The Star Tribune has nearly 600 actual challenged ballots available for your perusal. I don't know whether this is a truly random sampling or not, although it appears to be. The site is a little slow and you'll have to sign into their website to be able to peruse all of them, but it's apparent that:
1) This gets old in a hurry, and fatigue is going to be something of a factor when it comes time for the Canvassing Board to review what could wind up being as many as 7,000 challenged ballots;
2) The vast majority of challenges on both sides are frivolous, often utterly so. Perhaps 1 in 10 challenges -- maybe slightly more than that -- actually required a judgment call of some kind.
It should be remembered, however, that even a small systematic edge for one or another campaign in the challenge process could wind up being decisive. With this many challenged ballots in play, if, say, 13% of the Franken campaign's challenges are upheld as compared to 11% of the Coleman campaign's challenges, that could make a rather large difference.
Furthermore, irrespective of the frivolity of one or another campaign's challenges, different types of challenges have different types of effects on the state's quasi-official count; absent more information about the nature of the challenges, it's very difficult to diagnose where we stand.
For now, however, the various iterations if the statistical process that we applied before now show Norm Coleman as the slight favorite, although his edge is small and might reverse itself if Franken is able to get discarded absentee ballots reconsidered. Look for a more comprehensive update on Minnesota tomorrow.
11.28.2008
Minnesota Challenged Ballot Examples
@ 5:55 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
154 comments
When does the process for judging the challenged ballots begin?
'painfully slow' is being generous.
It's like watching paint dry.
I agree, Gayithacan. Let's get this over with, already.
@Nate, as someone who has done quite a lot of "coding" from questionnaires, I adapted some rules with a major proviso being that the canvassing board ultimately will try to carry out the mission of determining "intent," and a secondary one that it's going to be reluctant to reject a ballot if it finds a preponderance of evidence in favor of a particular interpretation.
Of course there will be differences of opinion among the canvassers, and I am assuming that they won't have a unanimity rule (or will they?). That's consistent also with the idea of a preponderance of evidence or even a clear and convincing evidence rule.
Some of the challenges were obviously frivolous. I agree that there are some truly problematic ballots, but it's a very small proportion. Some of those are less problematic if you look at the entire ballot to see what kind of markings the voters used for other offices (x's, check marks, worn-out pen, etc.).
wv: covent
Yeah, I've looked at over a dozen ballots on that site so far. Most of them are really obvious votes for one candidate or another, such that it's hard to understand why they were challenged. I mean, most don't even have stray marks, and I don't think a stray mark that doesn't even fill in any part of an oval will cause the vote to be invalidated.
wv: misgedu. Most of the challenges appear to be highly misgedu.
Those who are making comparisons to watching paint dry should remember that almost paint will have been dry several days ago.
wv=aterpid.
What, she are her pid? How disgusting!
@Nate-
I dare you to do a real analysis of the Star Tribune database. I'm already ~100 deep into it, recording each time (via the full .pdf form) who issued the challenge, what was my "ruling", and how it reflects on the county it was placed in (some counties seem to have all challenged balots available). I guess from such a large (albeit very un-random) sample, you could get a pretty good insight on where these things are going.
The lack of any info from the Big Three may be quite a grain of salt in the data, though.
L.
Why even try to apply statistics to this mess? There is not enough valid data to do anything with.
Garbage in, garbage out and the only thing it can hurt is your reputation.
Hi,
I took yesterday doing all 599 ballots and it took eons - but most of them were easy to do one way or the other ...
MY tally was
Coleman .... 230
Franken .... 251
Other no one 119
I know it adds up to 600 but the software is screwed up a little
I also went through it yesterday (because I am a complete loser). Fwiw, here are my totals.
Colman - 236
Franken - 255
Other - 110
Wow, most of these challenges are moronic. But it's also amazing to see how many people cannot follow even the simplest of instructions.
You could almost wish there was some penalty for frivolous challenges. You know, like paying the court costs, but then in votes: every challenge that is ruled frivolous nets one vote for the other candidate....
I've seen several ballots challenged for identifying marks, and none of them even have anything that could count as a stray mark. Have the online copies been redacted or something? If so, the website should mention that.
Look, to me the purpose of the ballot is to determine the voter's intent, not to test the American public on how well they can follow instructions. If the ballot is clear as to what the voter intended, then that's how it should be counted, and it does not matter if the voter decided to fill in the oval, draw an X over it, place a check mark in it, or what. Same thing if they changed their minds and drew an X over what they did not intend, and filled in the one they did intend.
The voter is the boss, not the people who wrote the instructions.
The ballots that are truly worthy of a challenge are the ones where it's not clear what the voter meant. Everything else is just making a scene over nothing or an act of desperation.Both sides are guilty to some degree of this nonsense.
That said, I still hope Al wins. Irregardless of the final outcome, I'll be glad when it's over.
HA! We just broke the website.
I looked through a whole bunch of them, and read the challenge comments. It's incredible what gets challenged, by both sides. A sizable majority of the challenges have to do with "identifying marks" anywhere outside the oval. If one oval is completely filled but another has a dot of a pencil in it, any goon should be able to figure out what the intention was, but is enough to warrant a challenge anyway. So is making an 'X' on the ballot rather than filling the oval. Pathetic.
I continue to say as i said when you predicted franken had a slight advantage that the best one can guess given the challenge is that as the number of challenges increases, the percentage that Franken would need to win over Coleman in the challenges would decrease. Everything else is just guess work. You pretty much agreed when I thought about your math because the chance was 50/50 and now you are saying it is still basically 50/50 with a swing in either direction of one. This time in Coleman's direction. We also do not know if the officials will see it as you do. It may be that they see it in a way that advantages Coleman, and it maybe they see it in a way that advantages Franken. Their rules will determine the outcome. You can't predict how their rules will determine outcomes because even a minor variation in rules could make a big difference regarding general approaches tou reviewing the challenged ballots.
Statler N Waldorf:it does not matter if the voter decided to fill in the oval, draw an X over it, place a check mark in it, or what. Same thing if they changed their minds and drew an X over what they did not intend, and filled in the one they did intend.
I disagree with you on this one, and think these particular ballots should probably just be discarded unless they have extra information (such as the name being crossed out or "THIS ONE" written in the margin). If two ovals are filled and one has an X over it, it could be interpreted either as:
"I am crossing out this vote and want you to consider the other bubble"
or
"I am emphasizing this vote with a cross."
It would be interesting if the site actually had a running total of the average of the people who voted - would be nice to see - agree I could not believe when checking how many frivolous ones there were - but also agree I went with voter intent - if the intent was for one candidate I gave them the vote ...
Do you suppose some of these are just people who can't see very well, or have trouble with fine motor movements? The ones where the scribble are large I mean . . . it seems like such an ODD thing to challenge if so! The intent in the vast majority of these is so OBVIOUS, who cares that they couldn't fill in the tiny oval perfectly!
"I am crossing out this vote and want you to consider the other bubble"
or
"I am emphasizing this vote with a cross."
I answer B. Why? Because in common usage, an X that is placed over one of two options where only one can be correct signifies an error rather than emphasis.
If you don't believe me, take a multiple choice college exam where your entire future career depends on the results, and then put the X over the filled in bubble that represents the choice you want to add emphasis to. Any professor would interpret this in the opposite manner, because almost everyone else means an X used in that case represents negation.
Statler,
or, conversely some people like to put x inside the oval despite all the instructions to the contrary, then catch themselves and fill in the oval.
I agree with skyesepp: I too cannot discern the true voter intent in those instances. Perhaps you can, but I cannot. Sorry
fwiw, I have come across 3 ballots in Washington county that my counterpart in the Coleman campaign objected to. The challenges look as frivolous as the day he launched them.
~ Latte
wv codin: I am convinced that some voters were codin their intent on the ballot. And now I need codin cause my arm hurts from scrolling through the ballots in pdf
@Statler: I agree with you, and that's how I interpreted such double-filled ovals when one had an X through it.
However, there are plenty of ballots where the voter had marks in only one oval, but those marks included both filling the oval AND an X on that oval.
(I surmise that in some of these cases the voter first put an X, and then realized that they needed to fill the oval and so ended up with both.)
While I interpreted such ballots as indicating a preference for that single candidate, using your logic why couldn't that also be interpreted as a cross-out of a vote? i.e., a decision not to vote for anyone for that office?
Hey Nate! Now that you have now backtracked from your +27 vote prediction for Franken that was ballyhooed from coast to coast, will you go on Rachel's show to correct your error?
Your credibility is on the line...
life is too short to do all of these, but I just went through 50 and came up with 25 obvious for Franken, 15 obvious for Coleman, and 10 other. One interesting thing is that virtually every Franken one is incredibly clearly intended for Franken, whereas I gave Coleman the benefit of the doubt on, for example, a ballot where he was barely sketched in, but all the other choices were republican. Not easy to draw conclusions from 1% of the challenged ballots, but it seems to fit with the theory that the Coleman camp is doing more frivolous challenges so as to "win" the hand recount and pull a Bush in Florida garbage play and hope the media falls in. "We won on election day, we won on the canvas and we won the hand recount" so Franken is just being a litigious poor loser. Let's just say for argument's sake, that there are 10,000 challenges when all is said and done, and Franken gains 10 per 50 counted. That would give him 2000 extra at the end of it all. Admittedly unscientific, but from what I can see it is not even close on the challenged votes that would be for Franken, and it is not like Nate has any more insight into the nature of the challenges than we do. I would like to see all challenged ballots available for public scrutiny. If there is indeed a pattern of frivolous and insincere challenges, it will come out...
Aw, Michael (not 'michael'!): sad what's happened to Nate and this site now there are not the zillion daily polls to tell him wtf is going on in the real world, isn't it?! I think he will be lucky to have +27 visitors to this site by next spring. His reputation is already shot to pieces. But it's still more than Sean 'Assman' Quinn has.
>>"I am crossing out this vote and want you to consider the other bubble"
or
>>"I am emphasizing this vote with a cross."
My rule of thumb was: if there was only ONE marked and it had been filled in and a cross, this was emphasis of an enthused voter.
