Yesterday, the Franken campaign challenged this ballot, claiming that "Brett Favre" was an identifying mark:
The Canvassing Board rejected the challenge and awarded the vote to Coleman.
Today, just moments ago, the infamous Lizard People ballot came up for the Canvassing Board's review!
This ballot was initially counted as a Franken vote. The Coleman campaign challenged the ballot, claiming "Lizard People" was an identifying mark. The Board voted to uphold the challenge, arguing that they couldn't be certain that "Lizard People" wasn't a real person's name.
So "Lizard People" might be a real person, but "Brett Favre" isn't?
Granted, there are other differences between the two ballots -- "Lizard People" is filled in several places on the ballot, including in the 'write-in' space in the Senate column, whereas Favre's name appears on the ballot just once. Still, one would not expect Minnesotans to show so much sympathy for someone who dared vote for the Chief of the Cheeseheads for President of the United States.
To top off the fun, another challenge just came through in which a Franken voter had appended "STIN" to "Al Franken", as in "AL FRANKEN-STIN" (sic). The Canvassing Board rejected that challenge and tallied the ballot for Mr. Frankenstin.
12.18.2008
Brett Favre Beats Lizard People
@ 11:03 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
120 comments
No comment!
What a mess. If anyone wins by single digits, then I'll think they were more lucky than deserved.
Nate, by my calculations, Franken will end the Canvasing board up by at least 224 votes with a 99% confidence level. Will this be enough?
There is one huge difference. Brett Favre was a write-in for President. The Lizard People was a write-in for President and for US Senate.
As such, it ceased to be a write-in, and became either an identifying mark or an overvote, and thus was properly rejected.
(PS I am a Franken and a Frankenstin supporter.)
Also, looking at the ballots, I'm not sure you got it right Nate. To me, the Brett Favre ballot should definitely be a Coleman vote. If that is an identifying mark, then every write in ballot would be thrown out as potentially an identifying mark. The Lizard People ballot is different however because it's potentially two votes for the same office and thus a nullity. It's not that writing in Lizard People identifies the voter; it's that there is potentially a person named Lizard People that the voter was intending to vote for. I personally think that's far fetched and would have given that ballot to Franken.
Isn't it easy to find out if there is a resident of Minnesota old enough to hold office named "Lizard people"?
If Coleman wins by a vote or ties in this race, this could become the most famous vote in election history.
I am really surprised and a little upset that Lizard People didn't count. The bubble is clearly filled in for Franken.
Does this mean that it is never safe to cast a ballot with a Write In vote because the vote could conceivable be an identifying mark?
Does writing in a write-in name but not filling out the write-in oval count as an overvote? I hope that was the question, as opposed to whether Lizard People could be an identifying mark (when Brett Favre is not).
Threadjack Warning:
Statement: A real lizard person would make a better US Senator than Norm Coleman.
Now Discuss!!!
Give Brett Favre the Senate seat; at least that'll get him to frickin' retire.
Subdivision 13 of this doc http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/voterintentmaterials.pdf is helpful. I haven't read through the notes and comments on the last two pages yet, but I suspect they'll shed some light on why Lizard People's personhood might be relevant.
Nate how dare you leave out the one that had Flying Spaghetti Monster written in for all the other races
I'm not thrilled that the Franken vote was rejected, but I don't think it's an "identifying mark" issue.
This is an overvote. In MN you don't have to fill in the oval for your write-in vote to count. So in this case, the voter placed a vote for Al Franken, and also a vote for Lizard People. Since the board couldn't definitively rule out the existence of a real person named "Lizard People" they had to proceed under the assumption that the voter placed two votes for the same office, which under Minnesota law, invalidates their vote for that office.
By the way, off topic and tooting my own horn, but in the face of rampant speculation, I told you a week ago that Blago's criminal defense attorneys would not let him play games by appointing a Senate replacement for Obama, for fear that it would infuriate the sentencing judge (or Fitzgerald, with whom he may want to eventually negotiate a plea agreement).
Bingo:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32309&seenIt=1
I didn't see this one, but based on precedent, the issue isn't that Lizard People is an identifying mark, but rather that this is an overvote, since they both wrote in a name and also marked Norm Coleman.
MN law apparently clearly states that if you write in a name, it counts as a vote, even if you don't fill in the bubble. In particular, if a candidate's bubble is filled in and also a name written in, they ALWAYS call it an overvote. They've been very consistent on this.
