11.10.2008

More Minnesota Madness

A Minneapolis-based Daily Kos diarist named 'bitwise' has done some further sleuthing on the impending Minnesota senate recount, which we had discussed at length this morning. Here's what he's found:

The freshest data, pulled from the state website minutes ago, shows Franken down by 206 votes. The total presidential undervote is 10086. The total senate undervote is 34916. If the senate undervote is allocated to Coleman and Franken along their fraction of the Coleman+Franken vote in that precinct, Coleman would receive 16573 new votes, Franken 18342, for a Franken gain of +1769.
There are a couple of things to pick through here. Firstly, it appears that slightly more than 10,000 people undervoted the presidential race. Although there are undoubtedly cases in which the voter undervoted the presidency but not the senate race, it would appear that for the most part the presidential undervote is a subset of the senate undervote.

The research I've come across suggests that about two-thirds of presidential undervotes are unintentional. So let's take two-thirds of that 10,086 vote total and assign them to the recount pile -- that equals 6,724 votes.

There were also about 25,000 cases in which the voter voted for the presidency but undervoted the senate race (consistent with the AP's reportined finding last week). Let's assume that in most of these cases, the voter intentionally skipped the senate race, but that in one-third of cases he did not. This equals another 8,277 votes, or a total of 15,001 cases in which the voter intended to vote for the senate race, but his vote was not recorded.

In not all of these 15,001 cases, however, will the voter's intention be clear. Let's assume that one-quarter of these ballots will be unresolvable, even upon a hand recount. This means that 11,251 ballots will actually be reclassified during the recount, or about 0.4% of the total cast.

Bitwise notes, however, that Franken did in fact perform better -- really, quite a bit better -- in precincts with more undervotes. If undervotes follow the pattern of the recorded votes, then Franken would win 52.5% of recounted ballots (excluding any ballots cast for third parties). This is a significant finding, as these are the first numbers I have seen to break the undervote down to the precinct level.

Let's approach this in a couple of different directions. Firstly, let's assume that my estimate of 11,251 recounted ballots is correct and hold this number constant, but vary the share of such ballots that go to Franken. Here are his win percentages under various such scenarios:
11,251 recounted ballots (0.4% correctable error rate)
======================================================
Recounted Ballots
Resolved for Franken Franken Win %
50.0% 1.85%
50.1% 2.93%
50.5% 13.39%
51.0% 44.82%
51.5% 80.18%
52.0% 96.61%
52.5% 99.75%
53.0% 99.99%
Alternatively, let's assume that Bitwise's estimate of 52.5% of recounted ballots being resolved for Franken is correct, but vary the number of qualified ballots:
Franken Wins 52.5% of Recounted Ballots
======================================================
Number of Recounted Ballots Franken Win %
2,500 1.68%
5,000 54.60%
5,623 68.93%
7,500 92.49%
10,000 99.15%
11,251 99.75%
15,000 99.99%
20,000 100.00%
The long story short is as follows: if Al Franken in fact wins anywhere near 52.5% of the undercounted ballots, it is quite likely that he will prevail, even given what I would consider to be fairly pessimistic assumptions about the number of correctable errors. You could halve my estimate of the number of recounted ballots, for instance (to 5,623) and Franken still projects to prevail around 69% of the time. If, on the other hand, Franken only wins say 51% of the undercount, then the precise number of correctable errors is more important.

I hesitate to say this, but I think the evidence points on balance toward Franken being a slight favorite to win the recount.

129 comments

Voice of the Midwest said...

1st

Luke said...

This is the race that just keeps giving.

aaron said...

*this* is a thriller.

M. Joseph Goodfriend said...

"Let's assume that in most of these cases, the voter intentionally skipped the senate race, but that in one-third of cases he did not."

Er..isn't this just a wild guess?

RufusRules said...

I'll take your "slight favorite" odds any day, given your accuracy up to now on such things.

GO AL!

egotron5000 said...

Fingers crossed for Al Franken and that guy in Georgia.

Voice of the Midwest said...

I noticed the overperformance by Franken in Hennepin and St. Louis County. When I heard that 70% of the undervotes were in Hennepin, St. Louis, and Ramsay Counties, I shot an email to the DNC.

The shift in the initial audit could be rather dramatic and give the uninitiated the thought that the fix was on. The DNC needs 101 lawyers on a Northwest flight to Minneapolis to beat the 100 attorneys the RNC will be sending to muddy the water.

Considering the CER and the balance as to where the undervotes come from (70% from Hennepin, Ramsay, and St. Louis), I could see Franken end up with a 500-1000 vote lead coming out of the certification audit.

Coleman's call for Franken to pull out and demand the state not run a recount is beginning to look like Kevin Bacon in "Animal House" telling the rioting crowd to calm down and that all was well.

WV: wayans...comedians from the 90s with no career at this time.

Zandt said...

We here in Austin (Texas) are rooting for Al big time. He's good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like him. Or something. Some of 'em. Like us.

wv: experi -- short of experience; a Palin.

StevePhilly said...

The AP now reports that the Coleman-Franken margin is only 204 votes!

Jack said...

This race will be a nail-biter.

If we pull this out, one step closer to 60!

MotherHoose said...

sos Minnesota says 206

should up date in about 5 minutes

Link

MR. Bill said...

Off topic, but Senate- and undercount-related: 168,785 more people cast votes for President in Georgia than Senator: that's 4.35 of the total vote.
I have two possible explanations: trickery with Diebold machines (unprovable if true), or a large number of Georgia Voters were so turned off by the Senate campaign and wall to wall commercials toward the end, they chose none of the above.
From the ATL Journal-Constitution:

"In North Carolina, the Senate undervote was 1.1 percent of the presidential total. In Oregon it was 3.3 percent, and 2.3 percent in New Hampshire. The only state where the total approached Georgia’s was Louisiana, at 4.0 percent.

So who were these people? Were they Obama voters who just cast their ballots for their favorite and walked out? The evidence for that is weak. In Fulton County, which went for Obama by more than 2-1, the undervote was 2.85 percent, lower than the undervote rate in McCain counties such as Cobb (3.4 percent) and Cherokee (3.1 percent). In DeKalb County the rate was 4.4 percent, about the state average.

So what’s YOUR explanation? "

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bookman/entries/2008/11/10/168785_missing_voters_in_senat.html
I think this means that Georgia is still viable for Martin, especially if his ads can differentiate him from Chambliss, and effectively answer the "Fair Tax" idiocy Chambliss has made an issue. It is, as has been repeatedly said, all about turnout....