If there were TWO filled in and one had a cross through it, I considered that an 'oops, I meant to do this guy and I am crossing out that guy.'
I think if those who are going to judge that kind of thing figure these things out BEFORE they start looking at them for real, it would go a long way toward Minnesota's belief in being inclusive rather than exclusive.
In the long run, it would probably even out anyway.
@little m michael: You can't tell much from the first 50. In my reckoning, Coleman began to gain a lot after the first 200 or so.
I think if you only do 50 you get most of the ballots from just a few counties, and that can skew your interpretation.
This is why it's also risky to draw any conclusions from the 600 that we have to review now -- because they may be aa highly unrepresentative sample of the entire set of challenged ballots.
My stats were Coleman 276/Franken 258/Other 73; I generally regarded ballots where senatorial candidate A's oval was partially filled in and candidate B's oval was fully filled in as a vote for B, but if both ovals were equally filled, it was an overvote. (There was one ballot where every oval for every candidate for every office was filled in. It was challenged by the Coleman campaign for "intent".)
I may be misremembering, but I think most of the ballots that were marked with Xes or checkmarks or other marks that would not be picked up by machine were votes for Franken, so that's a good sign.
Oh, out of curiosity, how frequent were ballots with identifying marks? I didn't look at the full pdfs of all of them, so I only saw one with an identifying mark--the voter made a few mistakes and initialed the corrections, as one would do on a personal check. The information website says specifically that initials constitute an "identifying mark", so that seems pretty cut and dried. Were there any others?
There were 849 ballots on the site as of last night before they disabled directory listing on the media directory to keep people from downloading all the ballots in one batch. You could still do it if you could get a list of all 849 file names from someone who got them already. Or I bet it would work to use something like the unix wget command with options to only go down one level and only download PDF files and then loop repeating that command 849 times on tne http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ page since it gives you a different ballot each time your hit it again.
Yup, this seems to work to get a batch of 10. I won't bother to see if it would not repeat ballots if I looped for 849 times, but the "-c" option would keep it from downloading multiple files anyway. The following is all supposed to be on one line and only makes sense if you are running a Unix, Linux, Mac OS, or other unix-like bash shell and have wget installed:
for ((i=0; i<10; i++ )) ; do wget -c -r -N -nd -nH -l 1 -A "*.pdf" -np http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ ; done
I don't think that they comprise a random sample. They are only from 64 different counties.
WV: enwarni -- enwarni you that downloading the ballot PDFs in batch without authorization may be in violation of various computer fraud and abuse laws in some jurisdictions
FWIW, my results:
Coleman 203
Franken 233
Other/over/under 164
I stopped at 600 because the site was obviously recycling the ballots. (It's a sure sign of addiction when you start recognizing those repeating ballots :). At the same time, the site experienced quite a few problems since I posted the link yesterday, and even though it keeps a running total on your account, I question its accuracy during those hang ups, error messages and crashes. Methinks we need a recount of the site recount.
My set of counting rules are in the previous MN thread. I tended to be very vigilant of overvoting and very forgiving of id'ing marks.
~Latte
wv nonve [i kid you not!]. That dot in the Coleman oval is an obvious nonve
Random notes/observations
1) there was a disproportionate number of challenged ballots from Washington County. We had (afair, but you can look it up) on the order of 140,000 ballots cast and about 110 challenges issued in total. And Washington County kept coming up over and over again.
2) Same goes for the Fillmore County. And the Coleman Site Coordinator for Fillmore should be taken, in the words of a 538 regular, behind a barn and shot. His overzealous observers ought to be then sent to forced labor/reeducation camps in Cuba for some brain washing from the other side. Those were the morons challenging blank, Franken and Barkley ballots based on the "Republican voter intent". I've seen well over a dozen of those in total.
~ Latte
Sorry for the third comment in a row; saw Jeffrey's post too late.
@ Jeffrey:
You are wrong about the X's and check marks not being picked up by optical scanners. All our totals in Washington County pretty much had those already included in the machine count. About 1 in 100 to 200 ballots was marked with a check or an X in our county, fwiw.
The frequency of identifying marks is pretty high in the 600+ Strib ballots. Vast majority of them have a random line or a wandering pen mark or perhaps a baby getting a hold of the pen while mom was voting. I'd say about 15% of the challenges in this mix were because of the id'ed ballots like that.
There was a smaller grouping that had someone's (voter?) name as a write in for every or most of the minor offices. I'd say there were about a dozen to a dozen and a half of those.
~Latte
wv troto - a village between Truro and P-town.
@Juris,
Yeah, I know. I guess in that circumstance, I'd have to count the only choice they'd filled in at all as being their intent, based on the principle that if they intended to undervote or spoil the ballot, they could have done so in a number of other, more clear ways, like drawing a massive X or a strike mark across all the choices, leaving it completely blank, or if they changed their minds and decided to undervote after having chosen someone, writing some sort of thing indicating that was what happened on the ballot.
That said, I know there are some ballots which deserve to be challenged. If it's so unclear that the average schmuck (myself included) can't understand what was meant, then I guess it's a ballot which should be forwarded to the above-average schmucks reviewing challenged ballots.
If it's pretty clear just by looking at it what the voter intended, even though the instructions were not followed, then a challenge to that ballot is
1) total bullshit
2) going to create yet more work for the folks who have to review challenged ballots
3) delaying the outcome, which won't be any different than if it had not been challenged, since the reviewers will just interpret it the way it's obviously intended to be interpreted.
4) fucking with the math to make yourself look like you have a bigger percentage than you do, if only for the brief period between now and when they're reviewed
and last but not least
5) Fucking pointless.
As a drama queen extraordinaire, may I state that even my high tolerance for drama has been exceeded.
I found it very interesting to note this ballot challenge, by Coleman.
The challenge reason is given as: 'frivolous challenge'. Glad to see that they're being honest, at least...
Another ballot I felt like commenting on.
Apparently, the Franken campaign challenged a ballot that was originally counted for him, arguing that it was actually an overvote (I would score the ballot as a vote for Barkley, actually, but the result is the same in the Coleman/Franken horserace.) If only his other challengers had shown the same integrity...
@Statler,
It has been noted several times that Coleman's Republican Strategy needs for him to be ahead at the end of the recount phase so that the Florida mantra can be re-chanted again:
- Coleman was ahead on the election night
- Coleman won on the election night
- Coleman was ahead in the recount
- Coleman won the recount and
WE WILL NOT LET THE [insert a derogatory adjective here] judiciary take it away from us and hand it to the liberal blah blah.
That is why the Coleman campaign has issued orders to its observers to launch the frivolous challenges, increase the challenge rate at all costs because they too know the Coleman razor-thin margin is closing fast. All imho, of course. No, really.
@Michigan Liberal
It is the head election judge at the county that fills out the challenge slips and records the reason. They too have been known to get it wrong :). Do not look for the accuracy there - those guys/gals are yanked from one counting table to another. There is typically a cue - 3-4 challenges deep, waiting to be recorded. Then s/he walks to the table, both sets of lawyers descend upon the table at the same time, site leaders in tow. Media snapping, recording, etc.. They make mistakes, take shortcuts. Do not put too much into the recorded rationale.
@Juris
good point...we really can't have any sense whether these 600 are representative of the whole. Just my random notice of how clear the Franken votes were. I can only imagine the nightmare that would have ensued had they done a statewide hand recount in Florida in 2000 - however far less of a nightmare than the 8 years we endured under W.
@Michiganlatteliberal
Yeah, that is pretty much how I see it. The GOP game plan is to claim victory as many times as possible and then portray the Franken crew as a bunch of thieves...watch for Roger Stone's GOP Brooks Brother riot crew to roll into action when the state board rules on the challenges.
err...correction...MNlatteliberal - got you mixed up with michiganliberal;=}
I'm all for pursuing as many challenges as are allowed by the system. Why not do everything you can within the rules to turn the outcome in your favor?
-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive
I'm sickened by the behavior of both campaigns here. If this sample is any indication, I would expect somewhere between 95% and 99% of all challenges to be overruled. Is it possible to figure out who is ahead under the assumption that all challenges are overruled?
@ Michigan Liberal
I agree, the ballot you linked to is either an overvote or for Barkley...it is a great argument for IRV, since it seems pretty clear, even from these disputed ballots that most Barkley voters were at least leaning to Franken, minus Barkley on the ballot.
Norm Coleman has really never run in a "normal" election (if one exists in the land of 1000 lakes).
Lost a three-way to HHH 3rd and Ventura, beat Mondale after Wellstone's tragic death, may edge out Franken in a race where Barkley took 15% of the vote, most of it, i submit, from Franken...
243 Coleman, 229 Franken, 129 other. It also seems the Trib site is displaying the average of everybody's vote, which is listed as 260 Coleman, 249 Franken, and 90 other.
I thought I was exceedingly fair to both sides. I don't see how anyone can honestly look at these and come up with numbers like 20-30 Franken ahead. Simply no way.
wv - fincense - the smell of burning money in the Church of The York Stock Exchange
BTW I nominate this braintrust as the dumbest voter in Minnesota:
http://tinyurl.com/6rbpcm
Dude, Norm Coleman's name is already there, you don't have to WRITE IT IN.
In reply to M*Liberal: Actually, the Franken campaign could wish to establish this as an overvote, since there are other cases (to be precise, I've seen one) where someone put an X thru Franken and then filled Coleman. Someone (Nate? one of you?) said campaigns could challenge "their own" ballots to establish a principle even when the initial ruling is numerically fine by them.
I see the meaning of "X" thru a filled oval is being debated above. My role as a computer theorist isn't judging or even drafting legislation according to guidelines---it's designing and field-testing various guidelines. So as a meta-question: should ballot-judging guidelines adopt the principle that the same mark means the same thing irrespective of other parts of the ballot---at least of other races on the ballot?
I see the STrib took off the directory listing---as is 95% common Web practice---but still lets URLs to individual ballots go thru from anywhere. That's fine. Besides security and avoiding mass downloads, there's a reason that illustrates another general computer-science point: eliminating observational dependence. Namely, this leaves them free to re-organize their directory structure without changing the public interface---they can still service URLs with /.../media/ballotPDFs/foo.pdf by mapping them to the actual location. In particular, they can fix the mixed-case collating problem I noted.