Thanks, Duluth. That makes sense.
This voter not only clearly intended to vote for Franken; he/she thought he/she could get away with being cheeky by writing "Lizard People" into all the designated write-in spaces.
Voters are told to vote for one person per race by filling in an oval to the left of the name, and they are told that writing in a candidate's name is optional. While the pro-challenge ruling on this ballot may be consistent with criteria the board is applying to other ballots, it would seem to run against the "voter intent" principle in that this voter clearly indicated a preference in the race and clearly tried to stay within the rules about making marks outside of designated areas. Nowhere on the ballot instructions does it say that a write-in is considered to be an automatic vote when an oval to the left is not filled in. Similarly, any write-in could be considered an "identifying mark" if the written-in candidate is not supported by more than one voter statewide. What instructions would guide a voter to believe that by suggesting additional candidates for a race he or she invalidates the "fill in one oval" rule?
IMHO,
The board did not count the Lizard People ballot because it was likely NOT a real person. They saw the vote for an obvious alias as a "protest" and COULD NOT FIGURE OUT THE VOTER'S TRUE INTENT.
The capped part is key because that is the bottom line on what the board is trying to do. That is it, just one thing: determine the voter's true intent. (And DQ illegal ballots like this with id marks, etc.)
In this case they could NOT because they were not sure whether he/she intended to vote for Franken or cast a write-in protest vote.
I don't believe the board squashed the vote because it was an "identifying mark," but it was unclear as to the voter's intent.
In the case of the Brett Favre ballot, the name was not posted under the Senate race. obviously was not an identifying mark so it's valid.
Don't blame me, I voted for Elway.
Yeah, I think Nate is misreading this one.
If Brett is an identifying mark, then all write-ins are identifying marks. It is clearly a Coleman vote.
The Lizard people vote is different. It is a second write in on the ballot, and Minnesota tallying guidelines clear state that the name in the write in field, even if the circle is not checked, count as a valid vote. Thus is a double vote, and invalid.
The only escape is if you say that since "Lizard People" is clearly a preposterous vote, it shouldn't be counted, and the vote should go to Franken. But think of this from the point of view of an election official. *Should* they be in the position of making judgments about what write in names are preposterous? They not only have to make decisions about whether intent is specified, but they have to figure out if "IP Daily" and "Disco Stu" are real people somewhere in Minnesota?
Screw that. Election officials have enough problems without having to second guess people who are either nuts or trying to be funny. If a would-be comedian invalidates their vote with their joke, the burden shouldn't be on the counters. If it counts as a legal vote, count it. If Mr. Lizard People gets enough votes to actually win an election, his existence will become relevant.
To follow up on the points from the Mikes and Carol, I agree that the two ballots and their challenges don't really seem to be about the same issue.
Lizard People in the write-in slot for the senate race could be a double-vote and nullity, especially with Franken's oval possibly having been X'ed out.
Or, yes, I suppose it could have been some form of identifying mark; the idea that it might be a real person's name seems far-fetched, but it wouldn't be the weirdest name out there. The fact that it's in the write-in box, but not filled in, does make it resemble an improper signature.
All in all, I think I would have counted it for Franken, given that the voter voted for Lizard People above. It doesn't seem to be a signature when it matches the voter's attempted write-in.
Actually, the most likely solution might be that he initially put his write-in for the wrong race, which is why the Senate bubble isn't filled in but the Presidential bubble is. It's the only explanation I cam come up with that factors in all the bubbles and the use of Lizard People twice.
But either way, I think Franken should be moved that this committed Lizard People voter was so taken with Franken's positions that he (almost?) forsook his candidate for Franken.
(Though Raskolnikov's point about tallying a write-in even without the oval filled in would seem to have trump card potential, anyway.)
Brett Favre's vote seems pretty clearly not to be relevant to whether the vote counts for Coleman, on the other hand. It's a write-in with the oval properly filled in for a different race.
Unless the lower write-in also has Favre, there's no chance of a double-vote, and the idea of a properly executed write-in as an identifying mark doesn't seem to hold water.
Unless their challenge was an argument that anyone who voted for Brett Favre clearly would also be voting for Franken. Nate, can we get some stats on the percentage of Favre voters who ticket-split?
The best source for an explanation on this is the canvassing board's rulings.