Greg said...

One thing to throw out there - from my non-random sampling of Obama voters in MN (people I've run into, etc) Franken has drastically underperformed Obama. Many of these people have expressed displeasure at all available options. I know some of them voted Barkley as a protest vote, but I would not at all be surprised to see a good number of people intentionally leaving the Senate empty, far greater than 2/3rds.

Jack said...

Why isn't there a "There's More" button for this post, but when I click the post there is more information than appears on the home page?

I hope I was clear about what the bug is. At least on my computer.

MotherHoose said...

sos Georgia still list some precincts not reported!

compare Total Precincts with reported:
Link

Ellen said...

You seem to be leaving out any % resolved for Barkley et al. But you can't just look at the % resolved for Franken vs the % resolved for Coleman. It should not be 52.0% of the total resolved undercounts.

cher said...

Somewhere Franken is saying... Nate Silver thinks I have a chance. Let's see how it plays out. I would love to have that seat for many reasons. I am one of your greatest fans also voting for a different format when things calm down. After Franken is declared.

Ellen said...

Also, the fact that 70% of the undervotes occurred in Hennepin, St. Louis, and Ramsey counties makes me suspicious. It could be the larger % of minority, immigrant, and low-income voters who aren't familiar with voting, but it could also be Republican fraud.

Dave Solimini said...

one thing to consider... This was a weird race -- negative and unusual candidates. Especially at the end. It may very well be that there is a higher than normal intentional undervote for Senate. With the choice between a republican they didn't want to reward and a democrat they couldn't stomach, this is possible. I've no numbers, just a gut check.

John McCain is my Love Child! said...

If I wasn't already married. And if we both lived in California. And if it was prior to last Tuesday. I would ask you to marry me Nate Silver.

Awesome. Just awesome. (The maths...not the projected outcome).

sarasotajoe said...

Why would the odds of Franken winning be a %-age? It seems to me that if you make assumptions about both parameters - number of recounted ballots and Franken's win %-age on those ballots, then you should predict precisely whether he wins or loses for each pair of numbers.

For example. If there are 5,623 recounted ballots and Franken wins 52.5% of them, then he gets 2952 votes added to his tally and Coleman gets 2671. Franken's net gain is 281 votes and he wins. He doesn't have a 68.93% chance of winning, as your chart says, he has a 100% chance of winning because he makes up more votes than his current deficit.

If your estimate of 11,251 recounted ballots is accurate, then he just needs just a hair under 51% of those ballots to win.

The probablity charts in this post and this morning's post don't make sense to me. If you accept the assumptions made by the two parameters set, then every entry in the chart should either be 0% or 100%.

JMNorris said...

Am I the only Democrat here that doesn't like Frankin? That Coleman is even worse isn't enough to turn me into a Frankin fan.

On the "Whistling Past Bubba" thread. The analysis is all very good but assumes that the Republican party does not remake itself. It quite successfully remade itself in the four years following the disastrous (for the Repubs) Goldwater defeat. On one hand, they were helped by having a lot of low hanging fruit to pick (southern racists), an unpopular Dem to run against, and a third part candidate to siphon racist but not yet Republican votes from the Democrats. On the other hand, assuming Obama will be as popular a president as most of us here expect him to be, then the Republicans will have longer to work out their reinvention: 8-12 years.

Another Mike said...

Seems like you're using some very optimistic assumptions about the numbers of undervoted ballots that will eventually be counted. OTOH, I think there's an excellent chance Franken wins the undervoted ballots that are eventually included by a much greater percent than 52.5. In sum, who knows who will eventually win.

postxian said...

Learning this much about under/over counts and correctable errors, etc. convinces me even more that the 2000 Supreme Court decision to stop the Florida recount was tantamount to a stolen election.

Another Mike said...

@ sarasotajoe,

nate is assuming a 52.5% chance that any individual ballot is for Franken, not that Franken wins exactly 52.5% of the ballots. Think of each individual ballot as being a coin toss with heads/Franken having a 52.5% of occurring and tails/Coleman a 47.5%.

Charles said...

I beg you nate silver PLEASE work for the democrats as an internal pollster. You are a god, please take care, you're gonna get really famouse please dont become a drug addict or be depressed (idk some ppl r nuts...) the future is bright for you!

Kid G said...

@jmnorris:

I think the GOP will easily fix itself IF it moves back to its moderate libertarian roots. The conundrum that it lives with is that the grassroots movement of the party is centered almost entirely within the churches at the moment. In the end, elections are turnout battles where unity and organization are of paramount importance.

An even bigger problem that the GOP has is that for young people, it's just not cool to be a Republican right now. As time passes, the party ID is naturally shifting to a more accepting and socially tolerant populous.

LFC said...

The analysis is all very good but assumes that the Republican party does not remake itself.

This is going to be difficult without losing part of their evangelical Christian base. These people are motivated and have no issues with flexing their muscle. I think it will be very tough to steer the GOP ship off the rocks, and not impact turnout from among this demographic. (McCain had to make the awful decision of putting Palin on the ticket to get them to come out.)

tfield98 said...

Long time reader, first time poster.

Thanks to Nate and all for bringing **sanity** (if not addictive reading habits!) to the election.

In case you all haven't seen these cartograms, they're very cool. Among other things, the "donuts" of blue I imagine are urban blue, surrounded by rural red.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

Kid G said...

Oh yeah, another thing that makes it very difficult for the GOP to make a comeback IF it returns to its libertarian roots:

The Dems have finally figured out how to make people really believe that they have power to determine an election. Power is addictive. Even at the height of its popularity, I don't think the GOP ever made people feel that they had power. That attempt was the slogan "compassionate conservatism", which is now recognized as an empty phrase that is synonymous for the neocon movement. This time around, empty slogans won't get them anywhere; people just don't trust them anymore. They need to start voting with the Dems once in a while to actually make things move forward in the government. Actions will speak louder and be more effective than words.

Andy JS said...

Obama's percentage lead (rounded to the nearest whole percent) has now moved up from 6% to 7%. He leads by 6.53%.

Hexxenhammer said...

You really need to put Barkley into the mix. 10-20% of those undervotes could be for him too.

Edward G. Talbot said...

nate -

One more adjustment you need to make. You say that 6724 is the estimate of people who unintentionally undervoted the presidential race. But then you go on to assume that all those voters also intended to vote for Senate. I think you need to adjust that number downwards by the expected legitimate difference between number of votes for president and for Senate. A small percentage, granted, but should be part of the model.