Thanks are due to Lior.K for doing careful recording. Looks like this batch of 605 (599? 849?) will produce 60-90 judgment calls, and maybe 20-30 with any real disagreement.
From what I can see no more than a half dozen challenges total may be unfrivolous. And all but one or two will probably lose. All that effort for 1 or 2 votes.
So, both candidates and their representatives should be ashamed of themselves.
As for the voters who do not know how to cast a ballot, what amazes me is that these people can somehow walk, drive or be driven to the polling place. And then can actually walk through a door and hold onto the ballot long enough to get in the booth. And then avoid drooling all over the ballot.
Well, maybe we can't see the drool.
To see what a bunch of fuckwits our fellow citizens are is a strong argument for some sort of a test before one can vote. A test none of the candidate representatives making those awful challenges would seem able to pass.
What a depressing thing. Well, Minnesota deserves Norm Coleman. Too bad.
Mine: Coleman 257, Franken 250, Other/no one 92. At least 80% were frivolous, but the rest, I just want to smack whoever can't fill in a fucking circle. Please, next time bring in the touch screens...
wv: clonsum
that challenged ballot thing is quite hilarious...as a Canadian/American duel citizen 3 weeks ago i was sorta laughing at how long the American election campaign laughed as we called one in September and had it a week before America, but now i'm laughing at Canada. 3 weeks after the election, our prime minister might very well fall to a coalition left wing government over funding of political parties by the government
The seedy underbelly of democracy is not a pretty thing. That's what you get when you allow every moron to vote. Even the morons who cannot color in a circle. I am excluding those with physical afflictions, of course.
On a more serious note, did anyone who downloaded all of the challenges keep track of how many in the lot were from each campaign? It seemed to me there were more ballots challenged by Franken than Coleman which would make that an even more skewed sample, but that feeling is intuitive, not based on any facts.
I know there was one county up north that intentionally hid the party challenging and the nature of the challenge, but sans that, anyone got the breakdown?
As to my count different/favoring Franken more than the average - I did it over two days (I was the first who started voting on the ballots on this site, afaik) and the site kept having constant problems, as I mentioned. I suspect I might have gotten more duplicate ballots than others. Gawd knows I've seen way more "Republican Intent" blank/Franken/Barkely ballots from Fillmorethan were displayed on dailykos a week back...
Having said that, I do see Franken picking up to 5 votes per hundred challenges, depending on definitions of duplicates and leniency with obvious overvotes.
Night, all
~Latte
wv: flecula. There was a flecula in the Coleman oval causing a Republican challenge.
"Look, to me the purpose of the ballot is to determine the voter's intent, not to test the American public on how well they can follow instructions."
But if they can't follow simple instructions, then how do we really know their intent, or if they had any.
These retards should be stripped of the right to vote.
David, I'm glad that you see Election Day as nothing more than an exercise in seeing who can follow precise instructions. You see, for over two hundred years, we've been under the mistaken impression that it was about the voter expressing their democratic right to elect their own leaders. Hence the word, election'.
However, you have just proven that in fact the election itself is a mere sideshow, and the real focus of Election Day is just to administer a stupid test on following instructions to alot of Americans.
AND, you assert that only people who mindlessly do what they're told should be able to vote.
Thank you for the fucking enlightenment!
I'm sure the country will be shocked to discover that democracy is just a sham to get them to take your idiotic test.
On another note, did you hear about what happened at a WalMart in Valley Stream, NY today? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/business/29walmart.html?_r=1
and from California
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=6529687
Yes America, the true meaning of Xmas is that flat screen TVs and the latest toy are worth more than a human life.
I got Coleman 251, Franken 257, Other 90. (one of the ballots isn't loading)
I support Franken but I was acting as unbiased as possible and was consistent in criteria for choosing the vote. I also tried to be as forgiving and understandable as possible.
I gave all weird marks if they were consistent with the rest of the ballot. However if it was the only race with a filled oval and a X, I wouldn't count it.
Also I did not consider stray marks as "Identifying Marks" or "Non Identifiable Voter Intent".
One caveat: if the ballot looked obvious from picture the Star Trib provided, I didn't check the rest of the ballot (for identifying marks, etc).
What did you say for: http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/mahnomen_Waubun_challengedballot1.pdf
WTF? Seriously, and some of the other ballots were really weird too. I mean how hard is it to fill in a oval (barring a physical disability).
I've tried twice to run through the ballots, and both times the process aborted--the first time on the third ballot, the last time after I'd done about 150. My balance was slightly toward Franken, by perhaps 8-10 votes. Alas, this means nothing. Too many variables. The canvassing board will have the final word, and until then the rest of us will be groping in the dark.
Will this post get removed, like one of mine yesterday, that was an innocuous as mother's milk? It would be nice to know why such posts are yanked.
A quick note on the STrib's result averages and heteroskedasticity, a big word which came up in comments to the "Franken by 27" thread. This is a problem if they
(a) include results from people like me who have only done 20, 40, 60, 100 or so ballots, AND
(b) don't serve the ballots in a "random" order.
Suppose they gave everyone the same sequence. Then the first 20-40-60 or so would be averages over a lot of people, while the last 400 or so might be averages over just a few people---like die-hards on this blog:-). Then the averages for the latter ballots would have markedly higher variance---which is what the "skedast" root word refers to). This could make the averages unreliable even if the latter ballots are not subject to systematic bias.
If, however, the ballots are served "randomly", then even when people quit early, the # of responses will be similar on nearly all ballots, and the averages will be pretty reliable. Note, however, that to get sampling dispersion the "randomness" must be at least what is provided by a linear congruential pseudorandom generator---and my getting a lot of consecutive ballots from Douglas County seemed to indicate against that.
As I said, uneven sampling can cause problems even in the absence of bias, but with it, well...look up the specific meaning of the verb freep! So bottom line, I saw evidence of (b) [i.e. failing to do it right], and (a) is natural, but combining them can cause problems.
I came up with:
Coleman 250
Franken 256
Other 93
Ah, there's one other thing the STrib really needs to have done---and it's exactly why we have the "Word Verification" thingie, technically called a CAPTCHA. They should make sure that no automated 'bot processes can gain login access and literally stuff the ballot boxes.
They can try to do this at server level, but in this particular case I would do it internally---and the fact that we have well over 50% density of truly frivolous challenges is an advantage! Namely, they can kick out every responder who gets more than X of their frivolous ballots wrong.
Note that as with WV, this relies upon the presumed difficulty of programming a 'bot process to pull features from visual data---in this case, to recognize frivolously-challenged ballots. (On second thought, a lot of the frivolities would be obvious even to 'bots, which tells me that lawyers occupy a Dantean circle even below that.:-)
Pragmatus said "...Will this post get removed, like one of mine yesterday, that was an innocuous as mother's milk? It would be nice to know why such posts are yanked"
I assure you it has nothing to do with Nate or Sean "yanking" anything. Google/Blogger doesn't like me either, and many of my posts disappear into the cyber-ether when the gods are in a pissy mood. Even if I cry "untle"!
Appreciate you all going thru those ballots, I did the one on MPR, but didn't have the patience to do anymore.
Slightly OT, but here in the 6th District of WA, we have a similar situation going on, except the Dem challenger is currently leading the incumbent, a mandatory hand recount will be commencing soon.
this is all mail-in ballot election and this is how rejected ballot envelopes are handled:
Q. Will my vote still count if I forget to sign my ballot envelope?
A. The affidavit on the back of your ballot return envelope must be signed for your ballot to count. If you return your mail ballot without signing the oath on the back of the envelope the elections office will contact you by mail and attempt to call you by telephone. You will need to return a signed oath prior to the day before certification of the election for your ballot to be counted. If your unsigned envelope is returned within three business days of certification or you have not responded to the Auditor’s mailing within three business days of certification, the County Auditor will again attempt to contact you by telephone. (Note: this is one reason it is a good idea to provide your telephone number when you submit a Voter Registration Form.)
http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/spokane/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx
The local fishwrapper went even further (including publishing a list of all the voters whose ballot envelopes were defective in some way):
County elections officials will count more ballots on Friday, but have until Nov. 24 to arrive at a final count. Before that final count, voters who forgot to sign their ballots or who scribbled a signature that doesn’t match the one on their registration form will be given a chance to fix the problem. They can either mail in an affidavit they’ve been sent or go to the Elections Office to “cure” the signature.
Seems like the logical and fair thing to do, eh?
Now I remember reading some early reports about the election there, and that SOME counties were contacting absentee voters whose votes were rejected due to lack of signature, no match, etc. If this is true, that some counties did this, and some didn't, then Franken's got a pretty good "Equal Protection" argument to make.
For the life of me, I can't understand how your so-called "5th pile" HAS to be counted, and voters should also have the ability to correct any nominal defects in their ballot envelopes, so (the enclosed) ballots can counted.
This has to be in ALL counties, and I think, if it were up to me, I wouldn't the allow the partisans in on the process, i.e. they would not be allowed to contact these voters. A letter from the election official, maybe a phone call, reason given for the rejection, and procedure needed for the person to cure the ballot envelope defect, should he/she wish to do so.
Okay... join me into the ranks of those with no life.
My totals:
Coleman 269, Franken 256, Other 72 (Jeffrey and I were really close).
Note:
Although I'm a Dem, I did my best to be fair. I also tended to be lenient, following what the Minnesota people have said about being inclusive rather than exclusive. I found only one ballot as identifiable. Some had initials after changing a vote (like when we make a mistake on a check). Is that 'identifiable'? Not really, as there are a lot of people with the same initials.
Note: This is totally UN representative. Also some people are just too stupid to vote, but that's not my choice.
(edit) If the "5th Pile" idea goes thru, those ballots should be counted.
