, almost childlike sloppiness of the voter's approach to Democracy, clearly represents Republican thinking at it's finest.

The vote stands.

 

[Minstrel]

OK, I'll divine voter intent: every ballot you think was for Franken was really for Coleman because that was the voter's intent. Clearly. The ballots for Coleman are for Coleman, too.

So let's argue about that! The best lawyers win this argument - fuck the voters. (LOL)

Well, the best lawyers win the arguments over the questionable ballots. Fuck the voters who vote unclearly, I guess.

 

[bodyman5001]

Somebody is gonna have to be a Johnnie Cochran type mutha fukking pimp lawyer to get me to think that vote shouldn't count.

 

[Pontius]

Somebody is gonna have to be a Johnnie Cochran type mutha fukking pimp lawyer to get me to think that vote shouldn't count.

Agreed!

 

[Dumpy]

I don't understand the outrage. Despite being just a first-term senator, Norm Coleman is considered one of the top four most corrupt senators, because of an ongoing and very improper financial relationship with the head of a telemarketing firm (among other things, Coleman has been living for free at the guy's townhouse, but Coleman's PAC has paid him $1.5 million). He should be drummed out of office; it doesn't matter how.

With the defeat of Stevens, he has probably moved up to #3.

But maybe that is preferable to some of you than Al Franken.

 

[Denny Crane]

But maybe that is preferable to some of you than Al Franken.

Yes.

 

[PapaG]

I don't understand the outrage. Despite being just a first-term senator, Norm Coleman is considered one of the top four most corrupt senators, because of an ongoing and very improper financial relationship with the head of a telemarketing firm (among other things, Coleman has been living for free at the guy's townhouse, but Coleman's PAC has paid him $1.5 million). He should be drummed out of office; it doesn't matter how.

With the defeat of Stevens, he has probably moved up to #3.

But maybe that is preferable to some of you than Al Franken.

A) What outrage?

B) Franken is trying to take away someone's obvious vote.

Seems cut and dry to me, unless you think that Franken should cheat to win solely because you don't like Norm Coleman. Franken didn't pay taxes and took money from the NYC Boys and Girls Club. Does that mean he should have obvious votes taken away from him?

 

[Dumpy]

A) What outrage?

B) Franken is trying to take away someone's obvious vote.

Seems cut and dry to me, unless you think that Franken should cheat to win solely because you don't like Norm Coleman. Franken didn't pay taxes and took money from the NYC Boys and Girls Club. Does that mean he should have obvious votes taken away from him?

If it is obvious, then he will lose the appeal. What's the big deal? His campaign workers are just doing their job. [somehow I doubt that Franken himself is peering over their shoulders and examining ballots, so I'll assume that your anger is directed at his campaign, and not him].

While it looks, on its face, like an obvious vote, we don't have the benefit of seeing the rest of the ballot, as someone else pointed out. I can certainly imagine different ways that the rest of the ballot could look like that would put doubt on the voter's intent. Likely? Maybe not. But I'll withhold judgment, since I'm not there, and I'm just looking at something that someone wants me to see. I personally don't understand how this ballot was leaked to the press, if it is, in fact, real. It seems to me that someone has an agenda in making this public.

 

[Denny Crane]

The agenda is pointing out how Franken and his team are trying to steal the election they lost.

 

[julius]

The agenda is pointing out how Franken and his team are trying to steal the election they lost.

Considering it's Minnesota state law to have a recount if the #'s are withing a particular %, he's not trying to 'steal' an election he 'lost'.

 

[Denny Crane]

Considering it's Minnesota state law to have a recount if the #'s are withing a particular %, he's not trying to 'steal' an election he 'lost'.

Let them recount the ballots, of course. Let's not divine the intent of the voters to change a vote from one person to the other.

As I pointed out, you might let me divine the voters' intent. They're all for Coleman!

(In other words, it's not really about the voter's intent after all)

 

[Dumpy]

Let them recount the ballots, of course. Let's not divine the intent of the voters to change a vote from one person to the other.

As I pointed out, you might let me divine the voters' intent. They're all for Coleman!

(In other words, it's not really about the voter's intent after all)

You'd make a heck of a civil servant.

 

[PapaG]

Flashback

 

[Denny Crane]

You'd make a heck of a civil servant.

Civil servants are political hacks.

In FLA 2000, we saw 3 person committees 2/3 democrats stealing votes for Gore. It was blatant, but those who supported Gore wanted the win more than they cared about democracy.

If they count the actual votes and Franken somehow wins, he wins. Right now he for certain doesn't have more votes than Coleman. Get it?

 

[julius]

Let them recount the ballots, of course. Let's not divine the intent of the voters to change a vote from one person to the other.

As I pointed out, you might let me divine the voters' intent. They're all for Coleman!

(In other words, it's not really about the voter's intent after all)

If you don't think Coleman is doing the exact same thing, you're a bigger fool than the evil Spock.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you don't think Coleman is doing the exact same thing, you're a bigger fool than the evil Spock.

Coleman has more votes, he doesn't have to challenge a single ballot.

I may not be spock, but I know how math works and who's got more votes.

 

[PapaG]

If you don't think Coleman is doing the exact same thing, you're a bigger fool than the evil Spock.

Last week, using the vote totals from Sunday, Nov. 9, I pointed out that Franken’s net gain was huge -- “new votes for Franken from all the precincts is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined.” One “precinct’s corrections accounted for a significantly larger net swing in votes between the parties than occurred for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, or state house races.”

Win at all costs...the odds of this happening are astornomical.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454605,00.html

 

[Stepping Razor]

That ballot is obviously a Coleman vote and it will be counted as such once they review all these appeals, I'm 100% sure.

What's shady is how the original poster cherry-picked this one instance out of hundreds of ballots challenged by both candidates to make it look like Franken is trying to "steal the election." Check out this link for a whole bunch of ballots challenged by both campaigns; they're clearly both challenging anything that has even a 1% chance of being overturned. They're both playing the same game.

And, for the record, Coleman has challenged more ballots than Franken. Most expert observers (I am definitely not one) think that the vast majority of these vote challenges will not be sustained.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/