Omir the Storyteller said...

Does anybody know what the legal procedure is for recounts in Minnesota? The reason I ask is because in the 2004 gubernatorial race in Washington state, we had a similar close election. The law provided for two recounts; an automatic, machine recount if the vote was closer than 0.5%; and a manual one that had to be requested and paid for by the challenger of the results (but the money would be refunded if the manual recount showed that the challenger won). The Democrats opted to pay for the second recount, which overturned the initial count and put the Democratic candidate in the governor's mansion.

I'm curious because I'm sure Minnesota has a provision for a recount process, but I don't know whether the recount scheduled for November 19th is the end of the line. This is important because even though the legal process was followed all the way through the two recounts, Republicans here still grouse about how the 2004 election was "stolen" by the Democrats. This of course is utter BS, but I would like to see the DFLs document everything now so that if the Republicans start whining about how Franken "mysteriously" won the election, they can bring out the documentation and call bull---- on the claims.

Jason said...

Can you at least offer an explanation as to why your numbers don't reflect Barkley winning a significant percentage of votes?...

I love the site, btw. But this has been bugging me.

lilnev said...

Why would you assume that there are more unintentional Senate undervotes than unintentional Pres undervotes? It seems to me this type of human-machine-interface error would be equally common for the two races. Probably overwhelmingly correlated, with most of the undervotes occuring on the same ballots, and small and approximately equal numbers of "Pres counted, Senate unintentionally undervoted" and "Pres unintentionally undervoted, Senate counted".

Joe The Fake Virginian said...

To paraphrase a line about Mr Spock.

I trust Nate's guesses more than I trust other people's facts.

markedman said...

when will missouri be called!??!

Mike said...

Omir,

There is only one recount, a manual hand recount, and it is paid for by the State.

jackleone said...

In general, it seems to me that a better way to handle extremely close elections would be to declare them a tie if within some slim percentage. Instead of recounts and litigation with teams a lawyers looking over each individual ballot with little room for error, there would be some open transparent procedure for tie-breaking (runoff, state legislature, governor pick, duel?). With millions of votes cast, I think both the initial count and a manual recount procedure itself would have an error bar of at least a few hundred votes; enough to make the difference. Imagine how much cleaner Florida 2000 would have been if state law simply called it a tie and then broke the tie with a transparent rule.


WV: lacraver: A French fishing retreat for club kids?

Jack-be-nimble said...

The dems are totally corrupt in Minn. They will keep recounting until Frankin wins. They will see stray marks and count them for Frankin.

The irony is that if Frankin does win, he will be a massive embarrassment to the Democratic Party.

Daniel T. said...

Have we not gotten an update on Missouri because it is still so undecided at the presidential level? I want Barack to win that state, damnit.

Anyone got any info?

Mike said...

Jack-be-nimble,

Do you have any evidence to back up that accusation? The Democrats aren't counting the votes alone.

Robin said...

I think you guys should develop a new logo that shows a clock with the time 5:38.

Another Mike said...

In general, it seems to me that a better way to handle extremely close elections would be to declare them a tie if within some slim percentage.

What's the cutoff for calling an election a tie instead of a win? If it's close to the cutoff, then are there recounts and litigation, etc.?

Charlie said...

I would like to second the request for a Barkley factor in this projection. I believe he won something in the ~15% range statewide, but if the undervote precincts are identified, and the Barkley numbers are available his margin of the votes should have a relatively high confidence.
From an unscientific standpoint, it seems hardly possible that either major party candidate could have more than 50% of the undervote if Barkley was anywhere close to his statewide ~15% in the relevant precincts.

Linda said...

Minnesota's actually a notoriously good-government state. If they could fix elections, believe me, Norm Coleman never would have had that Senate seat in the first place, because that was in the heat of Wellstone's death, and they were both incredibly motivated and very mad.

But it's important to keep in mind that Minnesota uses a relatively simple kind of optical-scan ballot. It's not something with chads or bubbles you have to fill in. You're basically connecting two lines with another line (or it was when I lived there, and it sounds like it still is). It's not as easy to undervote accidentally as it might be in other places. My guess is that the great majority of the undervotes are intentional (one of my good friends, who generally votes for Democrats, really agonized over voting for Franken because of some of his past behavior; she came around, but many undoubtedly did not) and that the recount won't change the outcome. We're all guessing, but that's my guess.

lilnev said...

"Why would you assume there are more unintentional Senate undervotes than unintentional Pres undervotes?"

I'm suggesting that there are more total undervotes for Senate because, as you say, some people just vote for Pres. But the error rate of the voting process should be the same for both races.

Assume Nate's estimates are correct that 6700 Pres undervotes are unintentional, and intent will be determinable in 3/4s of those. If you accept my argument that the number of unintentional Senate undervotes will be the same, and assign 15% to Barkley, that leaves about 4000 to be split between Franken and Coleman. Franken needs 52.5% of the two-way vote to bring the race to a tie.

Carol Goldstein said...

to jackleone

There are problems with revoting, ie on Georgia model where the winner must get 50% so any 3rd party candidate throws a very, very close race into a revote.

The biggest and most obvious problem is that the turnout will be less. [For races more down-ballot than a Senate race this would be even more of a problem because they would be virtually ignored by media.] Another problem is that the finances of a campaign have been planned to have funds raised equal funds spent through election day; a revote exascerbates the advantage of the candidate with the most financial resources (and what do you do with contribution limits?) Then there is the little problem that the revote may also come out very close. Finally, it costs a lot of money to put on a statewide election.

Andrew said...

This is reminding me of the washington governor race in 2004. The Democrat was losing before the recount and ended up winning after the second recount by less than 150 votes.

With a difference that slight, there is every reason to believe that race is 50/50. Franken could come out ahead in a recount quite easily and I'm sure Coleman is scared that will happen.

Happened to Dino Rossi.

Eric said...

Jason, HexxenHammer and probably a couple others:

Nate does account for Barkley, if you read the description he assigns ~15% of the uncounted votes to him. For example, if there are 10,000 uncounted votes, he's saying Franken wins 52.5% of the 8,500 votes not given to Barkley. All the third party really does in this case is slightly reduce the number of votes that could be split between Franken/Coleman.

If you included him as another possible random outcome instead, it would increase uncertainty in the outcome slightly, the <1% or >99% chances would move somewhat to the middle.

green monkey said...

Posted on last thread but in case all have moved...