Also, here's the link to the newspaper story I referenced:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=17708
@John K.:
FWIW, the reason I said I counted the initialed ballots as "identifiable" is that on http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35167479.html it says explicitly "Do not count these votes if [...] a voter places an identifying mark on the ballot, such as writing their initials[...]". I'm not sure that that's a good standard to have, but it is the existing standard.
Weird that we were so close. I ended up, due to glitches, having voted on "607 out of 599" ballots, so my results should be taken with a grain of salt anyway.
wv: depuppin. An utterly inhumane process.
I really hope the Minnesota judges aren't too picky about identifying marks. It seems like a silly technicality.
You can write in a vote for Jesus, or Micky Mouse, or Zortron, or your Mom and that doesn't count as an identifying mark.
The amount of identifying info you can cram into a single write-in makes throwing out ballots due to stray identifying marks seem over zealous.
It's usually pretty easy to tell whether a filled-in oval with an X over it means 'yes' or 'no': generally, if such an oval means 'yes' then all other offices will be marked with filled-ovals and X's; if such an oval means 'no' then all other offices will be marked only with a filled oval and there will be another filled oval without an X in that office.
As for why people would mark with X's: force of habit. Many people, especially in rural areas, may have been voting all their lives by marking an X in the box next to their candidate's name. This was my experience having grown up in Vermont and until my recent move to Connecticut never having voted by any other means.
WV: recounce - When are all these recounce finally going to be over?
Out of the 200+ ballots I looked at, the "correct" interpretation (whether no vote, overvote, or for a candidate) was clear as day on 175 of them.
I don't know how some of the challengers/volunteers do it: that is, sleep at night after systematically attempting to disenfranchise voters during the day.
Disgusting.
Most of the "identifying marks" challenges are frivolous. I believe Minnesota law gives clear guidelines for what should be considered as such. Simply writing "Lizard People" or "NO" or "Al Franken is a Commie Pinko and I am a Flying Dragon" is not interpreted as making an identifying mark.
A social security number, or legible signature would be. Initials may be as well, since they show intent to identify the ballot in some way.
Oh, the things I (think I sorta) know!
-- joe
wv: applevil -- Where all the apples live. Not far from Prune City.
@ STepper:
Well, so long as "stupid people" are forced to pay taxes and abide by the laws of the land, they absolutely deserve to vote, regardless of whether they accidently eat three ballots in the process. The suggestion of an administered test to determine some sort of "voting fitness" is highly offensive.
As a side note: People under age eighteen who work and pay taxes should rise up against selective taxation without representation. You can pay taxes but can't vote?? What the fuck is that? I always thought it was complete bullshit. Same with felons who aren't allowed to vote in some states.
Personal experience to emphasize point: a gentleman I work with has some mental handicaps. He is perfectly able to understand, interpret, analyze and differentiate. He was likely far more informed than the average voter in the previous election cycle. That being said, he is quite unable to master technical details like filling in an oval. If given a Scantron / Fill-In-The-Bubbles test, I'm certain he would fail miserably while likely spanking the hell out of everyone as far as knowing the material goes.
"David, I'm glad that you see Election Day as nothing more than an exercise in seeing who can follow precise instructions. You see, for over two hundred years, we've been under the mistaken impression that it was about the voter expressing their democratic right to elect their own leaders. Hence the word, election'.
However, you have just proven that in fact the election itself is a mere sideshow, and the real focus of Election Day is just to administer a stupid test on following instructions to alot of Americans.
AND, you assert that only people who mindlessly do what they're told should be able to vote.
Thank you for the fucking enlightenment!"
If you are smart enough to follow direction that a 6 year old could easily follow, how in the hell could they make an intelligent decision?
Blind democracy is the worst thing possible, that is what we have with people who get confused about filling in a little bubble.
You can wine and cry all night, but the fact remains, these people are idiots.
Stop defending idiocy!!! There is no excuse for this. One last time: If they aren't taking it seriously enough to read first grade instructions, how can they be trusted to make an informed decision? You can't express an opinion(which is what an election is) if you don't understand what has gone on up to that point.
Seriously, if they can't spend 5 seconds to comprehend how to fill it out, do you seriously think they are informed? You might as well disqualify these morons and flip a coin to make their decisions. At least that way, it will make more sense.
@ Joe: I agree about those identifying remarks. It seems to me that if you are going to identify your vote (to get paid by a candidate???), the smart thing to do is to do that by putting an agreed upon name as a write-in for some completely unrelated office. I mean, the identifying problem assumes some conspiracy anyway, doesn't it, so why not do it the right way?
On a side note, my first thoughts on seeing all the different counts shown by posters even on this site alone were that the race is indeed to close to call and within the "margin of error of the election process itself", if you see what I mean.
On further thought though (apart from not knowing if everybody judged the same set of ballots) it seems that unless you kept score yourself of your decisions, the numbers are meaningless anyway. I looked at the Star Trib site a number of hours ago, had some problems accessing it, looked again right now, and found out that my own scores had already run up to "C 322, F 308, O/NO 144", and I still have to vote for my first ballot :). I don't know what causes it, but their software doesn't seem to be able to handle it.
All 849 of the challenged ballot PDF files from the Star-Tribune have been uploaded to an anonymous dropbox at http://drop.io/849mnchallenges/ where you can download each ballot one at a time, or you can get all 849 at once in a 70 MByte zip file by clicking on the Share tab button and then clicking on Zip Archive.
I'm told that the dropbox will stay in existence for one month.
IANAL, but I assume that Star Tribune can't have any copyright on the ballots so whoever uploaded them to the dropbox has not violated any copyright.
David,
You will note that you misspelled the word 'whine' as 'wine'. Therefore, because you couldn't spend the 5 seconds it would take to figure it out, your comment has been rejected.
Sound stupid? So do you when you slam the iron fist down and demand that only people you judge to be worthy of voting should be able to vote.
By your own definition of the word, you're an idiot, because you failed to follow simple instructions and make sure your comments were 100% clear. Proper spelling takes about as much intellect as filling in an oval.
Idiot.
An intelligence test for the right to vote is a really stupid and reprehensible idea. The people, and not only the elite - whether determined by literacy, knowledge of civics, alleged higher intelligence, property ownership, parentage, sex, or condition of being a free man as opposed to a slave (to cite several examples of restrictions that have existed on the right to vote) - are supposed to be represented in a modern representative republic or democracy.
If you don't like it that people don't follow directions well, demand greater funding and higher standards in education. But know that there will always be people who don't follow directions, and the intent of the voter, to the extent it can be logically deduced, is the VERY BEST STANDARD for counting votes.
I can't believe this race is even close. In a Democratic state like Minnesota, how is a bucktoothed loser like Coleman even putting up a fight?
What are you thinking, Minnesota?
@Joe
Why do you assume the fuckwits who are either screwing around or are truly idiotic and can't follow instructions pay taxes? My suspicion is these people don't know how to cash a check or use money. Indeed, from the available evidence (their voting behavior) I'd be surprised if they could feed themselves and know to pull their pants down before they shit.
While you may be proud of these stellar examples of humanity, the fact that they have somehow made it through the registration process and into the voting booth scares the hell out of me.
On the other hand, I think most of these people are simply fucking with us. They know that bleeding hearts like you will jump to their defense, and if the election is close, and their votes get reviewed and discussed, they will be in their mansions, sipping Chateau d'Yquem with their dessert, laughing their asses off at us for taking the election seriously.
There is, in fact, a minimum IQ for voting. True idiots (with IQs under 65) generally cannot vote anywhere in the US. I am sure you would like to re-enfranchise all of them and help them run the asylum. What's next? Your pet dog voting? (Whoops. I mean your "companion animal.")
Stepper wants to go back to those very "fair" voter tests in the deep south before 1964 - that is hilarious.
The only thing you need to vote is your citizenship!
My dog is smarter than most republicans, Stepper.
these people who struggle to follow supposedly simple instructions on how to cast their vote, ever wondered how they manage money, jobs, medical bills, diet, keep a roof over their heads, stay out of trouble, don't get conned, bring their kids up properly etc etc?
Are you proposing just to leave them to rot David - after all, fuck 'em they can't even fill out an oval properly.
Wow! Are we going back to the bad old days of a poll tax?
Relax, everyone makes mistakes, and alot of these are not really mistakes.
>>You can wine and cry all night, but the fact remains, these people are idiots.
Stop defending idiocy!!!<<
Like using "wine" when you mean "whine"? ;-)
Have some compassion for the less intellectually fortunate, or more often confused and befuddled.
I think one of the previous posters hit it on the head. While I am infuriated with how dumb voters can be (like electing GWB twice), most of us agree that "taxation without representation is tyranny."
Until there is a checkbox on the 1040 form that says "I'm too stupid to vote and therefore don't have to pay taxes", we need to do our best to divine the voters' intentions.
Hey Stepper,
Please get a perspective on this. As we've all seen 90 - 95% of the challenged ballots are frivolous. The voter intent was obvious. That means that the targets of your rants are about 250 - 500 voters. If you examine some of those ballots it becomes quite clear that a large number of them were filled out by people suffering some sort of visual/motor skill impairment. I've seen 3 or 4 ballots where all the marks are consistently up and to the left of the intended recipient. Incredibly, even these idiots, as you call them, seem to be able to indicate their preference. I say we make sure their votes are counted, even though a couple of them looked to be Coleman votes.
At the risk of sounding contrarian, I want to share one out of several similar stories I heard from the precinct election judges while observing the recount. FWIW, and if boring, skip the post.
An elderly couple came into a remote northern suburb precinct to vote. The woman asked if she could go into the booth with her husband to help him vote, as he has severe fine motion control problem due to Parkinson's. The judge saw how badly the man's hand shook and asked the couple to wait a second while she made arrangements.
I do not remember the specifics, whether acc. to the law it was finding the second precinct judge as both are required to approve, or just finding/waiting for a suitable booth. However, a couple of minutes into this, the man of the couple began making fuss, to put it lightly, that he is perfectly capable of voting, and that his affliction is not all that bad, and that he is not a cripple, etc., etc.. Clearly his pride was wounded.
That man insisted on going into the booth alone and voting alone. I can only imagine what his ballot looked like.
