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

[Meeker]

How can anyone know the partisan biases of those who can't mark their ballots properly?  One can assume they match their region, are more Dem, are old, or whatever. Who knows? I don't trust much projections here. I suspect given the ballot design, it is mostly old folks.

We know it's often new voters who haven't experienced the system before. And I don't think I need to tell you how new voters are voting this year.

[Sam Spade]

11 challenged ballots - You be the judge...  Statute provided.

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

Ballot #1:  I would count the ballot for Franken, even though it comes close to being defective (see Subd. 3).  I don't buy the arrow argument - it doesn't look like an arrow (lol)

Ballot #2: Easy call - this one should count (presuming for Coleman).  A thumbprint is not a SS#, unless we have the voter in front of us.  Frankly, I think it falls under Subd. 12.

Ballot #3: Quite frankly, the mark is too far away and too much in-between Franken and the Libertarian to count it as a vote under Subd. 6 in my view.

Ballot #4: Vote for Franken.  The NO says a lot towards intent in my view.

Ballot #5: This is a tougher call than the others because the statute is unclear.  Quite frankly, I think it's a vote for Franken, simply Lizard People is only written in and not ovalled in, whereas it is ovalled in under President.  Also see Subd. 5.

Ballot #6:  Unlike Ballot #3, this one is quite clear in my view under Subd. 6.  Vote for Franken.

Ballot #7: Less clear than Ballot #1, but I would count it as a vote for Coleman.  This one and Ballot #8 fall under the same guidelines to me and escape Subd. 3

Ballot #8: As in Ballot #7, I would count it for Franken.

Ballot #9: Definitely a vote for Barkley.  See Subd. 11.

Ballot #10: As in Ballots 1, 7 and 8, an argument can be made for invalidation under Subd. 3.  I generally disagree and would count it for Barkley.

Ballot #11: Unlike 1, 7, 8 and 10, this is clearly an overvote.  The underline argument is ridiculous.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How can anyone know the partisan biases of those who can't mark their ballots properly?  One can assume they match their region, are more Dem, are old, or whatever. Who knows? I don't trust much projections here. I suspect given the ballot design, it is mostly old folks.

I explained this before:

When you insert your ballot into the machine, it either accepts it and counts it if it is accurate, or lets you know there's an error if there is. If there is, you can either count it and not have the votes for the improperly voted offices count, or have it returned, where it'll be destroyed and you'll get a new ballot. Of course if someone has been in line forever, they'll probably just want to leave, and may accept the spoiled ballot. This actually happened with the person in front of me. And we all know where the long lines with people more likely to do this were...

[Meeker]

I agree with Sam except for #11 - I'd count that for Coleman.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1- Franken. That's an arrow? LOL.
2-Though I explained this is very unlikely to be from a poll worker, I'd say count it.
3-Close enough to Franken.
4-Franken. Quite clear.
5-I actually LOLed out loud at this one. No write-in oval filled, so for Franken.
6-Franken. The check is clear enough. This person must be a high school dropout though.
7-The bubble is large enough to count as an overvote. Reject it.
8-This is different. That dot looks like a mistake. Franken.
9-This county must not use pens like we do. And this shows why pens are good. But yeah, Barkley.
10-That Coleman argument is hilarious. Obvious Barkley.
11-OK yeah, dumb argument on Franken's part. This is a clear overvote, and should be rejected.

[Sam Spade]

Oh, and on the earlier ballot:

If the mark is touching one guy's oval and not touching your oval and you're arguing that it's your vote based on how many pixels cross the line (lol), you should be out of luck.  

The ballot shouldn't count for anyone.

[tokar]

Oh, and on the earlier ballot:

If the mark is touching one guy's oval and not touching your oval and you're arguing that it's your vote based on how many pixels cross the line (lol), you should be out of luck.  

The ballot shouldn't count for anyone.

It was a joke :-D.

[Sam Spade]

Oh, and on the earlier ballot:

If the mark is touching one guy's oval and not touching your oval and you're arguing that it's your vote based on how many pixels cross the line (lol), you should be out of luck.  

The ballot shouldn't count for anyone.

It was a joke :-D.

Well, as you can see with the "arrow" and "underline" argument, we do see some doozies.

[Lunar]

ahahaha



lucky for Franken that Minnesota has such lenient intent laws

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Ballot #1:  Franken vote.

Ballot #2: LOL.  Obvious Coleman vote.

Ballot #3: Reject.  No vote.

Ballot #4: Franken vote.

Ballot #5: I think... Franken vote.

Ballot #6: Franken vote.