@mulerider and others

The future GOP. Would like views on where that will go. To me it looks like there are 3 potential core constituencies.

- Centerist Repubs who are much like centerist dems only somewhat to the right on most issues and primarily driven by a pro-business and pro-corporate agenda (heirs of Nixon, perhaps)
- Social Conservatives whose vote is guided greatly by social vision of the US (the people Palin would energize)
- Libertarian-leaners - people with a strong commitment to small govt, low taxes, free markets, and (importantly) a minimalist social agenda.

These constituencies have been in coalition, primarily organized by the first group above, and if Obama does fail significantly, I can see that same coalition regrouping and persisting. But under stress, I could see it breaking down. If Obama is successful, I'm not sure the conservative base is a good place to build a competing party -- this election already saw many of the centrist repubs jumping ship to Obama over Palin. The libertarian platform might be a better foundation to rebuild, but the libertarians and social conservatives have a serious incompatibility over social agenda. For one group it's the most important thing, for the other you specifically leave it out. If you rebuild with libertarians-leaners at the core, do conservatives then go off on their own? If so, you end up, at least for a while, with 2 parties on the right. Doesn't seem like 3 parties is a natural system for American politics, so then what?

Chaddylove said...

Linda,

In MN we have to fill in the bubbles completely for the vote to be counted.

sfergus483 said...

If anything wrong were happening in MN, I suspect Repub Gov Pawlenty might have something to say about it.

He hasn't.

Get back to me if he does.

Rich Rifkin said...

NATE: "Firstly, it appears that slightly more than 10,000 people undervoted the presidential race."

What happened to secondly and thirdly and fourthly?

NATE: "Firstly, let's assume that my estimate of 11,251 recounted ballots is correct and hold this number constant, but vary the share of such ballots that go to Franken."

Aunt Karen said...

What would happen if nobody (no party, that is) catered to the evangelical 'Chirstian' base? Would they simply not vote? Or would they vote on other issues?

This, of course, would be my preferrence, that nobody kow tow to these folks. And, since it's a shrinking group, really, as time goes by, why bother?

Michael said...

lilnev's analysis seems more reasonable than Nate's. Although there are ways that the unintentional Sen. undervote could be just a bit higher that the POTUS undervote (changes to/from Barkley, more hasty marking...) it's unlikely that there are more than about 6000 countable F+C votes left in that pile.

OTOH, I've heard (does anybody here know) that there are 6600 ballots rejected by the machines altogether. Some of these would be countable, and you've got to suspect they will tilt toward F.

nailbiter. /mbw

ebleyes said...

let's begin the countdown to papa bear's head explosion.

MotherHoose said...

Don't know what is going on in Missouri...

sos page gives update time...but only change I saw all day:

4,969 vote difference
* Election results as of 3:03:43 on 11/10/2008
==
4968
* Election results as of 3:18:19 on 11/10/2008

1 vote to Obama ???

===
SoS office:

"Finally, the election results must go through a certification process before they are official. Local election officials have until November 18th to verify their results and process the provisional ballots cast throughout Missouri."

so I guess we have to wait till Nov 18th or 19th...

Becky Sharp said...

Franken represents the Democratic, Farmer and Labor party. That's so Minnesota!

galisher: what Minnesota farmers wear on their feet

martin said...

All I saw was undervote numbers. What about write in and overvote? A lot of votes come out of those two sets in optical scan.

justsomeguy said...

Zogby just ripped Nate on his radio show. It is not up yet, but the 11-10 show will eventually appear here:

http://interactive.zogby.com/potus08/

He basically argud that the polling industry well, and that his state polls were great. He even defended his interactive polls.

He completely ignored releasing polls to Drudge, screaming about partial samples to gain headlines, defended cellphones as unneeded (reallyweak argument), and did not mention he had the most variable tracking poll imaginable. He actually also defended his worng party ID numbers. It was pretty weak, lets hop it posts later tonight so you too can hear how weak.

You want the 11-10 show, is was not up at this posting.

jackleone said...

@another mike:

Good point. The tie cut-off would be just a fiercely contested as the normal win.
I wanted to illustrate how when you have millions of data points (votes) determining the real winner is basically impossible when the margin is so small. There is inherent error in any process. I want to think of straightforward ways of dealing with the uncertainty that doesn't lead to bitterness and conspiracy theories from the losing side for years.

Jason said...

Thanks for the clarification Eric... When I initially read the post it seemed as if Nate was just assuming that 3rd parties wouldn't be significant in determining the undervote, but I should have had more faith :-)

bcf said...

Exactly where Coleman didn't want to be. Heading into a recount with a comedian. Franken is no career politician and can play this thing balls out and just for laughs. Franken's as loose as Manny Ramirez in a Game 7.

Coleman's only hope is that Franken decides there's more money in the comedy routine and blows the recount on purpose.

werddrew said...

First, the only Franken could "blow" the recount was if he dropped out. This thing is in the hands of his field organization now, which has been supplemented by some bored Obama organizers.

Second, while Minnesota technically only has one recount, if the Coleman campaign successfully sues, the entire recount could be invalidated and sent to the courts to have ANOTHER recount. Good FAQ on the whole thing here:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/11/06/recount_faq/

Becky Sharp said...

mule rider:

Impeachment is sophomoric, and it says a lot about Franken's immaturity

But prosecuting for war crimes if war crimes have been committed. I'd call that governing from the center.

Letting war crimes go unpunished would be extremist

green monkey said...

Aunt Karen I'd be very happy if that's true. But I'm not convinced. You'd think it would have all been tapering off steadily since 1970 but fundamentalism has been a growth industry both East and West, and they encourage each other. I would settle for marginalization for now...

green monkey said...

@mulerider I agree. I think Bush et al were criminally irresponsible and ran roughshod over the Geneva Convention as well as the Constitution. But I am not into witchhunts, especially against the party out of power in a democracy. It's a bad precedent, easily abused, and to the extent we've failed to live up to our best democratic principles, I'd rather treat that as an aberration and just go forward. So hopefully there will not be a lot of public support for any of it.

Clarissa said...

Question on another outstanding Senate Race: Has Alaska started counting again yet? Does anyone know when the outstanding votes start getting tallied?

Linda said...

@chaddylove: Interesting. Either they fussed with it since I was there a few years ago, or it varies based on where you are in the state. I'd heard they used the good ballots statewide; I guess not.

Andy JS said...

