MN Sen Recount (UPDATE: Stuart Smalley certified winner, lawsuit forthcoming)

[Mr.Phips]

Some challenges are ones with no senate vote (thus no vote was removed) too, on the basis of inconsistency.

I dont see how any of those types of challengers could be upheld. 

[agcatter]

Sam, I don't know why you are even bothering with this.  The great Nate Silver has already said Frankin wins by 27 votes.  Therefore, it's over.  Coleman should concede immediately.

[Lief 🗽]

Sam, I don't know why you are even bothering with this.  The great Nate Silver has already said Frankin wins by 27 votes.  Therefore, it's over.  Coleman should concede immediately.

False.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lunar]

Sam, I don't know why you are even bothering with this.  The great Nate Silver has already said Frankin wins by 27 votes.  Therefore, it's over.  Coleman should concede immediately.

He currently projects Coleman to have a slight lead

[Meeker]

I'm really baffled by the Nate Silver hatred from Republicans. All he did was predict an election correctly.

[Sam Spade]

I noticed that in my set of numbers Coleman's result should be 2 less than it is (in other words +167/+145).  I probably inputed one of the challenges backwards, so I'll correct it later.

Anyways, I wanted to point out the assumptions I'm building on so that folks have some type of model with which to compare.

At its simplest, I have divided challenges into two types - 1) those associated with subtraction of votes per precinct; 2) those not associated with subtraction of votes per precinct.
1.  But before we get to that, there are countless material changes upwards and downwards for Coleman and Franken per precinct that we can document without any assumptions.  In other words, if any votes are added to the candidate (e.g. 1 vote to Coleman) in the precinct, we can presume that this is a material change.  Similarly, if 1 vote is subtracted from a candidate (e.g. 1 vote subtracted from Coleman) in the precinct without any corresponding challenge, we can presume that this, too, is a material change.  Having analyzed that, these are the material changes:

Material Changes
Coleman +78
Franken +148
Change: Franken +70
2. For the two basic groups above, we must make some assumptions.  The assumption associated with challenges per precinct that result in subtracted votes is that we should assume Coleman is challenging Franken votes (or votes counted as Franken in the first count) and vice versa. 

As noted below, there are certain places where the assumption appears to be clearly reversed, but this only accounts for roughly 4%-5% of the challenged votes.  I keep this in mind, because Coleman challenging a Coleman vote that has been subtracted from the overall total stands 1) a slightly higher chance of success than Franken challenging a Coleman vote (based on what I've seen); 2) results in a net loss if unsuccessful.

Anyway, without using the above assumption, the number of net subtractions or the "Challenge Gap" is as such:

Challenge Gap
Coleman -1924 (challenged by Franken)
Franken - 2071 (challenged by Coleman)
Change: Franken +147
3.  The last group of challenges are those which are not connected to any subtraction of votes.  Once again, we base what these challenges are following the assumption that subtractions are either Franken challenging Coleman votes or vice versa. 

Visually, it reads this way (and this helps in understanding point two also):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A few permutations from this variable are possible.  For example, Coleman could be challenging the subtraction of a Coleman vote.  Of course, this would then require Franken to challenge the subtraction of a Franken vote.  But considering the nature of challenges already and the tendencies of County Boards of Elections, this type of possibility seems fairly remote.  Henceforth, the best answer is to make the assumption that Coleman is challenging Franken votes and vice versa.

More trouble occurs from this type of pattern:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In this case, two challenges connect to votes that have been subtracted (presumably, as stated above), but one challenge doesn't.  In trying to allocate these types of challenges, I have kept the original assumption.  Franken is challenging Coleman votes and vice versa.  Henceforth here, the one challenge that doesn't connect to the subtracted votes is Coleman's.

Now, as to the flavor of this challenge - I do not presuppose.  There are a number of possibilities - blank vote, overvote, some other candidate's vote.  Only one possibility changes the math greatly.  With the example above, if Coleman was challenging a vote that was not counted as Franken's in the first count but was counted as Franken's in the second count, then this number would change the challenge gap strongly.  In a certain way, it is the opposite of the earlier noted "Coleman challenging a subtracted Coleman ballot" because it is the candidate challenging the decision of the County Board of Elections which changed the result from the first count. 

Much as above, one would have to think that this type of challenge would be more successful than the type that doesn't reflect any decisions of the County Board of Elections, but maybe my presumption is wrong.

