Originally Posted By Darkbeer Amazing examples of a clearly bias recount... <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C470892%2C00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...C00.html</a> >>The primary problem isn’t the rules. The real problem is the lack of consistency. Take some of the ballots that only marked the oval for Coleman, but where the oval is also marked through with an “X.” The Canvassing Board determined that those marks meant those voters intended to support “other/no one.” Here are a couple of examples, with more here. Yet, there are a number of cases where the exact same markings for Franken were decided by the Canvassing Board to result in votes for Franken. More can be found here. But to make the case even more strange, given this rule, what should the board decide when the oval is filled in for Coleman, but the Franken space is marked with an “X”? The board ruled that the vote is for Franken. Nor can Coleman even win when there is an oval filled in for Coleman and the Constitution Party candidate receives an “X.” In that case, the board determined the support went to “other/no one.” But if you have an oval filled in for Franken and the Independence Party candidate receives an oval with an “X,” the vote is given to Franken.<< >>The Canvassing Board has made a number of other controversial decisions. For example, 10 days ago, news headlines proclaimed “Franken Wins Big at Canvassing Board.” One decision, to count 133 so-called “missing” ballots in Minneapolis’ Ward 3, precinct 1, immediately gave Franken an extra 46 more votes than Coleman. That decision by itself gives Franken most of his projected winning margin. There has been much arbitrariness over whether to count newly found votes. Compare these 133 additional votes to the 171 votes that were found in Ramsey County’s Maplewood Precinct 6. In Precinct 6, Franken argued that the original vote total had missed the 171 votes because the voting machine was initially not working and the 171 were not rerun through the new machine that replaced the original defective one. However, Republicans were concerned that the newly “found” ballots might not have been really cast on Election Day. Since the recount showed that there were 171 more ballots than recorded votes, the decision was to add in the ballots, giving Franken a net gain of 37 votes. Contrast this to the 133 ballots in Minneapolis. The 133-vote problem arose because more votes were recorded on Election Day than were found when the recount was conducted. The initial explanation was that the ballots must have been accidentally run through the voting machine twice — that no votes were missing, but that 133 had just been accidentally counted twice. The Canvassing Board however decided not to rely on the recount and instead on the original machine totals. The only commonality in these two decisions was that the outcome benefited Franken. When the recount is in Franken’s favor that is used. When the original machine tally works best that is used. Ignoring the questions with correcting the typos and discovered ballots in an election judge’s car, the Canvassing Board’s decisions have easily supplied more than the 78 vote lead that the board projects Franken to end up with. Yet, the Canvassing Board’s choices will leave long lasting questions about the legitimacy of any win.<< Make sure and check the original link, as they have actual imags of the disputed ballots. Something really stinks in Minnesota. It is clear that the Minnesota Canvessing Board is NOT Fair and Balanced!!!
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Something really stinks in Minnesota. It is clear that the Minnesota Canvessing Board is NOT Fair and Balanced!!!<< Sort of like Fox News, eh?
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I can't speak for the other Minnesota resident here (i.e., Trippy), but I can say this: I'm reaaaaaaaaaaaly tired of this whole recount. It's almost -- but quite as -- bad as the general election. I'm surprised Franken and Coleman aren't still running ads just for the sake of being snarky to each other.
Originally Posted By ecdc Does anyone else see the gigantic irony in DB posting a topic with the phrase, "Talk about a clear bias" in the title? That aside, everything I've read about this suggests that the canvassing board has done the best it can in a tough situation. It won't be a perfect election, and we'll never know who really won. We're talking about a matter of a few dozen votes out of nearly 3 million cast. Just like Florida in 2000, when we get down to these kinds of numbers, it's impossible to get an accurate picture. There will be errors on the ballots by voters that they didn't intend. It's so tough to make the judgment call between voter intent and not counting a ballot. Discerning voter intent can be tricky and is open to political bias. Throwing out ballots violates the sacred American goal of making every vote count. Both sides have played politics, both sides would file a lawsuit regardless of the outcome (it looks like that'll be Coleman's job. Fox News and the OP trying to politicize this is just silly.
Originally Posted By markymouse Who is it who said something profound about the dangers of believing nothing and believing everything? All this article proves is that there are some ballots - I will assume for argument's sake that they are real ballots shown at the link - that have an x and a fill in, some times for the same candidate and sometimes for two different candidates. That's all I'm sure I'm looking at. I'd like to live in a world where if a journalist writes that a particular ballot was interpreted a particular way, that it really happened. But do we really know that from this article? How hard would it be for an biased writer for a biased news organization to simply make up the interpretations? If the League of Women Voters or someone else with a neutral reputation made these same claims, I would give them more credence. As it is, they could be simply false. Or they could be unrelated anomolies. For example, if re-counter A always counts Xs as votes and re-counter B always counts Xs as mark outs, then it wouldn't be too hard to cherry pick examples from each to make it look like there is a bias. I just don't know. I wish journalists were unbiased and a reliable source of information. Am I really supposed to believe that Minnesota is crawling with state agents who are happy to manipulate the facts to get the result they want, but ignore the possibility that this Fox writer is the one manipulating the facts? If the choice were a less biased news service vs. - say - Chicago or Louisiana poll workers, then I'd be pretty suspicious of the poll workers. But we're talking about a Fox news writer vs. Minnesota civil servants.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Does anyone else see the gigantic irony in DB posting a topic with the phrase, "Talk about a clear bias" in the title?*** Along with a link to Fox News? Lord, yes. Hilarious. I think I'll start creating topics like "look at what those evil Republicans are up to now", with links to the Keith Olbermann show.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Make sure and check the original link, as they have actual imags of the disputed ballots. >>> I saw the story a few days ago. You're right - looking at the ballot images presented in that story makes it look pretty bad. The thing is, there's no way you can trust Fox News to present a balanced view of the situation. There may very well be other ballots that would show the opposite bias if presented out of context. That's just the kind of distortion that the noise machine is expert at: don't present anything that's knowingly wrong or fabricated, but be very careful at what third-party information is presented. It can have an enormous impact on the viewpoints that people form. Or, Fox News may be right, but I'd never rely on just them to tell me much of anything. Once all is said and done, it should be interesting to see what other analysis of the ballots is done by independent third parties.