McCain's lead in Missouri was 5,868 votes for the last few days, but I just noticed it's been reduced now to 4,968 votes.

justsomeguy said...

Mule Rider-

Iraq was not a reaction to 9/11. Go read the Woodward book, do talk to Scott McClellean.

Typing long posts does not make them right, in fact it makes them more likely to be wrong.

Bush is an idiot, the republicans backed him and lost.

Obama will govern from the center, he understands power, Bush is not smart enough to run a university Senate.

moondancer said...

Re: Franken's "biting" partisanship

Better that than the unctuous Coleman's slimy stealing, rule-bending lack of ethics.
Actually his partisanship is anything but biting. I listened to his show for years. He had a good give and take with many conservatives. The ones that didn't take themselves too seriously.
It's the deranged ones like O'Reilly that can't take the heat.
I doubt on his most partisan day he'll match the intense partisanship and hatred of the following: Cornyn, Inhofe, DeMint, Sessions, and Roberts.

Tom said...

I hope you're right, but despite all the mathematical precision, I just think there are too many variables and unknowns in all of this.

But, I'm glad we have a site like this now to begin statistical analysis of elections like this one. It'll definitely help in the future.

Robby said...

Joe the Fake Virginian

I believe that's a quote from Bones about Spock (from Star Trek IV, as I recall).

Jack-be-nimble

Didn't you offer to stop by on election day to eat your share of crow if Obama won? I would like a link to that comment, if you don't mind.

Mule Rider

Al Franken on the record saying he'll seek a "quickie impeachment" of Bush if he's elected in the window between the Senate swearing in and the Presidential swearing in.

He's also on record supporting a campaign to torpedo Al Gore's electoral chances in 2000 by paying actors to show up at Gore rallies to pose at homosexuals, thanking the vice president for his support of gay marriage rights and the homosexual agenda.

That same record further shows that Franken succeeded in winning the Democratic nomination in 2000, and sailing to the White House with the "all-Jew ticket."

"Why Not Me? The Unmaking of the Franken Presidency." Cute read; I recommend it. Not as good as "The Truth: With Jokes," which is where you got your damning policy position from, but definitely worth the paperback price.

Oh, and aren't we all wankers for thinking Obama was gonna win this thing?

(breez - how Mule Rider and Jack-be-nimble characterized McCain's impending electoral college victory just a few short months ago.)

David R said...

Jack-be-nimble said...

"The dems are totally corrupt in Minn. They will keep recounting until Frankin wins. They will see stray marks and count them for Frankin.

The irony is that if Frankin does win, he will be a massive embarrassment to the Democratic Party."

1. It's Franken, not Frankin, you frickin' idiot.

2. Both sides will have observers to decide whether marks made constitute valid votes.

3. If they disagree, there will be a second level of review.

4. I very much doubt that the Democrats will be embarrassed by Franken. Consider the fact that Republicans haven't shown too much embarrassment in McCain, Palin, Bush, Cheney, Nixon, Agnew, Michele "Josephine McCarthy" Bachmann, or a host of other Republican miscreants. In fact, the Democrats will be very proud of Franken when he repeatedly help them to overcome Republican filibusters.

Mark said...

As another commenter noted, I have much more confidence in the 52.5% figure than in the number of unintentional undercounts. And, of course, even of the number of unintentional undercounts, we still have to assume that, however they did mark the ballot, it is somehow discernible as a vote for one of the Senators.

I'm very hopeful that Franken can pull it out, but I'm not yet convinced by the analysis.

justsomeguy said...

Go read McClellan's book - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was planned before it:

http://www.newsmax.com/borchgrave/scott_mcclellan/2008/06/02/100846.html

Bush, nolinkbetween IRaw and 9/11:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html

You area troll, and a homophobic loser so I willl quit wasting space after this, but please go get some news beyond Fox, freepers and the RedState.

Robby said...

There's the Mule Rider I know and love! Good to see you yelling nonsensically at bystanders again, like some half-crazed homeless person drunk on Listerine.

Admit it: it's easier to just yell mean things that try and come up with half-baked defenses for the utterly iniquitous and utterly incompetent (and now, thankfully, utterly inconsequential) Bush administration.

(shrem - the guy who Mule Rider wishes had run Obama's campaign)

David R said...

mule rider,

You seem obsessed with douches, douche bags, and excrement.

If you focused more of your time and effort on your head than your nether regions, perhaps (but unlikely) you could come up with some intelligent comments.

Here's hoping.

By the way, I am willing to chance the next 3 - 4 years with Franken. Maybe a lot more.

Ira said...

How is the voters intention when it differs from the actual vote ever knowable?

If I didn't mark a particular section of my ballot, how can anyone other than me credibly claim that I meant to but just didn't?

I would consider counting any votes that were not cast a staggering injustice. What's the justification for this?

Robby said...

Mule Rider, no one's wasting your time but you. I mean, seriously, you're trolling a site where you're a well-known laughing stock.

I mean, I guess being well-done known is better than nothing.

Is that your problem? Did mommy not hug you enough? Because there's gotta be better sources of attention than saying stupid things to people that don't care about you on the internet.

Let me recommend a puppy.

(cousio - not a good name for Mule Rider's puppy)

justsomeguy said...

Mulie seems down tonight, I think he must be drunk on some good airplane glue, or maybe reality is atempting to gain access to his brain. Mulie sure can't let that happen!

Mulie - the guy you called a muslim, America-hating, liberal, terrorist won!

That is GOOD NEWS FOR THE UNITED STATES!!!!!

Ira said...

In MN we have to fill in the bubbles completely for the vote to be counted.

But the voters know that, don't they? That rule isn't a secret.

If a voter fails to fill in the bubble, I wouldn't count his vote.

David R said...

Ah, mule rider,

Yet another good reason to be a liberal, commie, Democrat.

He sounds like a pretty tough guy hiding behind a keyboard in mommie's basement.

Robby said...

Mule Rider

And what's sad is you douchnozzles don't even see how bad I make you look.

Dude, your only response to criticism is the liberal use of words like "douche" and "excrement." If you want to be proud of that, go right ahead, but don't be surprised if you're all alone in that sentiment.

I'm telling you, man, a puppy would gladly provide all that attention you so desperately crave. Plus, it would actually care about what you say or do, which it something (I'm sorry to say) we just can't give you.

(clogis - a slightly better name for Mule Rider's puppy)

justsomeguy said...

