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

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

What does "C4, F3" mean?  Has Coleman challenged 4 Franken ballots, or has Franken challenged four Coleman ballots?

"Hennepin (1%)   23%P, 23%V   237,649 (3,782)   -42   329,408 (2,508)   -37   F+5   C80, F44"

How does one lose votes in a recount, as outlined above with Coleman losing 42 and Franken 37?

[Torie]

What does "C4, F3" mean?  Has Coleman challenged 4 Franken ballots, or has Franken challenged four Coleman ballots?

"Hennepin (1%)   23%P, 23%V   237,649 (3,782)   -42   329,408 (2,508)   -37   F+5   C80, F44"

How does one lose votes in a recount, as outlined above with Coleman losing 42 and Franken 37?

Coleman has challenged four ballots, Franken has challenged three.  These can be any type of ballot - a blank vote, an overvote, a Franken vote, a Barkley vote, etc.

As to the second question, most of this likely occurred by multiple scans of the same ballot.  As I mentioned earlier, the audit showed to me that very few of the blank ballots would actually be counted, so there was a decent probability it was whoever lost the least votes would win.

Of course, the challenges may change that.

If it is multiple counting of the same ballot, then the changes should be random no, rather than Franken having an advantage due to the dumb Democrat factor, i.e., dumbs who can't manage to mark their ballot on that portion of the ballot that causes the optical counting machine to get all hot and bothered, and count a vote?

[Torie]

That is pretty clear intent for Coleman. The Barkley circle was crossed out.

[Torie]

In other words, it's over.

Well, commenting on this and your previous post, the Franken rap is that the totals don't include challenged ballots, and the Coleman team made a lot more frivolous challenges than they did.

[Torie]

Nate Silver just said that the person with the most votes after the counting and challenges will be elected Senator. You heard it here first.

After you get a couple of statistics courses under  your belt Phil, you will grow to love Nate. You are going to take a couple in college aren't you?  It is a big mistake if you miss the opportunity. A lot of stuff out there these days is statistical jargon, some legit, and some BS, and not learning the lore of the craft kind of leaves one out in the cold on a lot of interesting stuff.

[Torie]

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

Bring out the violins.

[Torie]

Unfortunately Coleman is still trying to pull a Bush-2000 in court.

Having some counties re-review rejected absentee ballots and not others is a dog that won't hunt. This should be resolved in court.

[Torie]

Unfortunately Coleman is still trying to pull a Bush-2000 in court.

Having some counties re-review rejected absentee ballots and not others is a dog that won't hunt. This should be resolved in court.

"Resolved" is just a code word for "halt as soon as possible." Coleman has made no secret about wanting to stop this recount, even from happening in the first place.

Well, the way the game is played is one follows the law as interpreted by the courts, and I explained that the court should impose consistency, and apply the law. It may be that the counties can each do whatever they want, but I doubt it.

[Torie]

maybe Norm can go back to dealing bud on some college campus if/when he loses this



we could use him here, the kid in 322b has a monopoly and he knows how to use it

Norm was a dealer in his feckless youth?

[Torie]

They haven't added to the totals the withdrawn challenges have they?

[Torie]

What was Nate Silver's prediction, again?

It depends when you asked him.

He's projecting Franken wins by 40 votes now, excluding the absentee ballots that may have been illegally rejected.

[Torie]

It is an estimate Phil, and subject to being higher or lower. It is just the top of the bell curve of possibilities. Bell curves have tails. The number is also based on certain assumptions which are explicated, and if those assumptions are wrong, then the bell curve numbers may be wrong. The exercise is a statistical tool for predicting the odds of a result occurring; it is not a crystal ball. Statistics are a beautiful thing Phil, elegant and sometimes illuminating and useful.

[Torie]

I have no problem with Nate's statistical model.  There a lot of room for error in my calculations and there's a lot of room for error in his. 

My big issue with his model "at this point" is that we're getting to the point where the only challenges left will be "withdrawn challenges", which means, according to my review, that pretty much all the challenges left will be going to the non-challenger candidate.  That means that any analysis that extrapolates based on "present challenges - nonwithdrawn" will be faulty.

Therefore, I'm choosing not to base anything on statistical extrapolation, but rather on two assumptions made looking at the "withdrawn" challenges.

1) The number of challenges left for each candidate are SOS minus Strib.
2) These challenges will all go towards the non-challenged candidate or equal in numbers towards Other/No One.

The rate of error will be the variables on these numbers - administrative on the first, normal statistical error on the second.

Nate takes the withdrawn challenges into account, and awards Coleman a net of 385 when those ballots are included in the totals.

[Torie]

I was about to post that.

42 42 42!

I will be a God among Gods if that turns out to be the victory margin.

Well didn't Franken pick up around 42 votes from those ballots they can't find?  That issue is going to court. Maybe it will be a tie if Coleman wins that dispute.

Ya, I know. Franken might well earn some more votes from those pesky absentees, unless of course Franken has factored that in, but I tend to doubt that since I am not sure anyone knows the vote patterns of absentees "wrongly" rejected. Moreover, the court said the parties needed to agree on what ballots were wrongly rejected, which suggests maybe more court action when they can't agree.

And so it goes.

Actually, it is 46 votes net loss to Franken, so Coleman might have the edge.

[Torie]

Does Coleman have a chance or not?  I'm so confused. 

Coleman might be in the hunt if he wins the missing ballots contretemps. Other than that, he appears dead, unless he gets lucky on the rejected absentee ballot thingie, which is unlikely, and the absentee ballots may well sink him anyway, even if he gets that 46 votes removed from Franken. And then there is chat about military ballots being in the mix somehow with the absentees, which should be pro Coleman. But that might just be internet spam.

[Torie]

Not much of one. Torie is basically just saying Coleman has a chance if he pulls out every dirty trick in his bag.

Having your day in court is not a dirty trick in my book.  Are you hostile to the black robe class? 

[Torie]

Oh well, at least there's less than 24 hours remaining with Norm Coleman as my Senator, even if Franken won't take over immediately.

Coleman became a former Senator at noon eastern time.

Hey, you remember those missing 149 ballots allegedly from  some commie precinct in Minneapolis?  Well, I just found them in my bottom drawer, and oddly enough they are all marked for Coleman.

[Torie]

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is not a happy camper. I would think that the Court will insist on consistent standards and counting all absentee ballots "wrongly" rejected, not just ones in counties (mostly Franken dominated ones), that chose to count them.

    * JANUARY 5, 2009, 4:42 A.M. ET

Funny Business in Minnesota
In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken.

   

Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.
[Review & Outlook] AP

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals.

In other cases, the board has been flagrantly inconsistent. Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

Meanwhile, a Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct. This gave Mr. Franken a net gain of 37 votes, which means he's benefited both ways from the board's inconsistency.

And then there are the absentee ballots. The Franken campaign initially howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. Many Franken-leaning counties did so, submitting 1,350 ballots to include in the results. But many Coleman-leaning counties have yet to complete a re-examination. Despite this lack of uniformity, and though the state Supreme Court has yet to rule on a Coleman request to standardize this absentee review, Mr. Ritchie's office nonetheless plowed through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees this weekend, padding Mr. Franken's edge by a further 176 votes.
   
Both campaigns have also suggested that Mr. Ritchie's office made mistakes in tabulating votes that had been challenged by either of the campaigns. And the Canvassing Board appears to have applied inconsistent standards in how it decided some of these challenged votes -- in ways that, again on net, have favored Mr. Franken.

The question is how the board can certify a fair and accurate election result given these multiple recount problems. Yet that is precisely what the five members seem prepared to do when they meet today. Some members seem to have concluded that because one of the candidates will challenge the result in any event, why not get on with it and leave it to the courts? Mr. Coleman will certainly have grounds to contest the result in court, but he'll be at a disadvantage given that courts are understandably reluctant to overrule a certified outcome.

Meanwhile, Minnesota's other Senator, Amy Klobuchar, is already saying her fellow Democrats should seat Mr. Franken when the 111th Congress begins this week if the Canvassing Board certifies him as the winner. This contradicts Minnesota law, which says the state cannot award a certificate of election if one party contests the results. Ms. Klobuchar is trying to create the public perception of a fait accompli, all the better to make Mr. Coleman look like a sore loser and build pressure on him to drop his legal challenge despite the funny recount business.

Minnesotans like to think that their state isn't like New Jersey or Louisiana, and typically it isn't. But we can't recall a similar recount involving optical scanning machines that has changed so many votes, and in which nearly every crucial decision worked to the advantage of the same candidate. The Coleman campaign clearly misjudged the politics here, and the apparent willingness of a partisan like Mr. Ritchie to help his preferred candidate, Mr. Franken. If the Canvassing Board certifies Mr. Franken as the winner based on the current count, it will be anointing a tainted and undeserving Senator.

[Torie]

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is not a happy camper. I would think that the Court will insist on consistent standards and counting all absentee ballots "wrongly" rejected, not just ones in counties (mostly Franken dominated ones), that chose to count them.

The decision from the Court was that the two campaigns would have to agree on which of the wrongly rejected absentee ballots to count, and only those would be counted. It's not a matter of which counties decided to count them.

Ya, well the court did not decide this specific issue, but it will. Indeed the court noted that it was not reaching the merits, which it observed could happen in the contest phase. The odds that counting more ballots could change the result appears to be highly remote to me however.