They explain the basis for their ruling. They ruled Lizard people an overvote, not unclear intent or identifying mark. There was spirited discussion about whether Lizard people was a person, and in the end they unanimously decided that because, for all they knew, it was, so they could not count the vote for Franken.
Plainly different from the Farve vote, where the question was identifying mark, and the board essentially set a precedent that a write in name is not an identifying mark. Had Farve been written in on the senate race, different outcome.
I'm sure you've discussed this before, so I apologize, but I couldn't find it and I figure folks here will know the answer readily: What's the rationale behind disqualifying a ballot that's been "identified"? (And yes, I know the law is clear, I'm not questioning that, I'm asking why the law exists to begin with.) Thanks in advance.
GlennNYC: to discourage vote-buying.
C: Huh, that's interesting. I take it you mean, by identifying a ballot someone could thereby prove to whomever bought their vote that they upheld their end of the bargain. Man, that seems like a really thin reed to disqualify someone's ballot, doesn't it? I mean, if people were marking their ballots as part of a vote-buying scheme in any numbers to actually matter, it'd be obvious pretty damn fast, wouldn't it?
Oh, and thanks, C.
I guess the bright side of this is that the some Minnesota voters have shown a sense of humor. I don't know why but adding "stin" to Al Franken's name made me laugh. Gene Wilder shouting, "It's FrankenSCHTEEN" just popped into my head.
neither ballot should have counted. Both ballots had votes for two people. Whether they are real people or not is irrelevant imho.
kennyb:
By the way, off topic and tooting my own horn, but in the face of rampant speculation, I told you a week ago that Blago's criminal defense attorneys would not let him play games by appointing a Senate replacement for Obama...
Yeah, but they can't actually "not let him," they can only tell him it would be a really bad idea. I don't think there was any question they would do that, the question was whether or not he'd listen to them, considering his amazingly poor judgment so far. (And hey, we've only heard from his lawyers that he's not going to appoint anyone, not from him! :-)
But good call, anyway.
Babar -- it would have been even funnier if the voter had known how to spell "Frankenstein," but it's still pretty good.
However, I suspect we're seeing foreshadowing of what wingnut bloggers will be calling him for the next six years...
Sorry, I'm a little unclear. Was the Frankenstin vote counted to Mr. Franken, or to Mr. Frankenstin as a write-in?
And I think there's certainly legitimate reasons to reject the Lizard People ballot as an overvote, but not identifying mark. There may well have been a "vote lizard people" anti-establishment campaign that totally failed to draw in more than one supporter. Not the same as an identifying mark.
adam - I don't think so. On the Favre ballot, there's a write-in for president and a vote for Senate, not two votes for the same office.
Some say that marking Franken and also writing-in a name is an overvote, even if only Franken's oval is filled in...
A question:
Why is there an oval next to the write-in spot at all? If just writing in a name is automatically considered a vote, then the oval itself is misleading, is it not?
Now I guess it comes down to what is an identifying mark, and what is a form of protest... because 'Brett Favre' is most certainly both. But the Brett Favre one fit within the CB's legal framework.
The problem apparently is that 'Lizard People' appears not just for president, but in multiple races. Still.. the number of times that 'Lizard People' appears on a ballot does not make the ballot more or less identifiable. I'm quite certain there is in fact only one ballot which features 'Lizard People' any number of times more than once. Just as there is likely only one ballot which says 'Brett Favre' on it anywhere.
Does this mean Brett Favre is not allowed to vote for himself for president because it identifies the ballot as his? According to the CB, no, it is just fine.
Does this mean that Al Fraken should not have written 'Lizard People' all over his ballot, thus possibly costing him the election? Yeah, it probably was funny at the time but not so funny any more.
...It just seems strange that the CB recount may allow any number of arrows, smudges, underlines, strike-outs, and 'No!' changed-minds.. but in a column where Al Franken is the only oval filled in, they decide it is not a vote for Al Fraken. Since the 'Lizard People' write-in oval was not filled in, it seems clear to me that the Voter Intent is still a vote for Franken.
GlennNYC, I think that's why they're strictly construing it to require the voter's intent to identify their ballot to be evident.
e.g., initialing a modification does not DQ a ballot. They're not quick to apply the rule.
Neil: Frankenstein was counted for Franken because his oval was filled in and they just appended his name (they did not write in Frankenstien on the write-in line).
jaryn: the oval is to ensure the machine identifies the vote as a write-in. It is not required to fill in that oval for a write-in vote to count in the recount because the intent to make a write-in would be clear. So applying that rule uniformly, the board concluded that a write-in and a vote was an overvote--not an identifying mark.
