Comments on: Minnesota Recount Follies

By: tom p

tom p — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:31:19 +0000

maybe its too cold for anyone to think clearly in minnesota?

HEY! My sister lives in Minneapolis! Then again, she voted for Bush not just once, but twice.

By: ap

ap — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:14:41 +0000

maybe its too cold for anyone to think clearly in minnesota?

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:02:46 +0000

Thanks Franklin, I don't think I cought the specific issue with "identifying mark." But still, someone wrote-in the name Brett Favre and darkened the adjoining circle. That strikes me as a write-in. The other voter wrote "Lizard People" all over the ballot.

By: Steven Donegal

Steven Donegal — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:56:43 +0000

This same thing happened in the 2004 Washington governor's election. Each election count has a margin of error that can't be eliminated without undue burden on the process. Like the 2004 WA race, the Minn Senate race is well within that margin of error. The fairest result would be to flip a coin, but instead we'll have months of litigation. That's a kind of coin flip but a lot more expensive.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:19:24 +0000

Regarding the Brett Favre vs. Lizard People debate: The challenge on both was due to the write-in name being "an identifying mark". On that count, they should indeed be equivalent.

Nate Silver correctly points out the other differences between the ballots, which are certainly debateable. But those differences don't appear to be the reason for the challenge.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:45:36 +0000

After reading the links, I'm still not entirely sure what's going on. I understand that it was "optional" before for the various counties to sort the rejected ballots by reason. So by ordering it to be uniform, they're doing what? Are all counties going to be forced to sort?

By: Franklin

Franklin — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:41:42 +0000

I'm a little confused on what the Minnesota Supreme Court did. The first blurb says they are excluding the ballots, the second says that they're supposed to be counted. I thought the issue before them was a single issue: the absentee ballots that were rejected for no apparent reason.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:59:22 +0000

I'm with PD: The Favre vote was for President, not Senate--I was confused by Silver's comparison of the two ballots yesterday when I first read the post.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:56:26 +0000

Fair point, PD, on the Favre ballot.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:35:40 +0000

On the Brett Favre ballot, Favre is a write-in for President, so it doesn't contradict or have anything to do with the vote for Coleman.

My favorite outcome at this point might be if Al Franken loses by one vote because the Lizard King ballot is voided. Ludicrous, insane and perhaps a teaching moment.