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

[Lunar]

What do you guys think?

[Lief]

Franken.

He voted Barkley (or Aldrich), changed his mind to Aldrich (or Barkley), then changed his mind a last time to Franken.

[Lunar]

Franken.

He voted Barkley (or Aldrich), changed his mind to Aldrich (or Barkley), then changed his mind a last time to Franken.

Or maybe he marked his two preferences...

I mean, it's a Franken vote, but is it clear?

[Lunar]

This one was challenged because the voter is retarded

[Lief]

Franken.

He voted Barkley (or Aldrich), changed his mind to Aldrich (or Barkley), then changed his mind a last time to Franken.

Or maybe he marked his two preferences...

I mean, it's a Franken vote, but is it clear?

It's not 100% clear, but it's more likely a Franken vote than an Other vote. Whether that means it's 51% a Franken vote or 99% a Franken vote, and at what point the judge gets to give the vote to Franken between those two percentages, I don't know.

[Lunar]

My understanding is that Minnesota law likes to assume that the person did in fact intend to vote for a candidate.

But is an honest 80% confidence about the vote sufficient?

No clue

[Vasall des Midas]

Franken.

He voted Barkley (or Aldrich), changed his mind to Aldrich (or Barkley), then changed his mind a last time to Franken.

Or maybe he marked his two preferences...

I mean, it's a Franken vote, but is it clear?

It's not 100% clear, but it's more likely a Franken vote than an Other vote. Whether that means it's 51% a Franken vote or 99% a Franken vote, and at what point the judge gets to give the vote to Franken between those two percentages, I don't know.

It's much like the Barkley struck, Coleman intended example we had above, with a couple slight discrepancies: At least the voter knew which Al Franken he wanted to vote for (the other guy checked write-in, wrote in "Norm Coleman", left Norm's box free) and the crosses are slightly less ambiguous, though still less than perfectly so.
I'd still say that if this one counts, the other probably should as well.

[Verily]

Look at how much time someone spent writing in unique names for each different judge position up for election:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Bloomington_P25_challengedballot1F.pdf

(Unlike the ones where someone obviously signed their name as a write-in for half the offices, this one is a clearly valid vote, however.)

[So the Heroes Fall]

Here's another one of those Coleman challengers who belong in HELL:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Stearns_StWendelP2_challengedballot33.pdf

[Lief]

Here's another one of those Coleman challengers who belong in HELL:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Stearns_StWendelP2_challengedballot33.pdf

Wait, what? There's nothing unclear about that ballot at all.

[Senator MaxQue]

Look at how much time someone spent writing in unique names for each different judge position up for election:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Bloomington_P25_challengedballot1F.pdf

(Unlike the ones where someone obviously signed their name as a write-in for half the offices, this one is a clearly valid vote, however.)

That is a proof of the stupidity of electing judges and you're wrong. He voted for the true candidate for a judge position.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Here's another one of those Coleman challengers who belong in HELL:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Stearns_StWendelP2_challengedballot33.pdf

     It would be interesting to see roughly what the percentage was of challenged votes that were in reality completely unambiguous.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Here's another one of those Coleman challengers who belong in HELL:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Stearns_StWendelP2_challengedballot33.pdf

What could possibly be the basis of the challenge there?

[Lamrock]

He didn't vote in two of the elections! Nullify his vote!

[Verily]

Look at how much time someone spent writing in unique names for each different judge position up for election:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Bloomington_P25_challengedballot1F.pdf

(Unlike the ones where someone obviously signed their name as a write-in for half the offices, this one is a clearly valid vote, however.)

That is a proof of the stupidity of electing judges and you're wrong. He voted for the true candidate for a judge position.

Huh? What exactly am I wrong about? I'm confused.

[Vasall des Midas]

Look at how much time someone spent writing in unique names for each different judge position up for election:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Bloomington_P25_challengedballot1F.pdf

(Unlike the ones where someone obviously signed their name as a write-in for half the offices, this one is a clearly valid vote, however.)

That is a proof of the stupidity of electing judges and you're wrong. He voted for the true candidate for a judge position.

Huh? What exactly am I wrong about? I'm confused.

He did that for all judge races but one.

[Sam Spade]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35938774.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUT

[Torie]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35938774.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUT

Bring out the violins.

[Lief]

Yeah, it's their fault that an election official improperly threw their vote out. They should just suck it up. It's not like they have a right to vote anyway.

[Ronnie]

So, will we have a good idea of who wins tomorrow?

[Verily]

Look at how much time someone spent writing in unique names for each different judge position up for election:

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Bloomington_P25_challengedballot1F.pdf

(Unlike the ones where someone obviously signed their name as a write-in for half the offices, this one is a clearly valid vote, however.)

That is a proof of the stupidity of electing judges and you're wrong. He voted for the true candidate for a judge position.

Huh? What exactly am I wrong about? I'm confused.

He did that for all judge races but one.

Ah, true. Maybe it is an identifying mark, then; was this Beryl A. Nord's ballot? (I kid.)

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35938774.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUT

Bring out the violins.

I have to say that the quadriplegic actually has a good case in regards to the signatures--no idea about the registration, of course. But his story is probably not representative.

[Vasall des Midas]

So, will we have a good idea of who wins tomorrow?

Coleman wins. Franken's narrowed the gap but is falling short.

Unless I'm wrong, in which case I'm wrong.-

[Ronnie]

So, will we have a good idea of who wins tomorrow?

Coleman wins. Franken's narrowed the gap but is falling short.

Unless I'm wrong, in which case I'm wrong.-

Since when was he narrowing the gap?

Also, when is the canvassing board sitting down and doing this thing?

[Vasall des Midas]

So, will we have a good idea of who wins tomorrow?

Coleman wins. Franken's narrowed the gap but is falling short.

Unless I'm wrong, in which case I'm wrong.-

Since when was he narrowing the gap?

Since the Coleman campaign found it necessary to challenge perfectly valid ballots.

A stupidity the other side then duplicated, of course.

[Lunar]

FRANKEN WINS AT COURT