Because of how the corrections were made (all entirely in Franken's favor),

C'mon, look at where the votes are coming from...

because somebody just happened to have some ballots in their car etc etc etc.

for a total of 12 votes. I do not think this election will turn on 12 votes. As to the "etc, etc,"??? What "etc etc"???

This is Washington State all over again.

I admit my ignorance...

I also find it interesting that elections that are close, the democrats somehow manage to pull out the right number of votes to take the victory.

Not knowing the full history, I hesitate to say, but this sounds really strange after the past eight years, especially in light of the US Attorneys purge of 2006/7...

The 2000 Florida election is the only one I know of where that didn't happen, but had Gore had his way, with the recounts only occuring in heavily democratic and democratically controlled elections boards, I often figure they would have figured out a way to steal that one too.

As I recall, if he had asked for a recount of the whole state, he would have won (the election as well as the court case). The reason he lost the court case is because he asked for recounts in only those heavily Democratic areas.

If somebody wants to correct me on these points feel free to do so... but I am certain that if a full recount had been done in Florida, Gore would have won in 2000. (as per NYT counts of actual votes after it was all over)

This is Washington State all over again.

I also find it interesting that elections that are close, the democrats somehow manage to pull out the right number of votes to take the victory. The 2000 Florida election is the only one I know of where that didn't happen, but had Gore had his way, with the recounts only occuring in heavily democratic and democratically controlled elections boards, I often figure they would have figured out a way to steal that one too.

I think Coleman's seat is being stolen.

jm: on what evidence?

I ask this because elections are always a little sloppy... except in places like China, the USSR, Saddam's Iraq, etc...

Your argument clearly states that absentee, mail in, and provisional ballots should not be counted.

Nope, I'm saying that we should have a system where they don't exist. I'd have instant or no registration, thus eliminating provisional ballots, and some form of instant voting that would eliminate mail-in votes.

"I'd have instant or no registration,"

I am a little confused James, as to just what that means, please elaborate. In the meanwhile, your larger point seems to presume a perfect system. But all voting systems are now set up on the presumption that they will not be perfect...

Which strikes me as very pragmatic as no system is ever perfect.

I think Coleman's seat is being stolen.

I don't know about Alaska-but it is one state where I can see counting ballots on election day would be difficult, and I won't cry too many tears if Steven's loses. I do have a hard time believing such a republican state has that many early ballots swinging the other way-I am curious to see the how those ballots are trending on the presidential and other party races.

Nope, I'm saying that we should have a system where they don't exist. I'd have instant or no registration, thus eliminating provisional ballots, and some form of instant voting that would eliminate mail-in votes.

You will get no argument from me. I was pointing out that your statement, which I italicized, to wit:

the candidate whose party controls the election apparatus -- winds up winning, it'll never be perceived as legitimate.

had a touch of sour grapes to it.
Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com has it for Begish yesterday. Meanwhile, let us not forget the Senate races in Minnesota and Georgia, where the Dems still have pick up chances.

Ah yes, the worst nightmare of the Federalist Society, a veto proof Senate, and a President who is a Constitutional scholar.

Nope, I'm saying that we should have a system where they don't exist. I'd have instant or no registration, thus eliminating provisional ballots, and some form of instant voting that would eliminate mail-in votes.

You will get no argument from me. I was pointing out that your statement, which I italicized, had a touch of sour grapes to it. To wit:

the candidate whose party controls the election apparatus -- winds up winning, it'll never be perceived as legitimate.

Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com has it for Begish yesterday. Meanwhile, let us not forget the Senate races in Minnesota and Georgia, where the Dems still have pick up chances.

Ah yes, the worst nightmare of the Federalist Society, a veto proof Senate, and a President who is a Constitutional scholar.

180 million people in a area bigger than the so called Lower 48... ;-)

Even in the Amazon States of Brazil the results are in before 10.00 PM of the Election Day. And I don´t think that this area, where you have isolated areas under the jungle are better than Alaska.

################################################
Andre;
Tell me again.... Just how many IS a Brazilian??

If you have a major on Engineering, Computer Science, programming or anything that demands Mathematics you find a job easily.

Your argument clearly states that absentee, mail in, and provisional ballots should not be counted.

Nope, I'm saying that we should have a system where they don't exist. I'd have instant or no registration, thus eliminating provisional ballots, and some form of instant voting that would eliminate mail-in votes.

To wit: Why is it so important that its done once and for all on election night?

The problem is that we get results on the news based on the count. When one candidate is ahead with 100 percent of the precincts in and then another candidate -- especially the candidate whose party controls the election apparatus -- winds up winning, it'll never be perceived as legitimate.( James Joyner | November 13, 2008 | 10:39 am) My italics.

Consider what the Anchorage Daily News is reporting:

The state Division of Elections tallied about 60,000 absentee, early and questioned ballots from around the state on Wednesday. The ballots broke heavily in the Democrat's favor, erasing the 3,000-vote lead the Republican Stevens held after election night Nov. 4.
…

The state still needs to count at least 15,000 questioned ballots and an estimated 25,000 absentees. With all the absentee votes coming in, this will be one of the biggest turnouts, if not the biggest in terms of ballots cast, the state has ever seen. That's despite questions in the media and on blogs about why turnout appeared low on Election Day.

Most regional elections headquarters will count their remaining ballots on Friday. But the most populous region, based in Anchorage, won't count its ballots until either Monday or Wednesday, state elections chief Gail Fenumiai said.

Begich pushed hard in the campaign for people to vote early, a factor both Democrats and Republicans said contributed to his surge. More than 9,000 of those early ballots weren't counted until Wednesday to give the state time to double check and make sure people didn't vote early and then come back and vote on Election Day as well.

Finally, it is well known that a common Republican tactic is voter suppression by questioning voter’s credentials. The quoted newspaper article continues with:

Also, Moore said, questioned ballots tend to favor Democrats, and are often people who have recently moved and might be single, less established, without as much money.

Your argument clearly states that absentee, mail in, and provisional ballots should not be counted.

Bahhh, humbug those who live by myths will die by myths. There are four regional judges supervising these counts, and rest assured that if there is any evidence of hanky panky Mukasey's Department of Justice will jump in...