Anyways, here are the non-subtracted challenges:

Non-Subtracted Challenges
Coleman: 443
Franken: 395
4. There is one other curious type of number that results in the precinct counts that relates to the Challenge Gap.  It is this type of result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, this results in a material change of one vote, but the results provided are completely unclear as to which ballot Coleman is challenging.

As above, I have taken my assumption to this level as well.  Basing that Coleman is much more likely than not to challenge Franken's vote, the material change must be the subtraction of the Coleman vote.

There are 95 votes in the Challenge Gap that fall under these parameters and are divided as follows:

Coleman: -42
Franken: -53
Change: Coleman +11 (in the Challenge Gap/Material Change)
5.  Lastly, as mentioned above, there are certain places where we can determine (with not absolute, but fairly absolute certainty) that Coleman is challenging Coleman's ballot and vice versa...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...or the more difficult example...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, all this is based on the assumption in challenges that Coleman is challenging Franken's subtracted ballot and vice versa.  There are 93 such ballots that we can determine using this method, which gives us:

Coleman - 41
Franken - 52
It is off of these assumptions and numbers that I get the Coleman +167/145 result.  I will continue to update this week and retool the numbers.

Lastly, I do want to point out that if the challenges break in a certain way there can be a difference - this is merely going down to the precinct level and trying to give some clarity...

[Sam Spade]

Star-Tribune says that Franken would have to prevail on 6% more of his challenges than Coleman to succeed. 

Of course, maybe this analysis is like Star-Tribune polling.  FWIW, if my numbers are correct, 6% sounds about right, actually, especially in the number of successful challenges is quite low.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35263049.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

[Flying Dog]

Well, let's hope that Coleman's challenges are more trivial then Franken's.... I still don't see him pulling it out, though.

[Sam Spade]

Too bad the Star-Tribune is not smart enough to release that this isn't a Senate race challenge (another recount actually)

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Morrison_LittleFallsW2_challengedballot1.pdf

[minionofmidas]

Too bad the Star-Tribune is not smart enough to release that this isn't a Senate race challenge (another recount actually)

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Morrison_LittleFallsW2_challengedballot1.pdf

Lemieur's challenge is pretty retarded as well.

[Sam Spade]

I'm really baffled by the Nate Silver hatred from Republicans. All he did was predict an election correctly.

The reason why Republican partisans don't like Silver is easy to recognize. 

First, his methods, while not infallible, are certainly quite useful, and should probably be fairly accurate most of the time provided he takes care of all the variables properly.  Success is often the great polarizer in politics.

Moreover, when he produces his models, he provides a classic partisan analysis (in other words - he sees the glass as half-Democrat, not half-Republican, heck even three-quarters Democrat).  That adds to the annoyance factor.

The third factor is, of course, that those who quote him tend to view him as a hallowed expert, or something similar.  This is not the greatest analogy, and certainly not too current, but it would be like a Republican quoting Lee Atwater media-manipulation techniques.  In other words, both people know what they're doing, but that doesn't mean they're God or something, and that tends to annoy people.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Supposedly this is not an overvote. It's for Coleman: http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/chippewa_claracity_challengedballot1.pdf

Can we all agree that many Coleman challengers are complete fucking morons?

[Ronnie]

Star-Tribune says that Franken would have to prevail on 6% more of his challenges than Coleman to succeed. 

Of course, maybe this analysis is like Star-Tribune polling.  FWIW, if my numbers are correct, 6% sounds about right, actually, especially in the number of successful challenges is quite low.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35263049.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

I don't get it, is this good or bad for Coleman?

[Lunar]

Supposedly this is not an overvote. It's for Coleman: http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/chippewa_claracity_challengedballot1.pdf

Can we all agree that many Coleman challengers are complete fucking morons?

Hahaha.  This person has a Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde thing going on (look at president too).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Supposedly this is not an overvote. It's for Coleman: http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/chippewa_claracity_challengedballot1.pdf

Can we all agree that many Coleman challengers are complete fucking morons?

     There should be legal consequences for abusing the system with frivolous challenges, really.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Can we all agree that many Coleman challengers are complete fucking morons?

Only if we can all agree that Franken challengers are complete fucking morons.