I wonder what Frakenstien's postions are on health care. I would think he would bring a unique perspective since he is comprised of multiple human body parts.
Jaryn, the oval is something added in by the printer of the ballot to work with the software of the counting machine so that the counting machine notes that there was a write-in vote for the office.
The state law on what counts on a hand recount is 100% different from what the printer and the software would have the rules be.
Needless to say the state legislature makes the law on what counts as a vote, not a programmer working in secret for some election machine company.
I've been following this, but I'm a little unclear now -- didn't the board rule that write-in votes were not an identifying mark on the ballots because legally, you can vote for anyone in an election?
I could write in Barry Bonds for an office, and it doesn't identify if I am Barry Bonds or not (I'm not). I could also put in my real name, and there is no guarantee that I would have voted for myself. I have half thought about voting for my father or friends in races that I didn't like either candidate in, and that doesn't identify me.
In the case of the Brett Farve one, it was thrown out because there was a legitimate vote for the next race, and because Brett Farve actually is a legitimate vote for the President. In fact, I bet that Brett got 50 votes countrywide.
In the case of Lizard People, it is one that could really be argued both ways and I'm not overly surprised it didn't go to Franken. On one hand, the ballot is very uniform with its votes, making the same X and then bubble filled in for the Lizard People on all of the other offices. On the Senate race, the same X and bubble filled in is only on the Franken vote. So it could be taken that this stupid person wanted to make the choice of Franken or Lizard People so he wrote in Lizard People, but then clearly voted for Franken.
The flip side of is is that as others have pointed out, the method for determining who a write in vote goes for even if the bubble isn't filled in is clear, so I understand why it went the other way.
Either way, it's a stupid vote and I really hope it isn't the one that decides this election... I'm hoping for a bunch more.
By the way, did anyone else notice how Coleman pulled a bait-and-switch, and instead of now arguing that the Supreme Court needs to set up a way to ensure all "fifth pile" votes are counted equally, he is now arguing that they shouldn't be counted unless either Coleman or Franken sues for them to be counted in the end?
Franken's lawyers have stated that if this is taken like that, whomever sues to have them counted is going to look like the sore loser, so they should just do them all at once to make sure that it is fair, as these votes should be included anyway.
It is a nice position for Franken to have, as it is extremely hard to disagree with.
"I wonder what Frakenstien's postions are on health care. I would think he would bring a unique perspective since he is comprised of multiple human body parts."
Post of the year.
babar-
was there ever any doubt that MN voters have the best sense of humor in the country-
Jesse Ventura then Al Franken
CA's celebrating pick were never particularly funny-
Neither Regan or Schwarzenegger have any type of comic talent.
I guess there's a couple of new rules for Joe the voter out there:
1. The "no fun" rule: You can't vote for fake people. Any fake people in any race automatically invalidates your vote in all other races (even if you voted for real people).
2. The "write-ins don't really count" rule: If you're going to vote for a high-school buddy for president, you sure as hell better not vote for him for senator too, because that will also invalidate your vote.
Be careful out there!
Lizard People should not go to Franken, Favre should go to Coleman. So what if Favre was an identifying mark if the voter WAS named that. Then he was clearly voting for HIMSELF.
So far those decisions I agree with.
Huh
Neither of those are substantiated
The board ruled that Farve did count
and they ruled that Lizard People didnt count because it was an overvote.
if the voter had voted for Lizard people for president only it would have been fine.
This may have been mentioned on another comment thread, but not on this one. The Lizard People write-in looks like a reference to Douglas Adams' novel "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish":
http://ed.acrewoods.net/node/197
"....On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards
and the lizards rule the people."
....
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
...."Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
Unquote. Seems kind of prescient considering Coleman and Franken's plummeting popularity, and I say this as a Franken supporter.
@ Zachary -- Neither of those are true though. Writing in Lizard People didn't invalidate the vote. In fact, only in California is it illegal to write in a fictional character, as Snoopy (from Peanuts) received too much of the vote in both the 1968 and 1972 elections. As far as I know, you can vote for whomever you want in any of the other states. I do wonder what would happen if Snoopy had won...