While no system can be made perfect, and I have talked ad nauseam about the inventiveness of idiots in circumventing the system constraints, certain provisions for the disabled should be mandated and enforced when it comes to voting.
And for those cases where the assistance is vigorously declined, there ought to be a simple motor/vision test for required assistance, a la amusement parks' "you have to be this tall to go on this ride".
That might sound undemocratic, but that's the way this liberal sees it.
~ Latte
@Mediapost
I truly believe most of the people who screwed up their ballots did so intentionally. On the one hand, they took it seriously enough to vote. On the other hand, they decided that their votes didn't mean anything. Those people have emotional issues or were the fuck offs in high school who laughed at their own ineptness.
But as for the rest, the great unwashed, the screw ups arise because they can't follow simple instructions.
It is for these people that the flight attendants on airplanes continue patiently to explain how to put the tang into the buckle of a seat belt. Have you ever thuoght about that? How did those passengers get to the airport? Did they ever have an experience in all of their lives putting on a seatbelt before that flight? Of course they did. But they get easily confused, or forget. And society has to protect the lowest common denominator, down to about an IQ of 50.
It is those easily confused who are now deciding that Norm Coleman will deny the Democrats their 59th Senator. Pretty scary.
How can people who are incapable of following simple instructions hold down a job, buy a cup of coffee, walk through a door? Hard to say. But they can sure screw up elections and make things interesting can't they?
So, do I want to bring back the poll tax or other tests for voting? No. We already have it with the instructions on the ballot. For those who take their votes seriuosly enough and need help, all they need to do is ask for help. For the rest, they have disenfranchised themselves.
Well, you know, properly filling in an oval is the only thing that matters. You could serve your country in the military, join the Peace Corps, work at a soup kitchen and rescuer kittens at the animal shelter, but none of that matters. If you don't fill an oval in properly, you're an asshole.
It's also true that people who fill in ovals can in fact, do no wrong. Even if you beat your wife and kids, sexually molest kittens, insult GIs and attack the poor every chance you get-hey, if you can fill in an oval, you're not only a citizen-you're a fucking saint.
Remember, the only thing that matters is the ovals. Ted Stevens was wrong. The internet isn't a series of tubes. It's a series of ovals.
>>And society has to protect the lowest common denominator, down to about an IQ of 50.
That's right, let's round them up and gas them. Absurd.
You seme to be a Coleman supporter, so realize if it weren't for uninformed voters who can easily be swayed by sound bites and short talking points, the Republicans would never win another national election. Look at the demographic spreads on the voting electorate.
Democrats are more educated, have less kids, marriages, abortions, and more tolerance for those less fortunate than them -- even Coleman supporters. If we set a true intelligence standard, say goodbye to the Republicans. Especially intolerant ones like the ones who have spoken out here.
Interestingly, I usually find out that these people who spout this stuff are usually on the lower end of all the scales. I guess misery, and stupidity, love company.
Tedious, tedious, tedious. I finished 598 of 599 (the 599th ballot wouldn't load)last night after an ordeal over the course of three days. My results are consonant with those of rej4sl and mrbossman (and maybe others): I had Franken at 239, Coleman at 227 and Other at 132.
Observations: My guess is that at least 75% of the challenges fall into the "identifying mark" (or some variant thereon) category. The vast majority of these were absolutely frivolous, consisting of stray marks (identified by the judges as such a couple of times). My guess is that there were fewer than a dozen where actual id marks were left (one absentee voter had his ballot notarized; several voters initialed errors they intended to correct; a couple of voters wrote in the same name in every available write-in line - whether those names identified the actual voter is impossible to tell, but, nonetheless, they were identifying marks); and it appears there were a number of challenges simply because someone wrote in a write-in candidate for an office unrelated to the senate race).
There were a fairly substantial number of challenges because of ministerial errors: the voter was given a ballot for another precinct; the original of a duplicate ballot could not be located; etc. I could see no reason for the voter to be punished for clerical mistakes, so I counted for a candidate each of these votes (unless there was something else wrong with the ballot).
Finally, the tough ones for me were: 1. those where someone filled in an oval equidistant, or nearly so, between two candidates, most often Coleman and Barkley. I treated these as overvotes; 2. where the voter left a mark or marks in one oval, but a more completely filled out in another. In those cases, where it looked as if the voter had merely tapped one oval as if thinking about voting for the candidate, but filled in more completely another oval, I gave it to candidate with the more filled in oval. But where both ovals were substantially filled in, with one, say, filled to a quarter or a third and the other completely filled in, I counted them as overvotes.
I am a little surprised that my "Other" category is so much larger than all of the other commentators here and the Strib's compilation category. My position was to count a ballot for a candidate if at all possible, and I thought I did so. I note, however, that unless one scrolls down to reveal the full senate ballot on the Strib site, one is likely to miss the surprisingly large number of overvotes (in other words, the Strib may display a ballot clearly marked for Coleman, without showing the overvote for one of the minor candidates).
The oddest ballot I saw had a straight vertical line drawn through the middle of all of the candidates (except presidential) and categories, even though votes were cast for each office or measure, giving the ballot the appearance of having two strings of pearls.
@John K
Yeah, I'm at the lower end of the economic spectrum and a right wingnut. Not.
I am a 63 year old white Harvard Law School-educated lawyer who proudly voted for Barack Obama -- twice (once in the primaries) and donated the legal max to his campaign. And donated to the campaigns of other Democrats around the country, including Tink and Miller. And have done so my whole life.
I was active at the tail end of the civil rights movement and served on the board of turstees of a black college in Mississippi for many years, helping to wean it from a being a Church-associated school to one that could receive federal aid.
I take my voting seriously and hope that others will, too.
But many don't. That is the tragedy of democracy.
I don't ask that my vote be counted more than once (although in California it's not worth very much) but I don't like the idea that some fuckwit or careless moron can cancel my vote by being careless or extremely stupid, or worse.
As someone who has taught a dozens of students with disabilities, I have to say that I find your rants offensive, STepper. Many people who are perfectly capable of making informed decisions have visual and motor disabilities which make a task like filling in an oval unimaginably difficult. I have taught ancient Greek to students whose handwriting was indecipherable. Should I have failed them because they were physically unable to write between the lines? Should they have been forced to take basket-weaving instead? I can assure you that they would have great difficulty filling in the ovals you seem to admire so.
I've also taught perfectly intelligent young men whose visual processing skills made it nearly impossible for them to take do a matching exercise you and I might find simple. These students were bright, often exceptionally so. Should they be disenfranchised if they can't figure out your precious oval system and circle their candidate's name instead?
This is not to mention people with physical ailments. Should my uncle, whose multiple sclerosis causes him to have poor fine motor control, be disenfranchised if his hand slips and he makes a stray mark on his ballot?
Why do you get off on disenfranchising people? Does it make you feel superior? Personally, I'd rather any of the people I've mentioned vote than you.
ST, your political affiliation or past history are entirely irrelevant to the points I am trying to make. Even if the ghost of MLK JR were to rise from the grave and say the exact same things as you just did, I'd take issue with him. To me, this is about principles, not personalities. And the principle I stand by is that the people, no matter what we might think of them, elect their own leaders in this democracy, and no one should be disenfranchised just because they disagree with you or you don't like them. I am not a slavish devotee of either or any party. I vote for the candidates that represent my principles, and in a fair contest against other candidates that represent other principles, I support the winner of that contest.
It's the Constitution, stupid. I'm sure they had a copy lying around at Harvard.
STepper seems to have some unresolved issues, resulting in OCD regarding perfection in ballot completion.
Sad, really.
just a thought - what kind of democracy would it be if only the 'right sort of people' had a vote? It has to be all or nothing - regardless of intelligence or anything else either all human beings get the same human rights, or they aren't human rights. You can't confine them just to people you like. It's all or nothing.
(Excuse the slight segue from the right to vote to other human rights, but it's just an extension of the same idea).
STepper, when I originally registered to vote in New York in the 1980s, I did not have to take an IQ test or include results in my application. IQ tests, by the way, are substantially discredited as inaccurate measures of intelligence (measuring, at best, only certain types of intelligence, and even that is questionable) and biased in favor of and against various segments of the population. The suggestion that otherwise eligible voters should have to pass any kind of supposed intelligence test smacks of Fascism.
>>principles, not personalities.
Hey, I know where *that* phrase comes from ;-)
>>I am a 63 year old white Harvard Law School-educated lawyer
Yes, and we're all thin on the Internet too.
>>I don't like the idea that some fuckwit or careless moron can cancel my vote
Spoken like a true graduate of Harvard Law. I've got friends who graduated there and they ALL use "fuckwit" on a regular basis.
I imagine it's only a matter of time before Barack let's a "fuckwit" slip as well. ;-)
Ver - i - tas, please.
It seems that Franken is chalenging a ballot if there was a write-in choice ANYWHERE for any race. They are calling a write-in vote an "identifying mark".
Oh, so the more education we have the more votes we get? I have two graduate degrees and think that is the worst idea I have ever heard.
All it takes to vote is citizenship, not land ownership, not a high IQ. This is America.
So the wrong impression is not left - the Conservative government may fall in Canada over the issue of its new economic plan, which contains no stimulus, and has managed to unite the Liberals and the NDP with the financial community in outrage. The opposition has already dropped the issue of campaign financing reform.
The government will likely manage to survive (among other things the current Liberal leader is no one's choice as the ideal new PM), but the genie of Liberal/NDP coalition - which would lead to a massive landslide victory for the left in Canada - has been let loose.
If the first couple are 'X'ed and filled and the rest are filled I take that as meaning the person realized they were doing it wrong and went back and filled in the ovals on the originally 'X'ed ones.
Nate, can you give do the next installment of your rankings of the 2010 Senate races?
My results were:
Coleman 249
Franken 278
other 73
The ballots were not a random sample of ballots from Minnesota. I did not see any from Congressional District 3, 4 or 5. those are the suburban/urban district without cornfields.
I saw a lot of ballots from CD #1, that is district that borders Iowa. It is a strong Coleman area.