Ballot #7: Coleman vote.

Ballot #8: Franken vote.

Ballot #9: Barkley vote.  I love the logic that an eraser mark means they wanted to vote for Franken.

Ballot #10: Barkley vote.  The Coleman mark looks like an inadvertent stray mark, like the mark on Franken's name.

Ballot #11: I say this is a Coleman vote.  It seems that the voter crossed out Franken's name.

[Sam Spade]

I've updated some of the completed counties in the original post, but haven't done it all yet and haven't gotten to the partials.

[MaxQue]

Ballot #1:  Franken. The mark in only one hole with ink around. No arrow is oblivous.

Ballot #2: Coleman. That is not a Social security number, neither a name. Only somebody who didn't check where he puts his digits.

Ballot #3: Depends of the others choices. If the ballot is like that for all offices, count for Franken. If not, reject.

Ballot #4: Franken. That is legal under Minnesota Statutes and that is clear.

Ballot #5: Franken. The oval is not filled beside Write-in.

Ballot #6:  Franken. Intend is clear.

Ballot #7: Reject. Two ovals are filled.

Ballot #8: Franken. Barkley oval is not filled, this is a error, probably.

Ballot #9: Barkley. Voter had indented to vote for Franken, but he changed his mind, oblivously.

Ballot #10: Barkley. Coleman oval is not filled, this is a error, probably.

Ballot #11: Reject. Two ovals are filled. Underline argument couldn't be proven, that could a voter who fallen asleep.

[Хahar 🤔]

1: Franken. That's an arrow? Ridiculous.
2: Coleman. That's no identifying mark.
3: Franken. Franken votes are objectively better than undervotes.
4: Franken. The "NO" is very clear.
5: Franken. No write-in box is filled in.
6: Franken. Voter intent is clear.
7: Overvote. Overvotes are objectively better than Coleman votes.
8: Franken. Franken votes are objectively better than overvotes.
9: Barkley. Duh.
10: Barkley. Duh.
11: Overvote. Duh.

[Keystone Phil]

1) Franken

2) Accept

3) Reject

4) Reject (though I guess if MN Statutes allows that, it has to be accepted)

5) Franken

6) Reject

7) Reject

8 ) Franken

9) Barkley

10) Barkley

11) Reject

[minionofmidas]

lol voters.

I agree with Engdahl about that one, btw; I don't really see the X (I perceive a "/" fairly well but the other stroke isn't really there).

In Germany, where people usually draw x'es, this would probably be considered an x that the voter then erased, meaning he intended not to vote.
Seeing all the squiggles in the other slideshow though, this is a squiggle and thus a valid vote, I think.

[opebo]

1-11 Franken - and I didn't even look at them!

[minionofmidas]

Ballot #11: Reject. Two ovals are filled. Underline argument couldn't be proven, that could a voter who fallen asleep.

Also, it could be either an underlining or a crossing-out - it's literally impossible to determine intent.

[Eraserhead]

1-11 Franken - and I didn't even look at them!

lol

[Sam Spade]

Basically, everything is updated, except for the incomplete counties.

[MarkWarner08]

theuptake.org says Franken just lost 17 votes in Minneapolis.

[panda_priest]

1. Franken
2. Coleman
3. Franken
4. Franken
5. Franken
6. Franken
7. Coleman
8. Franken
9. Barkley
10. Barkley
11. Reject

[ilikeverin]

Ballot #11: Reject. Two ovals are filled. Underline argument couldn't be proven, that could a voter who fallen asleep.

Also, it could be either an underlining or a crossing-out - it's literally impossible to determine intent.

Looks like a crossing-out to me.  Being someone who is utterly incapable of drawing a straight line for the life of me, it's good to use the start of the line as a way to determine intent, and (unless the line was drawn right-to-left, which is highly unlikely) it looks like they intended that the line be drawn through Al Franken's name.

But that's just me

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

OMG OPTICAL SCAN AND PAPER BALLOTS ARE SUUOOO AWEZOME CUZ WE CAN RECOUNT THEM! OMG!

Electronic voting is the only accurate and non-ridiculous way to vote in the 21st century.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OMG OPTICAL SCAN AND PAPER BALLOTS ARE SUUOOO AWEZOME CUZ WE CAN RECOUNT THEM! OMG!

Electronic voting is the only accurate and non-ridiculous way to vote in the 21st century.

Oh yes, I just love having hackers being able to alter the election.

I'm quite thankful that electronic voting is 100% illegal in Minnesota.

[Rococo4]

Basically, everything is updated, except for the incomplete counties.

thanks your chart is very helpful