About write ins don't really count, that isn't true either. You could ask all of your friends to write you in for President and Alderman, and everyone's votes would be valid. But you have no real chance of becoming president, however you might of becoming Alderman. It doesn't invalidate your votes for president, it just means that your friends who voted for you all cast a vote for someone that really doesn't have a chance, and if they had also decided to vote for, say McCain / Palin that their vote would have been an overvote, which would have invalidated their vote.
No new rules, just the correct (in my opinion) upholding of current rules.
in five minutes of listening to Coleman's challenges ALL of them have gone to Franken- (most > 80% of then are being withdrawn by Coleman's team during the CB review-i.e frivolous challenges they kept on the books just to keep Franken's numbers lower that Coleman's for as long as leagally possible-
Thanks again to UWBHS
Over 70% of Coleman's challenges are going to be rule valid Franken votes. Franken is going to pick up over 750 votes during the CB review, I think that gives him an overall lead of about 300 votes before the valid-but-rejected absentee ballots get counted.
This is all still with in the states 0.5% mandatory recount window- which I guess is thier stab at an MOE- but Franken is going to get the seat. I just wonder when the US Senate will have enough spine to take it out of the lawyers hands and seat him- Hopefully before the IL seat gets filled.
WV kistr- Who knows when MN will beable to wave bye-bye to Coleman's kistr
In case anyone cares, the alternative paper City Pages has a short article a guy who claims to be on the Lizard People voter. See this page.
I hadn't seen a link to it before in comments, though it was the first page of results in teh Google.
[WV: 'aullo! 'aullo!]
Write in spaces are generally free of the "identifying marks" limitation.
(google: mn "write in" "identifying marks")
"Brett Favre" appears as a write-in for PRESIDENT. If the voter also wrote "Brett Favre" in the write-in space for the senatorial vote, the picture you provided doesn't show it. All it shows is one unequivocal vote for Coleman.
"Lizard People," on the other hand, appears in the write-in space for both the Presidential AND Senatorial races. This voter actually contradicts himself w/r/t the race in question. This is why "Lizard People" causes confusion where "Brett Favre" doesn't. The canvassing board made the right call here.
For the record, I'm a Franken supporter.
I think the way to count the Lizard People and any other similar ballots is to see that Lizard People was filled in for President but not for Senate. Al Franken was filled in. Therefore, they were merely suggesting Lizard People as a Senate candidate but not voting for him/her/it/them. If Lizard People had been written in and no other ovals had been filled, it is right to assume that you want to vote for the write-in. Why else would you write it in?
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that Minnesota election law is that logical, so any write-in will invalidate your bubble filling even if you don't fill your write-in's bubble. That seems totally wrong. Maybe there should be clear instructions that anything written in the write-in field counts as a vote for that candidate (you can't suggest funny candidates and then not vote for them).
Nate-
Others have mentioned, but law actually states that an oval doesn't need to be filled out next to the write-in in order for it to be counted as a vote. Therefore, Lizard People was an overvote. As long as nothing appeared in the Senate race write in box for Brett Favre, then that would be a valid vote for Senate.
You know, this makes me feel really good about voting - that the prankster who put "lizard people" on a ballot is at the center of a national controversy really hammers home that every vote counts and every vote is taken seriously.
I think that Minnesotans are doing an amazing job with this recount, and the publicity that it generates is really good for democracy. I understand that the recount rules in other states are less intense, but after seeing this, I expect that it will be the model for how to do recounts all over the country. Bravo, Minnesota!
Of course, they could easily undo all this good will about Democracy if in the end, the courts decide this instead of the vote counts.
andicap said:
"IMHO,
The board did not count the Lizard People ballot because it was likely NOT a real person. They saw the vote for an obvious alias as a "protest" and COULD NOT FIGURE OUT THE VOTER'S TRUE INTENT."
If a voter filled in the "Lizard People" oval on every race except one, and filled in a _clearly separate_ oval for a real person in that one race, what are the chances that the voter did not intend to vote for the real person? If the voter followed all the other rules for making his/her votes [such as they are] count, what is the probability that the voter intended for this to be an overvote? Those are the questions the Board has to answer with respect to voter intent. Apparently the likelihoods they determined fit their criteria for reasonable doubt. They don't fit mine; that's all.
I would think the intent of the write-in guideline was that if you make a write-in and not fill in any oval that the write-in should count. It seems counter intuitive that just filling in a name in the write-in spot and then filling in another oval is an over-vote and I would expect the Frankin campaign to challenge that if it would make a difference. I would expect that voter intent would be the overriding factor and they clearly indicated their intent by filling in the oval next to Frankin.