Originally Posted By Mr X Just yesterday I was talking to a U.S. Congress official election observer who told me that these things are far more complex than most folks realize, and from the election counts she has witnessed (in her case, in Ohio) these workers really do try very hard and do their best to be unbiased despite the media accusations that get thrown around...as you can see from those strange ballots pictured, it can be a difficult thing to call. Computerized voting certainly does have its' advantages!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Computerized voting certainly does have its' advantages! >>> It continues to amaze me just how difficult it seems to get the issue of voting systems right, when the answer seems rather obvious to me: the best voting system would be: - an electronic one, which would eliminate this whole business of hanging chads, overvotes, stray marks, or other ambiguities over voter intent - one that does not use a touchscreen, in order to eliminate the "dead pixel" and "out of alignment" problems. Some electronic voting systems use touchscreens, and others use a jog wheel and select button - I think the second option is less prone to error. - one that produces a voter-verified, paper audit trail of the entire vote cast. In the event of a recount, this paper audit trail is considered to be the actual ballot cast and therefore what gets recounted. Virtually all of the problems with the mechanics of voting systems and recounts that we've seen over the past several years would be solved with a voting system that meets all of the above criteria. What's most frustrating is that these systems exist and are in production use in several states. Unfortunately, many states that made a push to "all electronic" made major missteps, made poor choices without really understanding all of the issues (or choosing to ignore them in pursuit of a hidden agenda). In some cases, electronic voting systems have been scrapped and the jurisdiction has reverted to an older paper method. It all seems so unnecessary. Please help me out here: is it really any more complicated to understand than I've described above?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< There needs to be a run-off election. >>> Actually, not. That's not provided for under Minnesota election law, and we shouldn't be changing the rules of how elections are run after the ballots are cast.
Originally Posted By gadzuux "Laws" are designed to serve the interests of the people. If they're not doing that, then the law should be changed. In this case, there were three viable candidates on the ballot, two of whom received approximately the same number of votes. A runoff election between the two top vote getters is the most dependable way of determining the winner. It's not the cheapest, quickest or easiest way, but it is the best way. Everyone's interests are best served and it's important to get it right.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It all seems so unnecessary. Please help me out here: is it really any more complicated to understand than I've described above?<< It's not any more complicated than that. In this day and age, I'm at an absolute loss as to why we don't have 1) a National Elections Board that oversees all national races and establishes laws and guidelines for local races; 2) the elimination of the electoral college. But people don't want to relinquish their local control. And how criminal is it that companies like Diebold that make these machines donate money to one political party?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I can't speak for the other Minnesota resident here (i.e., Trippy), but I can say this: I'm reaaaaaaaaaaaly tired of this whole recount. It's almost -- but quite as -- bad as the general election. I'm surprised Franken and Coleman aren't still running ads just for the sake of being snarky to each other.>> Yes, after the skanky ads neither one deserves to be Senator. I'd just take them both out to the 50-yard line at the Metrodome and have them toss a coin. That would make as much sense as what is happening now. And frankly, now that the veto-proof Senate is no longer hanging in the balance I don't really give a rip who wins. They are both idiots
Originally Posted By markymouse I have to admit I don't get Minnesota elections. Minnesotans seem so clean cut, highest high school graduation rate. You know, the whole "where the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the children are all above average" thing. But then there's this goofy streak. Jesse Ventura? Al Franken? Is the whole state so polite, that when someone comes along and says "Yo. I like attention. Elect me!" they just say "Oh, good, I'm glad that's taken care of." Oh, and sorry for the stereotyping, etc., etc. I really shouldn't categorize entire groups of people according to some popular stereotype. I'm sure there are plenty of rude uneducated Minnesotans, and I apologize that the premise of my argument assumes otherwise.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, it's kind of like Hot Dish and Lutefisk don't you know. We get used to liking things that no one else likes and at times it extends to our politicians. Personally I'd rather eat a bunch of steaming Lutefisk than have either Franken or Coleman elected senator, but then again that is just me. If we could come to a reasonable middle ground like Lefse or Potato Bologna we would all be a lot better off.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal <~~~Heading directly for the Googles for translation of new food items.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< "Laws" are designed to serve the interests of the people. If they're not doing that, then the law should be changed. >>> I agree, but not ex post facto. <<< In this case, there were three viable candidates on the ballot, two of whom received approximately the same number of votes. A runoff election between the two top vote getters is the most dependable way of determining the winner. It's not the cheapest, quickest or easiest way, but it is the best way. Everyone's interests are best served and it's important to get it right. >>> The problem, especially with elections, is that what's "fair" or in "everyone's best interest" is very much in the eye of the beholder. If getting more votes than the opposing candidate, but at the same time "approximately the same" number of votes, isn't enough to win an election, then this needs to be written into the election law. Otherwise, how close is too close?
Originally Posted By SuperDry I think part of what Fox News is trying to do is pave an escape route for Bill O'Reilly on his promise to move to Ireland if Franken won. The way it's being portrayed, if Franken wins, O'Reilly can complain about a "rigged" election where the declared winner isn't the actual winner, and therefore his promise is out the window.