"Mule Rider Said: However, for those defenders of Barack Obama that say he has .... left of center candidate with a muslim name and some dubious associates"


" Mule Rider said... Obama is just a skinny monkey. Gays will burn in hell. Liberals should be shot on sight. ..."

"Mule Rider said...

...voting for the muslim terrorist? It's okay for 90% of the blacks to vote for this guy, but if whites do it then we are talking about racism!"

David R said...

Are you sure you want to give mule rider a puppy? mule rider seems to have a bit of pent up anger, frustration, stupidity. I would feel sorry for the puppy. But who knows, the puppy is likely to kick his ass.

Rick said...

Three way race.

You're assumptions essentially throw out the third party candidate, right? Did you correct for him being more or less preferred in the undervotes and still to report counties?

justsomeguy said...

"Mule Rider said...

I'm sorry...Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina will all be red on election day..."

How did that go for you?

Reader24 said...

@Ira:
The machines are not perfect. It actually happens that a voter filled the stuff by the rules, and the machine still failed to identify it correctly.
It is also possible that a smear somehow appeared on the page, possibly even inside the machine, to create "overvote", which any human viewing the ballot will be able to easily identify.
Please note: the assumption is that only small percentage of the total unintentional no-votes will be actually counted in the recount. In any case where the voter's intention is ambiguous, the ballot will not be counted, even if it "strongly suggests" one way or the other.
Of course, observers from all sides will be part of this process.

To summarize: The Machines Are Not Perfect.

WV: aessremp. somehow seems in-tune with many of the latest posts...

justsomeguy said...

"Mule Rider said...
Why is it okay for all the blacks to vote for Obama, but when whites vote for McCain it's racist?

Vote YES to Proposition 8,and NO for HOMOS!

McCain/Palin 08"

John G said...

Could a new poster make a plea for less name-calling, please? It is very satisfying to think of a nice strong insult, but it detracts from the argument. Reasonable people may differ, even about who is being a reasonable person.

There are several different questions about prosecuting Pres Bush for war crimes:

- is he guilty? By what standards, according to what evidence?

- is the US the right country to prosecute him? How does this relate to the acceptability to the US of the International Criminal Court that Bush has opposed (and tried to intimidate American allies into opposing). The ICC has under its own rules no jurisdiction unless the country whose citizen is at issue does not itself prosecute that person.

- is it worth the emotional resources to prosecute? Is not an open change of policy a better sign of repudiation of the actions of the Bush administration than prosecution? Even an apology ...

It's more fun, and much easier, to think up nasty terms for people who disagree than to work such matters out, but it's much less satisfying for the readers.

And we have strayed a distance from discussing who the next Senator from MN will be (though until Nate or someone comes up with new data, I guess there is little to add there.)

Civility please - don't mess up a fabulous resource, or make it too toxic to read the comments.

PresidentHussein said...

Re the Minn quagmire: It's totally silly to treat those hypothetical resolve percentages as probabilities rather than as simple fractions and then to run a bunch of simulations. It illuminates nothing of interest. Ultimately some % of the undercounts will go Al's way. Pick a number -- 49, 50, 52.5, whatever. Then multiply by the guessed # of undercounts. Simple, everyone can understand it. Another example of a stat-weenie overlooking the obvious.

Also, how can any Dem not LOVE Al Franken?? The guy is funny as hell!! He did yeoman's service to the Dems with his books on Limbaugh and Lying Liars, etc, when everyone else in the trade was bending over for the Iraq onslaught. He would be the best senator ever!!! Go Al!!

justsomeguy said...

"Mule Rider said...
Let's take a vote. And I promise with all promises that I'm full of, I'll honor it. As long as five people respond, I'll do what is said.

Should I stay "stay" or should I "go"?

Just give me your one word response. I will do what the majority requests."


"Mule Rider said...
Despite assmole's plea, the majority has made its decision. I will not tread where I am not wanted.

Farewell. And best of luck to all of you!"

David R said...

Geez. Isn't one mule rider way more than enough, now one of them claims there are two.

Larisa said...

Did anyone watch Intrade after this post. New trades came in within two minutes of posting.

The price drove higher and by 530 Eastern Franken had moved from under 40% to over 50%.

Nate is truly a force to be reckoned with.

John G said...

"PresidentHussein" suggests that Nate and others are over-analyzing the numbers. I disagree. Obviously there is a good deal of speculation, and all the proposals may be wrong. But in the absence of a result (for the next 10 days or so), Nate has given some fairly persuasive reasons for choosing the numbers he has - they are not just guesses, though they are estimates (the difference being that estimates can be supported by reasons).

And with Nate's discussion, one can have a reason for disagreeing - for preferring one percentage over another for undervotes or overvotes or percentages attributed to the third party candidate, or whatever - but at least one has an idea of how reliable the figures may be.

At this stage there is no strategy for the candidates or for the voters arising out of this kind of data analysis. The recount is in the hands of those responsible for it, and they will let us know the results in due course. So all of this stuff is just fun - but intelligent math-based fun of the kind that many of us turn to this site for. It is less gripping than the estimation of the national results a week ago, but it's still fun (and it may give some comfort, or concern, to those in Minnesota who will be represented by one of these people for the next 6 or more years.)

David R said...

Well, it seems the only way to eliminate the mule rider confusion is to eliminate both of them.

All in favor, say aye.

MotherHoose said...

aye!



WV: grade -- ah they are too easy!

Mitch Cohen said...

Some additional thoughts on "undervotes." I'm very close to a town's election system in another state. This is a semi-rural town with a decent income level and probably very low illiteracy. We use the same optical scan system that Minnesota seems to use.

Undervotes (non-votes) can mean many things, not just accidental screw-ups.

A surprising number of people show up to vote and cast a completely blank ballot. Seriously. I think they're making a statement but of course very few ever hear their statement.

Many people will do write-ins, for both real and fictional people. At least here, a write-in won't typically be "counted" unless they meet some threshold. They'll write in themselves, or a friend, or their favorite actor.

Some people will vote for Mickey Mouse, Fern (a Michael Moore prank from a few years back), or one of many creative vulgarities. Again, these aren't tallied in any official way. They make their way into the undervote column.

Many people will also just vote for the race at the top of the ticket, or just for one or two races that interest them, or even just for a ballot initiative question.

In our town we had 0.94% undervotes for president, and 2.47% undervotes for Senate (also a three-way race although not as prominently contested).

We actually had more undervotes for Senator than we did for ballot initiative questions, likely due to lack of a write-in option (all yes/no).