The voter could have just thought that "Lizard People" was unjustly denied a place on the ballot even though they supported Frankin for senate.
About the "lizard people" ballot, here's how I would rule on it:
Yes, the voter added another candidate to the ballot, as is her right, but notice that she DID NOT VOTE for that candidate. She in fact voted against Lizard People and for Al Franken. I think that's the clear intent. Sure, it's strange to write in a candidate that you do not vote for, but it seems pretty clear that this is exactly what happened.
David H. is right. Lizard people is NOT an identifying mark.
The ruling that they made, like I mentioned, can be debated on both sides but I get why they decided it the way that they did. For someone to write in a candidate without filling in the bubbles shows the intent of that person to vote for that person. Had Lizard People been written in and crossed out this wouldn't be a debate, as intent was clear. But when a voter writes in a candidate but then votes for someone else, the intent is much less clear.
To follow the letter of the law, a write in is a valid vote, and so is the filling in of a bubble for another candidate, so they got this correct going off that.
Like I said, the flip side is you could determine voter intent based on the fact that the bubbles were filled in for all of the other Lizard People on the ballot, so they could have made that determination too, however the 'intent of a voter' is much more open to interpretation than the law, so in this case they determined that law overrode what could be discerned about intent.
I'm a huge Franken supporter and hope that he gets in very much, but the canvassing board absolutely did what was correct with that vote -- it just is a vote that if it comes down to only one, that particular vote would be open to a 'intent' challenge that may or may not be won.
I just hope Franken wins just to piss off the freepers. They are screaming about the democrats stealing another election, I assume they are talking about the washington governors election from 2004.
Probably best if Franken is the winner since Coleman will probably be indicted and then get kicked out in the next year or two.
When an incumbent gets 42% of the vote the intention of the voters is clear, we don`t like you!!!
what's the legal basis for saying that the write-in rules trump the voter intent rules?
lizard people would clearly be ignored by scanners, a smart vote would know that (joke: assume, ass u me), intent is clear for Franken but rules make an overvote.
You know, in previous elections (I haven't done it this year), when confronted with a ballot upon which every candidate for a particular office is nobnody I would ever vote for, I have almost always done a write in for something ridicuolous. Sometimes it's a classmate whom nobody has ever heard of, sometimes it's None of the Above, sometimes it's Charles Ulysses Fuddy (AKA Chuck U Fuddy), sometimes it's Donald Duck.
There's a legitimate reason for doing this. I'm intentionally spoiling the ballot to make a sttatement. That statement being: All these people suck, and I endorse none of them.
Which is a legitimate statement to make. Lizard People and Brett Favre are legitimate votes, in that they are votes for none of the people on the ballot. So long as you don't have a real groundswell of Lizard People supporters (this being the same state that elected Jesse Ventura, you never know), this does not present a problem. Just count it as none of the above and move on.
Off-topic, but your 365-173 electoral count on the left of the page still says 'provisional.'
Didn't the electoral college get together and actual do this thing earlier this week?
I think MN law should scrap this identifying mark nonsense. If it is a matter of vote selling... (Is that the case?) It could easily be done with write-in candidate slot. The write-in candidate vote for any one office would be enough to convey a vote was cast by a person as agreed.
I don't see what this rule accomplishes other than nullifying votes for no real gain. I suppose if the write-in portion of the ballot was physically separated from the other half...
It might be possible to do address that other concern, but this rule (no identifying marks) seems like a wrongheaded election security measure.
Am I missing something?
Does anyone else find it infuriating that someone who clearly voted for Franken ruined their ballot by making an inane repeated joke, thus removing their vote from one of the most closely contested senate elections in U.S. history?
>>>Off-topic, but your 365-173 electoral count on the left of the page still says 'provisional.'
>>>Didn't the electoral college get together and actual do this thing earlier this week?
No. The individual states got together and cast their votes and then sent them to Washington. Where they won't be officially counted until next month. So, in a sense, it's still provisional.
Lizard People? Should have voted for Crab People. Of course, maybe all the candidates are Crab People.
Crab People Crab People. Taste like crab, act like people.
>>>Does anyone else find it infuriating that someone who clearly voted for Franken ruined their ballot by making an inane repeated joke, thus removing their vote from one of the most closely contested senate elections in U.S. history?