There were many from CD #7. That is the west and northwest part of the state. Also, many from CD #2. It includes parts of the southern metro area, but some rural areas, too.
There were a lot from CD #6. That is Michelle Bachmann's district. No need to say more about CD #6.
I believe Franken will do much better when they look at the challenges from Minneapolis, St Paul and the inner-ring suburbans. None of those places were included in the 599 ballots.
It appears that both the challengers at the recount and the posters here believe that an overvote for an office other than the one being recounted makes a ballot invalid. This is not what Minnesota law says:
"2008 Minnesota Statutes
204C.22 DETERMINING VOTER'S INTENT.
Subdivision 1.Ballot valid if intent determinable.
A ballot shall not be rejected for a technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter's intent. In determining intent the principles contained in this section apply.
Subd. 2.From face of ballot only.
Intent shall be ascertained only from the face of the ballot.
Subd. 3.Votes for too many candidates.
If a voter places a mark (X) beside the names of more candidates for an office than are to be elected or nominated, the ballot is defective with respect only to that office. No vote shall be counted for any candidate for that office, but the rest of the ballot shall be counted if possible. "
So any of you who posted numbers under other assumptions might want to post corrections.
So far I've categorized around 300 ballots and looked in detail at all cases where Coleman reps challenge a vote for Franken. The numbers are
Penmanship 18
used pen; checked box; checked near box; was incredibly messy...
Political insanity 13
Nobody who voted for McCain could possibly have intended to vote for Franken 11 of these were from Fillmore
Dubious claims of undervotes 6
Dubious claims of overvotes 18
5 from LacQuiParel 3 from Carver
Procedural objections 11
I haven't tried to determine how reasonable they may be, but 7 are from City of Crystal
Identifying Marks 26!!!
I have strong doubts, but I don't know the law well enough here to go beyond that. 14 are from LacQuiParle and 5 from Carver
A crossed out filled in oval with a filled in oval 2
It appears that there aren't standard rules for this
unknown 2
The reasons for objection aren't given but the vote challenged was for Franken. These are Crow Wing_Pequot Lakes_challenged ballot 1 and Crow Wing_Pequot Lakes_challenged ballot 3
Other real issues 3
1 with 2 filled in ovals, but with a white ring between the fill and one oval. In all the other races the oval is fully filled like the Franken one.
1 with a filled in Obama oval but only a dot in the Franken oval, but the dot appears intentional
1 with a blob halfway between the Franken and Coleman ovals slightly overlapping the Franken oval, but only touching the Coleman one. There is a thin curved line from the mark into the Franken Oval that might be seen as accidental, but has small mark like an arrowhead on it's end. I read as pointing to where the mark should have been, but there's plenty of room for argument.
Leaving aside the identifying marks, where I don't know the case law involved and where the alleged marks have often been redacted and the procedural challenges, I would reject all of these challenges without exception.
That's 0 for 62 with 37 on hold. I'll check later to see if Frankenite challenges were any better.
I only did about 150 of them before I got too bored, but I was on track to have a lot fewer rejected/other ballots than the average. I tried to count a ballot if I could discern an intent. In particular:
1) Oval filled, covered with an X: If the whole ballot was like that, and there were no apparent overvotes, I decided the voter first put X's and then went in and filled them all it. I counted that as a vote. If the first few races had the oval/X but the rest didn't, I decided the voter wised up while voting. Again, I counted that. If on other races, the voter filled in the oval, but in the Franken/Coleman race two ovals were filled in and only one Xed, I decided the Xed out one was an error and gave the vote to the other filled in choice. I thought these were obviously the voters' intents.
2) Oval Xed or checked, same thing for other races on the ballot: count the vote, it's obvious.
3) Messily filled-in oval: I checked the rest of the ballot. If the voter seemed to fill in ovals that way everywhere, I assumed motor or vision difficulties and counted the vote.
4) Just a small dot in the oval, other ovals in other races filled out completely: no vote, voter was just tapping his pen.
5) Oval correctly filled in for one candidate in the Franken/Coleman race, other oval with tiny dot: a vote for the filled-in oval. The voter was just tapping his pen on the other candidate.
6) Ovals or oval-sized scribbles near but not in, or partially in, the ovals on the ballot, in many races: voter with motor or vision problems. Count the vote if it's possible to figure out what oval the voter was trying to fill in, which it almost always was.
I often found it useful to look at the entire ballot to see how this particular voter was voting. If the voter did the same thing in every race, it was (usually) clear how the voter intended to indicate his choices.
Also, I didn't deem something an identifying mark unless it was, in fact, identifying. So, initials counted as identifying marks, but lines and stray marks did not. In other words, for it to be identifying, someone else had to be able to look at the ballot and figure out whose it was. I don't think the law intended to disqualify every single ballot with a stray pen mark on it; that would be ridiculous.
@STepper
If you really want to play the flirty grab-ass game of who went to school where, you're talking to the wrong guy.
I absolutely couldn't care less about where you went to school, nor do I care to tout my own schooling, whether it be at Oxford or West Bumblefuck Community College.
(Side note: Big whoop-dee-doo. It's damn near impossible to get shit grades in Harvard or any other Ivy League school. Some of the biggest "fuckwits" I know were -- once admitted -- able to pump out the B's with a minimum of effort. If you want a REAL school, head down to M.I.T. and watch those kids bust their asses for their grades.)
The fact that you claim to be a lawyer only makes your variety of half-asses faulty assumptions all the more entertaining.
Among them:
* That IQ is somehow a fine standard to be a primary determinant in who should be barred from voting. Flawed test is an understatement. There is significant debate as to the usefulness of IQ scores in the first place.
* That "most" of the people you claim are too stupid to vote don't pay taxes. Great! What about the ones that do? Let's make the very generous assumption (generous to your argument) that 10% of these "fuckwits" (a word I often hear used by senior citizen Harvard-trained lawyers, mind you) pay taxes.
What about this ten percent? We disenranchise THEM because YOU -- or some set of vague and arbitrary standards -- deems the OTHER ninety percent unfit?
* The idea that I'm a bleeding-heart is laughable. I've been described as misanthropic by more than a few people, and it's pretty damn on the mark. I think most Americans are stupid, and willfully so, and I don't care for people in general. More specifically, I think human nature itself is sad and pathetic.
To somehow parse out which of these morons are significantly more moron-y than others by setting a bar is plain ridiculous. What -- you set the line and those just above it get to vote and those just below it don't? Arbitrary horseshit like this absolutely should not be used to determine who is considered a vote-worthy citizen, and who is considered a voiceless piece of shit.
Further, why use intelligence as the sole standard anyway? What about being informed? Should we have a pop quiz on election day making sure voters are familiar with the candidates?
As long as we're going to be this unscientific, unfair, and arbitrary...
I say we go with the STepper Test myself:
1) Potential voter stands in front of Stepper.
2) Stepper lets potential voter know his opinions on mandatory IQ requirements, and a separate vote test.
3) If person agrees, then person is disqualified from voting for being a dumb shit.
4) If person kicks Stepper in the nuts or punches him in the face, then person may vote, as having successfully identified arbitrary disenfranchisement standards.
5) If person kicks Stepper in the nuts AND punches him in the face, then voter may vote twice.
@David
Once again you appall me with your comments. [But, actually, as I am "wining all night," I'm not really all that fussed.]
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that things should operate exactly the way *you* want them to. Please stop it.
The right to vote isn't based on being informed, well read, thoughtful, blah, blah, blah. You just have to be a U.S. citizen, 18 yo, and registered.
Hmmm. Having to explain this to you as though you were a child ... what were you saying about defending idiocy again?
Have a great night everybody ...
I think some people flipping through these are not looking at the entire ballot.
Apparently Minnesota has a law that said a ballot can not be identified (im guessing its to try to cut down on election fraud and preventing people from being able to show they voted a certain way, which prevents vote buying or other coercions)
On a few ... not many... there are identifiable markings made, but the problem I am having is to what extent is a ballot voided when a identifiable marking might be a write in vote. Several of these identifiable markings appear to be near or in write in spaces.
I am from Georgia. Does any one here know the details of this law in Minnesota and/or how the courts in Minnesota have ruled on the application on that law?
I would say out of these 600 about 30 of them could -questionably- be thrown out by identifiable marks, even though it is easy to tell the intent of the vote.
Perhaps OT, but here is news regarding the Ohio 15th C.D.:
Updated: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 04:15 PM
By Jodi Andes and James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Read the decision
* Click here to read today's Court of Appeals ruling (PDF)
An appeals court ruled today that a federal judge erred in determining that Franklin County's controversial provisional ballots can be counted.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the issue involves state law -- not federal -- and sent the case back to the Ohio Supreme Court, where it started. The unanimous ruling was made by Judges Jeffrey S. Sutton, Cornelia G. Kennedy and David W. McKeague.
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said she would not appeal, but urged justices to "quickly affirm their previous clear guidance 'to liberally construe election laws in favor of the right to vote,' so as not to disenfranchise approximately 1,000 Ohio voters with a hypertechnical interpretation of Ohio law."
The decision puts a continued hold on two races that are still too close to call: the 15th Congressional District, where Republican Steve Stivers leads Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, and the 19th Ohio House District, where Democrat Marian Harris has a 40-vote lead over Republican Brad Lewis.
Stivers' lead grew to 594 votes today after Madison County finalized its vote count.
The outcome of the congressional race, though, will remain in limbo until legal challenges decide if Franklin County's 27,000 provisional votes can be counted. It is not known how many of those votes are in the 15th district; roughly 40 percent of the county lies within the district.
Last week, Judge Algenon L. Marbley of U.S. District Court in Columbus ruled that the issue belongs in federal court because provisional ballots questions that had recently been agreed upon in a federal-court consent decree.
That's not reason enough for other election cases to be moved there, the appellate judges determined.
"That the secretary of state and the plaintiffs in another lawsuit have entered into a consent decree binds only the parties to the settlement agreement, not the rest of the world," the judges wrote.
For one thing, federal courts do not have the right to tell a state official how to carry out state law, the ruling states. In addition, there is no real federal issue in the case against provisional ballots that two supporters of Stivers have raised.