Bottom line - a review of undervotes is likely to encounter more chuckles than real votes. Certainly there will be some real votes in there, but I wouldn't expect as many as some predict.

Michael said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Back to numbers: This site (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/10/143646/25/383/658651)
has the most relevant figure,their Fig. 1, although oddly they don't use it properly. It shows the numbers of POTUS undervotes vs. F/(F+C). This is a good measure of where CER comes from, unlike the largely intentional Sen. undervote. Unfortunately the site doesn't give the mean of the distribution.

OK, I know this is obsessively crazy, but I printed out the plot, cut out a matching thick cardboard sheet, and took the mean by balancing on a ruler. Honest to god, the mean F/(F+C) of these undervoters was 50%, within about 1%. That's not good news for Franken, although the error bars are just big enough to give him a chance.
/mbw

Robby said...

Mule Rider

Where do you live, Robby? In that liberal shit hole Chicago just like Nate Silver?

I oughtta come up there and beat your ass to a bloody mess.

You don't want to mess with me. I own you, bitch. I'll stuff your face in the toilet after I've laid a big, juicy turd and let you sit and think about that for a bit.


I want to put that next to this comment that you made earlier (or was it another "imposter?"):

And what's sad is you douchnozzles don't even see how bad I make you look.

As for where I live, I reside in the People's Republic of Alabama. Birmingham, specifically. I teach a couple classes at one of the colleges there; you should stop by and say hi.

Oh, and definitely tell the security guards about the beating and stuffing and pooping. They'll love that part.

I'm gonna take back what I said about the puppy; you don't need to be near any small animals with those kind of rage issues. May I recommend a houseplant? Ficuses (fici?) are supposed to be pretty easy to take care of, as are bamboo plants.

Robby said...

Mule Rider

I've run roughshod over fools like you all my life. Don't even break a sweat now doing it.

Of course you're not breaking a sweat; you're not doing anything.

Let me recommend going outside, getting some fresh air. Looks like you need it, if you think yelling obscenities at strangers on the internet that don't care about you is any kind of work or accomplishment.

quickzmick said...

Nate, you keep splitting those 11,000 or so 50% or 50.05% or whatever between Coleman and Franken, but there were three people in the race. Yes, only the two amounts relative to each other matter, but you are missing an important number in your calculations: undervotes for Barkley. The reason they're important is because they should be subtracted from the pool of unmarked undervotes that are eligible to be split between Coleman and Franken.

David R said...

mule rider - you are a hoot!

Don't pop a blood vessel in your head, though, you don't seem to have many to spare.

Alamala said...

I have a feeling Nate doesn't read this far down the comments threads but just in case...

I'd love to see a full-featured discussion forum, with threads not all tied to blog posts, associated with 538. As somebody who became addicted during the last weeks of the election and keeps coming back for the quality of (most of) the discussion, it would be great to see the reader community fostered in this way :) And then we could keep OT discussions out of discussions of what Nate actually said, and include support for ignoring/warning/banning users ;) I'm sure there'd be no problem finding volunteer moderators for such a community to save Nate/Sean the hassle (I'd do it for instance, have ample experience.)

Nate's great, and a lot of other people who come here are well worth reading too. Let's keep it going!

Pan said...

I keep seeing a falsehood repeated on several blogs so I figured I'd post it here. I'd love to see a front page post about it.

People keep going on about how Franken keeps "finding" votes but not Coleman. As if every time the vote tally changes only Franken gets more.

Well, digging through wikipedia confirmed what I already knew. The total for all three candidates keeps going up:

Coleman Franken Barkley
1,211,520 1,211,081 437,345
1,211,538 1,211,197 437,376
1,211,542 1,211,206 437,377
1,211,542 1,211,306 437,377
1,211,542 1,211,306 437,377
1,211,556 1,211,335 437,377
1,211,556 1,211,335 437,385
1,211,560 1,211,356 437,389
1,211,562 1,211,356 437,389
1,211,565 1,211,359 437,389

Pickled said...

Seems Mule Rider, on top of everything else, is an unrepentant sexist/misogynist. Notice how his insults invariably revolve around female bodily functions--and how he owns us 'bitches'?

BTW, I'm in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Oakland, CA--so I really DO deserve a beat down. Can we schedule one for AFTER you've settled your scores in Chicago?

C.B. said...

Any update on the status of Alaska?

David Fox said...

Given that this race is essentially a perfect tie, I would say that there is some likelihood of random errors being corrected in the recount. In that case, the vote would move by thousands in either direction, putting Franken's chances at almost exactly 50%. But I don't know much about the history of recounts.

BeanoCook said...

To the Democrat retards that are too stupid to vote properly.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449334,00.html

Nobody has suggested only Franken is getting votes added, but Coleman is not. Where the fraud is occurring is with the typos. The astronomical odds that Franken and only Franken would benefit from typos and Coleman would not has been ignored by everyone, including Nate Silver.

When voters woke up on Wednesday morning after the election, Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 -- a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.

Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount. Just local election officials correcting claimed typos in how the numbers were reported. Counties will certify their results today, and their final results will be sent to the secretary of state by Friday. The actual recount won’t even start until November 19.

Correcting these typos was claimed to add 435 votes to Franken and take 69 votes from Coleman. Corrections were posted in other races, but they were only a fraction of those for the Senate. The Senate gains for Franken were 2.5 times the gain for Obama in the presidential race count, 2.9 times the total gain that Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races, and 5 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state House races.

Virtually all of Franken’s new votes came from just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in one precinct -- Two Harbors, a small town north of Duluth along Lake Superior -- a heavily Democratic precinct where Obama received 64 percent of the vote. None of the other races had any changes in their vote totals in that precinct.

To put this change in perspective, that single precinct’s corrections accounted for a significantly larger net swing in votes between the parties than occurred for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, or state house races.

The two other precincts (Mountain Iron in St. Louis county and Partridge Township in Pine county) accounted for another 100 votes each. The change in each precinct was half as large as the pickup for Obama from the corrections for the entire state.

mirrormirror said...

As a Brit I'm finding all this fascinating. When we vote we have to mark an 'x' in a box. If we do ANYTHING else - tick the box, scribble on the ballot paper, mark an 'x' outside the box, whatever, it's considered to be a spoiled ballot and discarded. Wouldn't it be easier just to do that in US elections?

Ian Eiloart said...

In the mainstream media, a report like this would have mentioned, at least once, whether Franken was a Democrat or a Republican. For the benefit of those less familiar with the situation here, please could you do the same.