People that stupid shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place, or to reproduce. They should be gelded and then be put to work at some constructive hard labor.
Here is the exchange about the Lizard People ballot, as reported by the Star-Tribune:
One Bemidji voter blackened the oval for Franken, but also put an X through the oval and scribbled "Lizard People" on the write-in line. The board ruled twice Wednesday that writing in a person in addition to marking another oval cancels out the vote.
" 'Lizard People' is not a genuine write-in" because there's no such person, argued Marc Elias, Franken's lead recount attorney.
Wait a minute, said Chief Justice Eric Magnuson. "You don't know that there's not someone named 'Lizard People.' You don't."
"You're right, you don't know," chimed in Coleman recount attorney Tony Trimble.
"Isn't 'People' plural? How can you have an individual named 'People?' " asked Ramsey County District Judge Edward Cleary, a board member.
"I think it's silly too, but we have to judge on the face of the ballot," Magnuson said.
"If someone wants to make a statement of some sort, they may not get their vote counted," Ramsey County Chief District Judge Kathleen Gearin said.
Elias: "If we think it's just a statement, then I think it's [a vote for Franken]."
Trimble: "We know that 'People' can be a surname. And 'Lizard' can be a nickname."
The board finally sided with Trimble and declared it an overvote, not a vote for Franken.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36372934.html?page=2&c=y
McCain's pollster says he lost because of the financial crisis and Powell's endorsement, and that Palin has a great shot in the Iowa caucuses for 2012.
Angling for a new job, ya' think? You betcha!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16710.html
Can anyone explain the logic behind automatically disqualifying any ballot that has an identifying mark on it? I understand that a secret ballot is an important part of any democracy, but if the voter decides to waive that right, why should that disqualify their vote? I don't see the harm in counting the vote.
I heard of cases in Minnesota where ballots were disqualified because they had ink stain fingerprints on them. Does that mean we should all wear gloves when casting out ballots? I mean we leave fingerprints on everything we touch with our bare hands. It seems completely arbitrary to disqualify a ballot because some voters happen to have had their fingerprints made visible by an ink stain.
Keep in mind that if the board decided this vote should go to Franken, rather than being an overvote, they would have to go back and change every previous similar ballot where a legitimate name was written in that last slot and then a different bubble filled in. It's better for them to stick with a convention and use it repeatedly.
Personally, I think they made the wrong call on ALL such ballots. A write-in with no bubble should be counted as a vote only if no OTHER bubble is filled in. That's my reading of MN law, but I'm not a lawyer.
But consistency is more important. Once they've set a precedent, stick to it. They made the right call.
Finally, if that guy could actually prove he's the Lizard People voter, then his entire ballot gets automatically disqualified, since he clearly made identifying marks.
Why doesn't anyone seem to get the lizard people reference? It's a statement on the futility of voting when the only candidates that "count" are the ones you don't want. It is not a joke.
@ Eric -
I have heard of ballots challenged because of ink stain marks, but not overruled. The board seems to be pretty consistent on what they consider an identifying mark: Anything that was put there for the sole purpose of identifying who the voter is. A write-in was not done for the purpose of making clear who was voting. Similarly, if you make a mistake and change your vote, and initial the change, that was done for the purpose of clarifying your vote. But if you give your name, your social security number, or your address, it counts as an identifying mark.
The rule may seem a bit arbitrary, but I really don't have a lot of sympathy for many of the rejected ballots. Most of these mistakes could have been avoided if the voters took their vote seriously and took the time to vote carefully, or get help if they needed it.
I like the sound of Senator Franken...and of inmate Coleman. Oh happy day!!
@ Jim -- I get the Lizard People reference, but I personally can't imagine going to cast a ballot for absolutely no one that I was interested in. It is really hard to disagree with every candidate in every race. And if you really do, then save your own time and don't cast a vote.
--
Now, on a different topic, Coleman withdrew and then un-withdrew some of his challenged ballots based on how the canvassing board was interpreting things. This seems like an unfair advantage if he can do it, unless Franken can also decide to submit more ballots if he so chooses. Does anyone know how this works? Can Franken submit more? Or is Franken locked, and Coleman can submit more until he feels like he has enough in there to boost his chances?
For anyone following my attempt to predict the results from Coleman's challenges and track how they relate to the "overall score", I posted a lunchtime update in the previous thread, here.