"It involves only Ohio voters and Ohio public officials," the three-judge panel noted. "No federal court has the final say on what Ohio law means."
In sending the issue to state court, the appellate court did not address whether the provisional ballots in question should be counted.
The Ohio Supreme Court immediately put a hold on opening the envelopes containing the provisional ballots. Both sides were given until 10 a.m. Monday to file their evidence and briefs.
At the heart of the legal debate are questions focusing on 1,000 of the 27,000 provisional ballots cast in Franklin County. The ballots were placed in envelopes without all the required signatures or markings showing which form of identification the voter used. Provisional ballot envelopes in Franklin County expressly stated that name and signature were "required."
Most political observers speculate that the provisional ballots likely will favor Kilroy, so the more counted the better for the Democrat.
Sutton and McKeague were appointed by President Bush, Kennedy by President Carter. Marbley was appointed by President Clinton.
The appellate judges took issue with more than Marbley's ruling. They also disagreed with his chiding of attorneys for "forum-shopping." Attorneys for Stivers initially had filed their case in the Ohio Supreme Court, which has all Republican justices.
However, the appellate judges said looking for the best outlet for their clients is natural, adding the attorneys "are doing only what their professional obligations require."
The campaigns seem to be challenging any vote for the other guy that has any write-in at all anywhere on the ballot. That can't possibly be right. If any time a voter writes in a candidate, his/her whole ballot is invalidated for "identifying marks," then what is the use of a write-in?
A voter should be able to write in Donald Duck, Lizard People, or him/herself, without invalidating the ballot. We don't *know* whether it was actually Joe Schmoe who wrote in Joe Schmoe for almost every race. It could have been Mrs. Schmoe or Joe's best friend. In any case, Joe should be able to write himself in and still have his votes count.
what does wv mean?
@Poker Pundit:
wv = word verification
It's the distorted looking characters we enter after a post to the threads here.
Another name for it is CAPTCHA. CAPTCHA (or word verification) is used to prevent automated processes from bombarding these threads with posts (as Mule Rider apparently did some time back).
Promised update on Franken challenges of Coleman votes:
identifiable marks 40
11 from Carver and 8 from LacQuiparle. many of the challenges seem to allege identification by coded write in voting. Unfortunately again the marks have been redacted.
Dubious undervotes 10
5 from LacQuiParle
Dubious overvotes 19
Complaints of bad penmanship 16
8 of them from Meeker
Procedural 2
I don't have the necesary evidence to draw any conclusions
Invalid Ballot 1
no explanation of why and nothing visibly wrong
unknown 1
The challenge stamp was redacted and there is nothing visibly wrong
So the score is 2 out of 49 valid challenges with 42 unclear
There seems to be a strong local effect at work, where certain counties get out of hand about certain kinds of challenges
One Democrat in Meeker was into penmanship. Both sides in LacQuiParle were overenthusiastic about overvotes and marks 11 marks challenges from Democrats in Carver. The political insanity challenges were from Republicans in Fillmore
It looks like this mess is a local thing spread by word of mouth and blogs, and the candidates are deliberately not trying very hard to control their troops. They'd have to agree about something and they don't seem able to do that.
From Minnesota Administrative Rules 8235.0800
"Challenges may not be automatic or frivolous and the challenger must state the basis for the challenge."
Vague challenges like "the will of the voter" and challenges that don't allege something for which a ballot may be challenged (like "Red Pen") should be rejected when they are made. If the candidates representatives don't like it, they can go irritate a judge for all the good it will do thema.
I.Q. has not been "discredited" at all, in fact it's pretty universally accepted as a positive predictive indicator of many important intelligence related life activities. There is a mountain of evidence that shows IQ is almost unquestionably a predictive factor of academic success, job success and income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq#Positive_correlations_with_IQ
Note: I'm not making any statement about how IQ results should be applied, I'm just clearing up the false claims that a couple of people here have mentioned.
Is anyone else having trouble registering for the Star Tribune website? I really wanted to spend a few hours going through votes, but now I can't!
Went through all 849 ballots.
Franken challenged 413, Coleman 404 (with a few unclear or both).
353 of Franken's challenges were attempts to take away a vote from Coleman (so-called Type 1), 60 an attempt to add a Franken vote. That's a "Type 1" challenge rate of 85.5%.
350 of Coleman's were attempts to take away a vote from Franken, 54 to add a Coleman vote. That's a "Type 1" challenge rate of 86.6%.
So, Franken is challenging ever so slightly less Type 1's than Coleman, but nowhere near what Nate predicted.
I've not tried to sign up, Jaspar, but despite that fact the site lists "my" counts: 332 Franken, 308 Coleman, 144 Other -- for a total of 684 out of 599! I think their software is very broken.
thanks, just_looking, very helpful breakdown.
Based on your numbers, we get that the sample is 50.6% Franken challenges vs 49.4% Coleman challenges. In reality, however, it is 2885 Coleman challenges and 2738 Franken, or 51.3% Coleman, 48.7 Franken. That's almost a 4% swing in the ballot difference between the +1.2% delta for Franken and the real -2.6% delta.
Add to that a oversampled and a very red Washington County which in addition to your truly was remarked upon by other posters, and what we get is a much more optimistic picture for Franken than posted by some here.
~Latte
Latte,
My numbers may suggest a better picture, but it still doesn't look too good.
With the extra Coleman challenges and a 1%-point differential in Type 1 challenges, I estimate Franken is behind by 125.
Marc Elias says it is 73 (how can he possibly quote such an exact figure), and that's still going to require the "fifth pile" ballots.
the blogger.com just ate my post. i do not have the strength or the memory to retype the whole thing.
basically, just_looking, afaik, Marc is producing 73 the same way he came up with 84 at the beginning of the week: take the election judge's initial ruling on every challenged ballot and add that as a vote to the respective tally.
so, to win, Franken would need only 74 of his challenges to be upheld if all of Coleman's were overturned. a tall order, to be sure, but doable, esp. if the truly id'ed ballot rulings break his way.
~Latte
I just voted on about 100 of them. If the sampling is representative, then Franken has lost. I had about twice as many votes for Coleman as Franken, and Franken's challenges seem more frivolous. Again, I hope I just got a batch of Coleman-favored examples.
Latte,
Do you have a citation for Elias' method of determining the deficit?
Just_looking,
Elias method been sited all over the place, including Nate's column, but I do not have a convenient reference system. Strib mentions it in a few articles too, including this one:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/34993619.html?page=3&c=y
I hope this is what you are asking me/looking for. I am sure there are better links out there.
~Latte
wv slanesse: Coleman camp is employing all sort of spin, chicanery and slanesse to make sure they come out ahead in the recount.
Thanks, Latte. That citation is clear.
To get to a 75-vote deficit, Franken must be making 3% fewer Type 1 challenges than Coleman. If true, the 849 vote sample is slightly biased, and Nate's model is far off.
garbuhj, I realize that some Wikipedia articles are good, but with all due respect, you simply can't cite one as your only source in a discussion about IQ tests and expect to be taken seriously. Talk to some anthropologists about them, for example.
Minneapolis and St. Paul were where Franken ran up huge margins within the state. Are there any challenged ballots from those cities included in the Strib's count? Thats where the most Franken challenges to ADD votes will probably come, and I would guess that most of Coleman's challenges in those two cities will all be to strike Franken votes.
The STrib's count of challenged ballots includes those areas and has always been running ahead of the SoS's own "officialer" count. By clicking on their "metro" maps and then on individual communities (puzzle: find Wayzata where my in-laws live:), you can see individual totals of challenged ballots in each.
IMHO it's disquieting that Elias says the gap has moved only from 84 to 73, over a Tue+Wed. period where the "challenge gap" went from near-even to 147 while the "vote gap" expanded by only 69 from 213 to 282 (or 79 to 292?). Even using 79, this means Coleman made an excess of 147 - 79 = 68 challenges, and yet Franken netted only 11 real votes. I really thought it was down under 50, as another recent commenter surmised.
WV "frathic": frantic, fragmenting, and like a frat party.
QUOTE:
----------------------
Michael said...
garbuhj, I realize that some Wikipedia articles are good, but with all due respect, you simply can't cite one as your only source in a discussion about IQ tests and expect to be taken seriously. Talk to some anthropologists about them, for example.
----------------------
Michael, you're the one who made the claim, so it is up to you to cite sources which prove your claim. I refuted your claim and cited a wikipedia article, which itself is linked to TONS of other sources supporting what's written there. You have cited nothing to back up your claim, and you also then try to discredit the mountain of evidence in the source I linked to by simply saying what's written there is wrong, and again citing no sources to back up your claim. Anyway, this is an old thread so no one else is gonna be reading here anyway, and I'm sure that you're not gonna actually read any of the documentation that I've linked to, so I guess that's all there is to say.
The challenged votes won't make much difference in the final count, maybe net 50-75 for Franken.
It's the erroneously rejected absentee ballots that will make a bigger difference, probably net 200+ votes for Franken, who'll win this thing by less than 50 votes. Or lose it by the same amount. It's that close.
wv: disyn. Been disyn on idiotic Coleman supporters all day.
Re: IQ
Oddly enough, the very Wikipedia article that was cited seems to mention repeatedly that IQ correlation with real-life outcomes is not particularly strong.
Positive correlations with academic success are strongest, but that's to be expected -- academic success relies heavily on being able to take standardized tests well, which the IQ test does a fine job of measuring.
I am really interested in how the canvassing board acts on these challenges. I think the vast majority are bogus.
I only had the attention span to go through about 150 of the ballots and I thought the campaigns had a reasonable argument twice, so just over 1% of the time.
The I couldn't find the identifying marks most of the time - perhaps the campaigns thought that someone bubbled in the bubble in a very distictive way? I did find it interesting that the one ballot where corrections were initialled and dated (like a bank check) was not challenged on the basis of the initials.
I particularly enjoyed the people that filled in every single bubble. That would be boneheaded enough on its own, but then having a campain challenge the ballot saying that it was a vote for them was even more absurd.