This is a common fault on this otherwise excellent blog.

BTW, mirrormirror is wrong about ballots in the UK. I'm an elected councillor, and I've seen a vote count. What's required is that the voter intention is clear. For example, I've seen a ballot paper with several crosses in and around one box, which was counted.

Michael said...

Aha- My previous calculation left out a small but important effect. There are, of course, a few deliberate undervotes for POTUS. Common sense says these would not be from Franken voters unwilling to vote for Obama, but primarily from Coleman or Barkley voters unwilling to vote for Mc/Pa. Thus the unintentional component of the POTUS undervote is actually weighted a bit toward F, as expected from prior arguments. /mbw

homunq said...

Lilnev is right: we know there are more INTENTIONAL undervotes for senate, but that gives us no reason to imagine that there are more UNINTENTIONAL ones. Moreover, the same argument applies to the percentages: we know that intentional undervotes came more often from precincts averaging 52.5% Franken, but that tells us nothing about the split of unintentional undervotes.

Here's the numbers as I see them: take 75% of the 6.7K intentional undervotes - that's about 4.9K. Now there are two other sources of new votes: pure machine error, which was .05% in the 2006 audit ("Among 94,073 votes cast in the U.S. Senate race in those precincts, the audit found 53 discrepancies."). That's about 1.5K votes more, but since they are being switched from one column to the other, they count double. Then there are the disqualified absentees: 461 in Hennepin extrapolates to about 1.9K statewide, say that 75% are deemed valid, that's another 1.4K.

Total standard deviation is then about 70 votes. (sqrt(1500 + .5*(4900 + 1400))

To calculate total bias, we have to split out the subgroups. The 1.5K reclassified votes are pure machine error and probably have no bias; we can also say that a similar number of the undervotes are pure machine error. That leaves 3.4K undervotes and 1.5K absentees which could reasonably be biased - 4900 total. The most biased of these votes probably split at 33/52 for Franken (19% net), as exit polls show for first time voters; but such votes are almost certainly only a portion of this pool. If first-time voters, 9% of the population, are 1.5 times as likely as other voters to end up in this pool, that is only about 5% of the pool; I'd say that is the floor. If first time voters AND minority voters are both 3 times as likely to end up in this pool, that makes up about 30% of the pool; I'd say that is a ceiling. So the net Franken bias is between 5% * 19% = 2%, and 30% * 19% = 6%.

So, with one significant figure of accuracy, we can say that Franken should net between 100 and 300 votes, and that the purely statistical error should be around 70 votes. That is about as close to a perfect tie as you could ever find. Based on these numbers, if you could take either Franken, Coleman, or (margin < 100), at even odds, the best bet of the three would be (margin < 100).

Richard said...

I don't know what brand of optical scanner was used in the counties with under votes, but here in Texas we have used two different kinds over the years and both will register when there are marks next to two or more candidates in a given race. That's an overvote. If that ballot is accepted, then the race with overvotes is ignored and no vote is registered. That could explain the undervotes.

A manual recount that looks for a clear indication of voter intent will count a large number of such uncounted undervoted votes.

I ran a precinct here in Texas and I noticed a number of ballots in which the voter placed an "X" in one box, but the line trailed to a second box and the scanner considers that an overvote and does not count it. Another problem was when someone set a pen down on one box, but then filled in another. The point in the first box was literally unnoticeable to the naked eye, but the scanner noted it and rejected any vote in that race.

The one thing I don't get, though, is that our scanners kick those ballots back out and the voter has two opportunities to fill out another one to correct the overvote. I think that is an option that the local voting administrator can choose. The other choice is to simply read in the ballot and register no vote for the overvoted race.

If the voter wants to mark two individuals in one race, then in our case an election clerk can override the kick-back from the machine and have the ballot accepted, but there is still no vote recorded for any race with more than one candidate or issue marked.

Overvotes appear to me to be something more frequently done by people who do not do administrative jobs. That's my opinion, I don't know if it's been researched. But if that's true, then an unscrupulous voting administrator could turn off the kick-back feature for precincts likely to vote Democrat and reduce the total scanned votes.

Justin C. Adams said...

It is worth noting that each county was required to complete their canvass by monday this week, and immediately afterward they did a post-election audit, for purposes of verifying that the scanning machines performed within their specifications.

It's a mini recount of a scale sufficient to be representative for purposes of testing the scanning machines, which to me suggests the scale should be sufficient to be representative for the vote total changes as well.

The data is supposed to be available from the various county websites, but aparently none of them have it up yet today.

This will give a county by county snapshot of the percentage of undervotes and overvotes from the canvass (that is, per the optical scanning records) and a snapshot of the actual resolution of those proported under/overvotes.

I am clearly not the kind of statistician you guys are, but the sample should be large enough in each county to be representative.

Since we know how many undervotes and overvotes total exist in each county, and since we should be able to know what percentage of these are promoted to votes, and also how these votes break in each county, it should be easy to plug in the numbers and come up with a projection for the post-recount totals.

Not only will we know what percentage of overvotes/undervotes were unintentional from this data, we will have a better measure of how the now counted votes break than the rather clumsy calculations based on precinct by precinct canvass election results.

This is important because we would expect the urban precincts to have an even higher percentage of the spoiled ballots going for franken than the percentage of voters in the district did, as unintended under/overvotes occur to "vulnerable" voters more frequently.

Look into county canvasses and county post-election audits, and you should be able to calculate the post-recount result with relitively high confidence.

Rixar13 said...

Franken should win this....

davalst said...

Sorry folks, but this thread is getting incredibly limp. Minnesotans seem to think that the distance between a mountain spring and a cesspool is from "pretty clean" to "pretty dirty". How many people have read Al Franken's books? How many remember when he was standing almost alone against Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly (before their drug and sex scandals)? He kept me sane during the years of the death grip of the advancing predator state, when I wasn't sure whether we were still living in a democracy. The Economist, which has braces on its brains, says that Al Franken is "a smutty comedian with a serious side". Not true. For my money he's a patriot with a comic side. We badly need Al Franken in the Senate. The big contest isn't over yet.
And one more thing: you can’t delicately map out a middle ground between lies and truth. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, there’s no merit in moderation in the defense of truth.
Well, that’s about it. Now I feel better.

信次 said...

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,

平平 said...

^^ 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,

平平 said...

^^ 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,

daiqianwen said...

綿

徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇


外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

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,鋼琴酒吧酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店上班小姐,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^__^

freefun0616 said...

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,

,