Coleman's people are not morons, in any case.  They're engaged in a petty case of tit-for-tat frivolous challenges with Team Franken.  Part of it is petty revenge, part of it is PR: Coleman doesn't want Franken to dramatically outpace them on challenges, or the running tally (which doesn't include challenged ballots) will start showing a Franken lead.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Can we all agree that many Coleman challengers are complete fucking morons?

Only if we can all agree that Franken challengers are complete fucking morons.

Coleman's people are not morons, in any case.  They're engaged in a petty case of tit-for-tat frivolous challenges with Team Franken.  Part of it is petty revenge, part of it is PR: Coleman doesn't want Franken to dramatically outpace them on challenges, or the running tally (which doesn't include challenged ballots) will start showing a Franken lead.

     As I mentioned in my response to BRTD's post, there really should be legal consequences for this sort of petty misuse of the legal system.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Can we all agree that many Coleman challengers are complete fucking morons?

Only if we can all agree that Franken challengers are complete fucking morons.

Coleman's people are not morons, in any case.  They're engaged in a petty case of tit-for-tat frivolous challenges with Team Franken.  Part of it is petty revenge, part of it is PR: Coleman doesn't want Franken to dramatically outpace them on challenges, or the running tally (which doesn't include challenged ballots) will start showing a Franken lead.

     As I mentioned in my response to BRTD's post, there really should be legal consequences for this sort of petty misuse of the legal system.

How can you decide what challenge is frivolous and which one isn't?  Slippery slope.

[Eraserhead]

This is depressing. Just end it already.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Can we all agree that many Coleman challengers are complete fucking morons?

Only if we can all agree that Franken challengers are complete fucking morons.

Coleman's people are not morons, in any case.  They're engaged in a petty case of tit-for-tat frivolous challenges with Team Franken.  Part of it is petty revenge, part of it is PR: Coleman doesn't want Franken to dramatically outpace them on challenges, or the running tally (which doesn't include challenged ballots) will start showing a Franken lead.

     As I mentioned in my response to BRTD's post, there really should be legal consequences for this sort of petty misuse of the legal system.

How can you decide what challenge is frivolous and which one isn't?  Slippery slope.

     Possibly really extreme cases like the most recent one BRTD posted that was an overvote for Franken & the Constitutionalist, but Coleman's camp challenged as a vote for himself.

[Meeker]

It's a good idea in theory, but I'd rather have a bunch of ridiculous ballots go challenged than a few ballots that are questionable go unchallenged because the challenger is fearful of retribution.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Can we all agree that many Coleman challengers are complete fucking morons?

Only if we can all agree that Franken challengers are complete fucking morons.

Coleman's people are not morons, in any case.  They're engaged in a petty case of tit-for-tat frivolous challenges with Team Franken.  Part of it is petty revenge, part of it is PR: Coleman doesn't want Franken to dramatically outpace them on challenges, or the running tally (which doesn't include challenged ballots) will start showing a Franken lead.

But none of Franken's people are ridiculous as the Coleman people in Fillmore county who basically believe that all votes for McCain must also be for Coleman. As someone else pointed out if you're going to use that logic then you better just declare Franken the winner as Obama won Minnesota.

[agcatter]

Get this thing over.  Both sides are beyond ridiculous.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK I completed it. I got:

Coleman 240
Franken 261
Other/no vote 99

It adds up to 600 because of some screwy way it works. People on 538 have reported the same thing.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Can we all agree that many Coleman challengers are complete fucking morons?

Only if we can all agree that Franken challengers are complete fucking morons.

Coleman's people are not morons, in any case.  They're engaged in a petty case of tit-for-tat frivolous challenges with Team Franken.  Part of it is petty revenge, part of it is PR: Coleman doesn't want Franken to dramatically outpace them on challenges, or the running tally (which doesn't include challenged ballots) will start showing a Franken lead.

But none of Franken's people are ridiculous as the Coleman people in Fillmore county who basically believe that all votes for McCain must also be for Coleman. As someone else pointed out if you're going to use that logic then you better just declare Franken the winner as Obama won Minnesota.

Actually, yes, plenty of Franken's people are as ridiculous.  I heard the argument that a vote for Obama must be a vote for Franken too over a week ago.

Get this thing over.  Both sides are beyond ridiculous.

Oh, for all intents and purposes, this thing is over.  Even Franken's people admit that Franken is behind by nearly 100, and with those disqualified ballots staying disqualified, he's pretty much toast.