If I don't have the patience for 150 silly challenges, I know that there will be some really pissed-off judges that have to wade through 7000+ challenges worth of crap, of which, maybe 100 are worth talking about. I think each of these judges should be allowed to punch each of the recount representatives in the gut just to make them feel a little better...
R_C
Several commenters here have observed that the "identifying marks" have been "redacted", though I haven't seen official confirmation of this, nor anything on the nature of what was redacted.
The one such challenge in ballots I saw that looked arguable was where someone wrote in "Gerald (or Gregor?) Andersen" for third different offices, and on the third, a vote-for-3, wrote in two other Andersens. Are there limits to what one can do with write-ins? There must be some limits, else they could be used to identify. I voted to uphold the challenge (by Franken)---that and granting an overvote challenge by Franken were my only two excludes.
As of right now by the STrib's tally, the gap has gone from 282 down to 270 (-12), while the challenge differential has gone from 147 down to 115 (-32). Unless the domains of the STrib's challenge and ballot figures are different (and in-midday I've had reason to suspect they get out of sync), this seems reasonable to infer that Franken has made a bunch of non-vote challenges today---net about 20 +- 5 more than Coleman. I say "about" because it could also be that Coleman has picked up more undervotes than Franken, but a-priori it seems unlikely that he's netted 5 more than Franken in the limited counting so far today.
Rolling Stone story on the recount, spotted via TheUptake.org.
Okay here's my take:
1) Al Franken should appeal to get the absentee ballots reviewed. There's no legitimate reason why they can't at least look at them and see if they were rejected properly or not. Quality Control should be a part of every government entity.
2) In the interim, the Senate should appoint Dean Barkley to serve as Senator until the mess with the ballots is cleared up. He's already been a Senator for Minnesota, so he doesn't need training to be effective, and he's neither Dem nor Repub, so it's not like he'd show undue favortism to either party during the interim period he will temporarily fill.
3) The press should chill the fuck out on the post-mortems. Nobody's looked at the challenged ballots yet, and since most of those appear to be frivolous on both sides, but nobody really knows what the exact number of frivolous ones are, let's face it, the margin of error here is just huge.
4) Al Franken should stay in the fight as long as he possibly can, and pursue every legitimate avenue available to him. Before appealing to the Senate to decide who should serve as Senator, he should exhaust every attempt to get the voters of Minnesota's votes counted. If that means a drawn out court battle, so be it. He's got nothing to lose and everything to gain.
SOS just updated
Franken 11/4 1,107,528
Franken now 1,105,030
LOST 2,498
Coleman 11/4 1,103,291
Coleman now 1,100,922
LOST 2,369
Delta = 215 + 129 = 344
Challenges
Coleman 3068
Franken 2876
Coleman leads the challenges by a new high of 192.
Waiting to hear Elias take.
~Latte
wv - ciessec: the sickly feeling one gets in response to Betty McCallum's clandestine moves to get Ciresse backed in during the MN primaries
Are today's results good or bad news for Franken?
Please explain.
Looks bad to me.
@William Land,
It's like reading tea leaves.
If we apply KWRegan (and my) type of analysis, the net change today in the challenge differential vs yesterday is 191 vs 147 (using KWR numbers for yesterday, as mine are buried too far). That's an additional 44 challenge gap for Coleman.
At the same time, Coleman's edge widened to 344 acc to SOS (340 acc. to Strib, which I trust less) from 282. That's a 62 larger.
Subtracting all these new incremental challenges assumed to be frivolous, we get a net gain for Coleman of 62-44=18, unless my arithmetic is suffering after first Monday back at work.
OTOH, Franken is leading in the recount for the first time as they are starting to close out Hennepin and Ramsey county. In the gross recount totals he is up be > 4200 afair.
Overall, I was hoping for something the other way: Franken gaining 18 net, but being down in the gross recount total a bit.
That's why I'd like to hear Mark Elias spin this for me, and better yet, Nate :).
~Latte
wv - genswiga, as in "I am getting ready for a good genswiga right about now. Straight up. Bombay."
Nobody knows. There's also the Fobbes Factor. As I think other commenters have noted, not all the challenges are by Franken or Coleman---this one by Democrat Lisa Fobbe for State Senate nicked Franken a vote, what a traitor!
As for the current situation, one thing to note is that for a long time the portion of the vote recounted favored Coleman by 14,000--19,000 or so. A very blue portion was counted today, so that comparison with the 11/4 totals means that of the ballots that haven't been touched yet, almost 2,000 more of them are for Coleman. So the higher "challenge gap" may be masking that Franken picked up more new votes today---but Coleman has the greater "new-vote" potential from here on out. Or maybe every former undervote is winding up in the challenge pile---who knows??
Thanks for the comments!
I'm really rooting for Franken.
Let's hope for the best...
I also hope for more words of wisdom from Nate.
I cannot describe the very strange mix of emotions I am feeling right now. On the one hand, I have just received my credit card bill -it's really ugly, and almost all of it is political contributions. Mood: Down.
It appears Franken is in a good position at the moment. He's leading in the recount, but then again, those challenged ballots haven't been looked at yet. And they still won't look at the damned absentee ballots. Mood: Cautiously hopeful.
Jim Martin may or may not win in Georgia. Most folks on this site say he won't, including Nate and Sean. Mood: Hopeful, but very nervous.
Canada is getting ready to oust the robotic Stephen Harper in favor of a coalition government between the NDP and the Liberals. I like the NDP, and really don't mind the Liberals so much, even if Stephane Dion does look like he wandered into the party convention to use the bathroom and got elected party leader by accident. Harper's environmental policy is odious, and he got waaay to close to Bush, so I won't mind if he goes. Still, they delayed the confidence vote for a week, and I wonder what's up his sleeve. And I do wish the coalition government plans would include the Bloc. Mood: Suspicious.
Finals are coming up soon. Mood: Anxiety-ridden.
Lately, I've been thinking that it's not very healthy for me to be so wrapped up in politics. I need to get a life. Mood: Meh.
One more observation: The challenge gap is more than made up by Minneapolis and St. Louis County (Duluth) alone:
STL
Franken -126 from 228 Coleman challenges
Coleman -069 from 128 by Franken
MPL
Franken -179 from 250 Coleman challenges
Coleman -083 from 134 by Franken.
STP
Franken -019 from 68 Coleman challenges
Coleman -053 from 63 by Franken.
Ummm, I don't know what to infer...
I, too, apparently have no life. I'm at:
Coleman 254
Franken 235
Other 111
I also have a newfound sense of respect for the incumbent soil and water commissioner in my conservation district. Never again shall I write in my name in opposition to that dude, lest some D-bag accuse me later of "identifying" my ballot.
One more interesting ballot, Wadena_P2#8. By my "click-and-drag" principle, the voter did not "obliterate" Barkley clearly enough, so it goes as an overvote. Which seems to be the initial ruling, as this shows as challenged by Franken. But you'd have to say the mind-change toward Franken is pretty clear.
Is anyone maintaining a list of "interesting ballots"?
>> Are today's results good or bad news for Franken?
>> Please explain.
>> Looks bad to me.
I just ran the numbers through my system (I'm a database geek). If we go through the system and just take the delta (difference), you get the number previous mentioned.
However, if you make a blanket call to throw out ALL challenges (with the not very scientific thinking that the majority of frivolous challenges will cancel themselves out) and back those numbers back into the mix, Franken has picked up 63 votes since the Election was certified.
However... he was down 215 at that time and thus he would still be down 152 votes. A lot of this will depend on the non-frivolous challenges and the court challenge on the absentee ballots.
My guess is that it will go to the Senate and they will decide who to seat. I think it might go the way of the New Hampshire election of 1974 and probably it will end in a re-voting at some point.
Read more about it here: http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_335011452.html
-- John
Can we put Dean Barkley in there to hold the seat until it's officially decided for sure who wins? I kinda like the guy.
>>Can we put Dean Barkley in there to hold the seat until it's officially decided for sure who wins?
As long as he's not related to Charles Barkley, possible Democratic candidate for Governor of Alabama.
Just finished my analysis (Wow, 850 ballots are A LOT!).
Bottom line: Franken is close, probably a few ten's of votes, but not yet over the top.
Caveats: With not nearly enough data from big challenge-generating counties, and with big uniformity problems, there's not a lot we can make of it- take my conclusion with a whole barrel of salt. Some challenge types are so county specific (sometimes precinct- and perhaps table-specific) that there's no telling where it'll go.
Also, my rules are as bad as anyone else's, excpet for the State Canvassing Board, and they don't post on 538.
Key takeaway: Franken has a slight edge in challenge "quality", but not enough to close the gap as it now stands. He'll need to do better in the ballots we don't have available to win this election.
But the main thing is that some "procedural" rulings by the canvassing board may have a huge impact on the results. Some of the recurring challenges require consistent judgement calls (the "dot in other oval" and "multiple write-in's" mentioned above are both good examples), and some are totally procedural, and I don't know how will the law be interpreted (torn ballots, wrong precinct ballots, duplicates or originals missing and many others).
Bottom bottom line: we just don't frigging know.
wv: rackedu.
"Did you have rackedu in school today?"
"Sure dad, I fired my first shotgun!"
"Why that's great, son!"
IT' OVER!
Nate, book your concession speech for Rachel's show ASAP!
http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2008/12/02/4936/mpr_franken_challenges_more_bogus
John,
That's Gnarls Barkley to you.
And I intend on donating alot of money to the future Governor Barkley. I'm not much into sports, but that man surprises me in a good way every time I hear him speak.
Please don't let that halfwit criminal Franken steal the election.
That is the reason Obama is not as happy as he should be after this "historic" election. He knows if ballots were checked Acorn and his other buddies have forged enough votes to steal the election again.
Remember 1960 where they found out JFK did not really win - the Daly machine voted the cemetaries and Obama was trained by them.
He learned well - just study his past hijinks.
This won't be over until the 12,000 erroneously rejected absentee ballot envelopes are evaluated and some percentage of those, probably 5-10% are judged valid, or minor defects allowed to be corrected, and then they're counted.
The matter will probably end up being decided by the MN Supremes.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment