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

[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.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

The end result of a re-count should be that more votes end up being counted, not less.

The end result of a recount should be that the original count was correct or very close to correct, and all the errors were human errors without systematic bias.
Something's very wrong with the original counting procedure wherever that's not the case.

The law about signatures makes sense - the idea (an idea already holed behind the waterline by the expansion of postal voting) being that for a ballot to be truly secret and free from outside interference, secrecy must be compulsory.
Which admittedly doesn't make too much sense in the case of this barely readable signature.

[minionofmidas]

I'm all for destroying democracy, but only when it benefits me!

What, you say that if such things become routinized, it could eventually hurt my wishes in a big way (Gore)?  No....

this would be retaliation for Gore

Wouldn't Washington 2004 be retaliation for Gore?

Not on the same plane of existence.

Nor is this race. Unless it were *blatantly* stolen, but the process is far too transparent for that still to be possible.

[minionofmidas]

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/LacQuiParle_DawsonW1_Challengedballot1.pdf

How does this show voter intent was not for Franken?

It is very clear from the voter's presidential choices that he or she is a confused idiot. It is an established fact that all confused idiots support Coleman. Therefore, clearly the voter voted for Franken rather than Coleman by mistake.

[minionofmidas]

What the fuck is the logic behind this challenge?

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/mahnomen_LakeGrove_challengedballot1.pdf

"Inconsistency"? I'd like to give that challenger a black eye.

Well, we can't tell if they used a different color ink to fill in the Franken bubble than the rest of the ballot.  And they didn't vote for President, but voted for Senate.  Bizarre. 

"Bizarre"? Just a bitter PUMA who couldn't bring itself to vote for a third Bush term either.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, I do not understand Coleman's "inconsistency" challenges. if all voters in Minnesota simply voted a straight ticket, as Coleman's party seems to be arguing quite a bit, then clearly Franken would be the victor as Obama carried the state by ten points.

No no no, you see there was good reason to vote Obama/Barkley or Obama/Coleman as Franken got fewer votes than Obama! But the other way round, that's just absurd!

[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.

[minionofmidas]

Maplewood is a St Paul suburb of 35,000.

The wiki article has only this to add to the standard statistical crap...

"Politics

Maplewood's Mayor (Diana Longrie) and Council (Rebecca Cave, Erik Hjelle, Kathy Junemann, and Will Rossbach) have garnered metro-area attention over the last year for a number of issues. Chief among these issues are the firings, resignations, and re-organizational plan that eliminated some positions."

lol

[minionofmidas]

http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SelectPrecinct.asp?M=P&rq=62Ramsey

[minionofmidas]

I don't know where you get +59 from. They had said -50, and now +22. But 72 - 37 = +35. Obviously the +37 from the found ballots are a special case.

Misadded.  +35 would still require Franken to win every challenge made today.

Soo.. not that unlikely given the nature of challenges in this race?

Possible if the Franken people have finally done what they should have done ages ago - unilaterally cut the ridiculous crap. They *did* start it later, after all.

[minionofmidas]

Instead of questioning this voter's intent, maybe they should be questioning his sanity...

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Todd_Osakis_challengedballot1.pdf

Hm? Why? Just because he prefers MN Dems to MN Reps and likes Ron Paul?

I suppose the "reason" for the challenge is the slightly "wrong" mark (an x in addition to filling in) for Paul and Franken but not lower down - seems pretty obvious that the voter noticed the instructions after making the two x'es.

[minionofmidas]

Instead of questioning this voter's intent, maybe they should be questioning his sanity...

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Todd_Osakis_challengedballot1.pdf

Hm? Why? Just because he prefers MN Dems to MN Reps and likes Ron Paul?

Voting for Ron Paul and Franken is a clear sign of lunacy in my book.

Voting for Coleman, Barkley, or Franken, except as a lesser evil, is a clear sign of lunacy in anybody's book.

[minionofmidas]

One of the more creative challenges I've found so far.  Follow the logic (not that I think it's successful btw)

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/cottonwood_noprecinct_8.pdf

There might be a logic, if the principle continued beyond the second race...

[minionofmidas]

The voter was probably trying to indicate that they were willing to vote for anyone but John McCain and Norm Coleman.

Presumably, yeah. Still a stupid way of doing so when you know that one of those races was way close...

[minionofmidas]

Which Norm Coleman is this voter voting for?

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Crow%20Wing_Lake%20Edward_challenged%20ballot%201.pdf

That pretty rare bird - a ballot where there is a quite likely explanation that would render the ballot valid (Torie's) but not enough clarity to count it under normal circumstances.
I really don't care if they count that one.

[minionofmidas]

Wait. Franken leads now?

Almost certainly not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Never happened.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Coleman's lead has been going down steadily (except for that one 37 vote drop) but almost certainly too slowly (from the Franken viewpoint) since the recount started. Anything else was just partisan hackery - a department in which Franken's people have been bad and Coleman's worse. The recount is now nearly finished, so if Franken were winning this, which he almost certainly isn't, he would have to be taking the lead round about now.

[minionofmidas]

In other words, it's over.

[minionofmidas]

are Franken's challenges as retarded as are Coleman's?

Basically yes. The difference is only that they began making retarded challenges two days later, that they kept on lagging behind the Coleman campaign all throughout the count in raw number of retarded challenges, and that they've withdrawn a lot of them now.

[minionofmidas]

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.

That's not just the Franken rap - that's just painfully obvious truth.

Doesn't mean the Franken camp's count of likely outcomes of challenges (the one where they claimed to be leading for the first time yesterday) doesn't include a dose of wishful thinking/partisan bias as well.

[minionofmidas]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35550034.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU

Coleman withdraws 650 ballot challenges.

Good.

[minionofmidas]

Actually, Franken is up more than 10.  I believe the number is 27 and that number is solid.  Nate Silver said so.

That's getting fairly annoying.  He's changed some time ago to show Coleman leading. 

Why would The Almighty have to change a prediction?

Because, as he made very very clear in the posts including the first two stat analyses the tied one and the Franken by 27 one), they were relying on a lot of untested assumptions - had to - parallels with other recounts using similar but, sadly, not identical rules and ballot designs. Minnesota's first count happens to be more accurate and less Republican-biased than the ones from which the data came.

[minionofmidas]

If I know anything about politics, the truth of the matter lies here:  Coleman is ahead nearly all methods of counting, but if all the breaks fall Franken's way in terms of challenges (not to mention the lost ballots), they lead by 10.

Probably need to amend that to say something like "all the breaks that realistically could"  (if *all* the challenges were decided Opebo-style, he'd be winning by far more) but otherwise I agree.

[minionofmidas]

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.

[minionofmidas]

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.