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

[Verily]

whats going on in Dakota, where Coleman did well, to see him lose 32 votes overall - so far

Probably a tabulation error when votes were first counted. Someone read a 40 as a 90 or something. Changes in recounts are certainly not necessarily fraudulent. In fact, the current results are indicating that, if Franken wins, it will be a "clean" win. That need not hold, of course.

[Verily]

StarTrib says 136

They appear to be ahead of the SoS right now, so this is the most current number.

[Verily]

1. Reject. Definitely a signature, therefore an identifying mark.
2. Franken
3. Coleman
4. Coleman


STrib now has Coleman ahead by 130 votes. Franken challenged a ton of ballots today, too, now with 901 challenges to only 416 for Coleman.

http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/msenco.html

[Verily]

Now it's back down to 142 from the STrib.

Try Ctrl-F5, Rococo.

[Verily]

Coleman just gained a bunch of votes out of Duluth.  I'm frankly quite surprised.

It's because Coleman just challenged a big chunk of votes there, 57 more than Franken has (137-80). Challenged ballots aren't included in the totals, but I imagine the vast majority of the disparity will end going to Franken. (Coleman probably just has an overzealous vote-challenger there.)

[Verily]

Franken's team declares they are 4 votes ahead if the missing envelope is found (not sure if it includes the most recent plastic bag warehouse votes) and every challenges is rejected.

Coleman has 95 more challenges than Franken, the missing ballots are +37 Franken. Even if all ten of these military ballots are for Franken, that's only a net of 142 votes for Franken; he's behind by somewhere around 200.

But there are enough challenges that they only need to break slightly more strongly for Franken than the equivalent of none counting for him to win. Still Coleman favored with about 80% odds, I think.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[Verily]

FRANKEN WINS AT COURT

The absentee ballots will be counted, as will the 133 ballots left out of the recount (but included in the original count. IIRC, the latter is a net +37 for Franken, or something like it. The absentee ballots could give any result at all; there are about 1,500 of them.

[Verily]

Er... don't Republicans normally win absentee ballots?

Yes, but not necessarily this year (at least, not on the Presidential level). It varies heavily from state to state, of course, too, with some states such as Florida heavily Republican and others more Democratic than the state average.

But the key point is that these are absentee ballots which were rejected--typically, the votes of those who haven't voted absentee before, so a lot of college students and new voters; as well as the votes of those who tend to make mistakes while voting, which also tend to be Democrats (thus provisional ballots always going Democratic).

But I am skeptical that the 1,500 or so ballots will give Franken more than 50 or so net votes, if he gains anything at all from them. Still, it may put him that much closer to closing on the challenges.

[Verily]

FRANKEN WINS AT COURT

The absentee ballots will be counted, as will the 133 ballots left out of the recount (but included in the original count. IIRC, the latter is a net +37 for Franken, or something like it. The absentee ballots could give any result at all; there are about 1,500 of them.

If you're referring to the *lost* ballots, it merely ensures that the numbers stay the same.  Franken doesn't gain anything, he just doesn't lose anything.

I thought the official numbers were still omitting those ballots in their recount. If not, then yes, he gains nothing.

[Verily]

It's just a recommendation that the absentee ballots be counted. They acknowledged the counties cannot be forced to do it.

Of course, one would imagine every county would want to count them. After all, if you're a Republican county, your ballots probably favor Coleman; if you're a Democratic county, your ballots probably favor Franken. To refuse to count your county's ballots would be to hurt your favored candidate. (Assuming that there are no or very few counties with local governments radically different from their national voting patterns.)

[Verily]

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has done their own analysis of the ballots and is predicting Franken to win by 174 votes: http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ballots/

It was 193 when I clicked. Isn't this more of a group conclusion from (possibly biased) readers who go through them all, rather than an analysis by the paper?

I'm pretty sure they had something separate where the site members went through the ballots. But maybe it's the same thing. I'm pretty sure it's based on extrapolating the current numbers, though; it's changing too fast to be anything else.

The STrib is currently projecting Franken by 209, for what it's worth. The first batch of Coleman challenges has come in, though, and it shows really good numbers for Coleman. Although it's only a handful of ballots and so may be highly unrepresentative.

[Verily]

If Franken wins, this will be the greatest example of election stealing in American history.  Republicans should play this up for years

O rly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876

I don't really consider that election "stolen".  That election was given away as part of a compromise, most likely if vote counting continued Tilden would have won.

And for those who say 2000, I'd love to see the point where Al Gore lead by 800 votes as Coleman did

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_gubernatorial_election,_2002

[Verily]

Insane.  All each party has to do is look at the county and refuse to accept any absentees from a county that favors the other side.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/in-minnesota-six-inches-of-confusion.html

1. The counties are prohibited from sorting through or counting any rejected absentee ballots on their own, or under the recommendations of the state's Canvassing Board;

2. Instead, the two candidates, the Secretary of State, and the county auditors and canvassing boards should implement a process for identifying and counting wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. But -- and here's the kicker -- both of the candidates and the local elections officials must mutually agree that any given absentee ballot has been rejected in error. If such a consensus emerges about a particular ballot, it will be opened, counted, and the revised results will be forwarded to the state's Canvassing Board.

The Court further requires that this process be completed by 4 PM on December 31st. Nothing in the ruling, however, would appear to preclude either campaign from challenging the results of the election at a later date.

The process established by the Supreme Court is likely to be contentious and cumbersome. The sheer number of parties it involves in the process, when coupled with the lack of guidance it provides to them, creates an environment in which fatigue and partisanship are likely to prevail over Minnesota Nice. The most burdensome part of the process, of course, is the requirement that each individual ballot must be mutually agreed upon to have been rejected in error before it is opened and counted.

Not just stupid, downright moronic and time wasting. Who, exactly, is on the Minnesota Supreme Court? Remind me to never support any of them if they get nominated for higher positions.

At least the decisions are to be rendered before each ballot is opened--so presumably the Coleman campaign can't stop supporting counting a ballot because it was a Franken vote, or vice versa.

[Verily]

Naturally, it is impossible that one candidate's challenge will result in a vote for that candidate, absent administrative error.

Not true. There are a handful of ballots which were counted for Franken on election night but which have been challenged by Coleman as possibly intended to vote for Coleman, and the same in reverse. I suspect most such ballots will be deemed overvotes, except where the challenge is particularly moronic such as partisan inconsistency (e.g. challenges to McCain/Franken ballots.), but at least one or two will switch. And there are some which were deemed on election night to be undervotes or votes for Barkley or some minor candidate which have been challenged by Franken as votes for Franken or by Coleman as votes for Coleman.

[Verily]

He's reading the three elections as:

-PA-13 2004
-Santorum 2006
-McCain in Pennsylvania 2008

Basically the three notorious ones that he blew big time.

the problem is, Phil didn't blow PA 2008, he never claimed McCain would win, even if he probably hoped and prayed for it.

He did roughly up until September and kept arguing that the polls were all wrong because of the power of the Almighty Bradley Effect or something. He then admitted Obama would win Pennsylvania but still kept arguing that it would be a lot closer than the polls showed and that he would do worse than Kerry in Philadelphia because of his anecdotal evidence. All of it of course ended up being garbage.

many people thought PA would be closer than the polls, myself included.

So you're yet another believe in that Almighty All Powerful Bradley Effect?

BRTD, go away.

Anyway, Phil did not, as I recall, predict Pennsylvania to be anything but substantially Obama at the end. He didn't do so earlier, but, if we're going to sing the praises of dynamic models, we have to at least allow him to change his predictions. BRTD I suspect is conflating blue PA avatars a bit in his rush.