I agree with ecarlson and others that the decision was made on the basis of consistency. However, in this case there were extenuating circumstances [the manner in which the rest of the ballot was filled out] which make the assumptions of the general rule _unlikely to be accurate_. If the Board has been doing its job well and carefully examining each ballot in its entirety, then they will have taken into consideration any other extenuating circumstances and need not reconsider past ballots in order to rule in favor of the marked oval on this one. If not, then a cynic would suggest that the understandably human response is for the fatigued Board to avoid extra work and potential controversy by declaring an overvote-- even when doing so means violating the spirit and intent of the law, which is to count every legitimate vote. A less cynical and more fair-minded person would argue that the Board did not even notice the pattern of voting for "LP" by filling in bubbles on the rest of the ballot. Indeed, based on the commentary provided by the Strib (thanks, Kennyb), it appears that the implications of the full ballot were not even discussed by the Board. I find this striking because the strongest argument against the Board's ruling comes from precisely this evidence.
Another Mike said...
Also, looking at the ballots, I'm not sure you got it right Nate. To me, the Brett Favre ballot should definitely be a Coleman vote. If that is an identifying mark, then every write in ballot would be thrown out as potentially an identifying mark. The Lizard People ballot is different however because it's potentially two votes for the same office and thus a nullity.
Why would it be a nullity? You can vote for the same person for two different offices. Hell, I did that for Joe Biden this year here in Delaware.
@Publius
You misread its not two votes for the same person,
its two votes for the same office - two votes for President - Franken and People
Examining the entire ballot leads to several conclusions, I believe. The voter's intent is marked by both the X mark and a filled in oval. The X mark in the Franken oval is NOT him crossing out his vote. The voter was being EMPHATIC by putting the X and filling in the oval for Franken.
I do understand the argument about consistency be important, but looked at in its entirety, you can easily determine voter intent.
One wonders how the board would have judged it had the voter been even more emphatic by circling Franken's name.
Lizard Man speaks (reference from Rich's post, above):
"I had first written in lizard people on all of the write ins. I then went through and X'ed all the ovals for which I intended my vote, and then blackened them all in. So, yes, I intended to vote for Franken. I had no idea that a write in was an automatic vote. I assumed you still had to fill in the oval for the scanning machine to read the vote. I left "Lizard People" blank intentionally."
Sounds like Mr. LP (if this really is him) wasn't planning for a recount.
WV-- tacti= things one can touch.
I just hope Franken wins just to piss off the freepers. They are screaming about the democrats stealing another election,
Ridiculous, aren't they. They haven't a leg to stand on -- given the odds that Coleman is going to lose the election, even he has been unable to mount much of a fuss over the conduct of the recount process.
No matter what the result, I think Minnesotans can be proud of the way their election process has held up to this amount of scrutiny. There have been a few glitches, sure, but when you consider there were almost 3 million votes cast, the snafus that have happened are trivial.
The only reason there's been as much fuss over these few problems as there has been is because the result is essentially a dead heat (within the margin of error).
So I say, Bravo! to the Minnesota state election officials. You have done an excellent job!
The handwriting on the two Lizzard People write-ins appear different. I'm calling shenanigans.
Gene Ha:
The Lizard People write-in looks like a reference to Douglas Adams' novel "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish"
I'd been thinking it was a David Icke reference, but I like your explanation better.
There's a legitimate reason for doing this. I'm intentionally spoiling the ballot to make a sttatement. That statement being: All these people suck, and I endorse none of them.
@Statler N Waldorf,
I hearken back to our conversation the other day as I see this statement you made and can't help but wonder how it is so much more "patriotic" and "democratic" to actually go to the ballot box and write in something or someone like "Lizard People" or "Brett Favre" as a protest vote to show that I endorse none of them as opposed to staying at home and simply not voting?
I'd sure love to be enlightened on that some day, as it seems a bit hypocritical to say it's okay to protest by voting for something completely foolish and off-the-wall as opposed to just not voting at all. It's one and the same. The only difference is: I save the vote-counters from having to sift through that garbage.
Okay, just my observation.
MR,
To actually get off your ass and go vote is an action; it's something you do.
To macrame your ass to the sofa and do nothing is not.
Further, when you speak and say "Lizard People!", you communicate a message to the board of elections-that the people on the ballot suck so bad that you'd rather vote for Lizard People.
What message does the Elections Board get from your not even bothering to show up? They receive no message, it's as if you don't even exist. You make zero impact.
A vote for Lizard People counts. If you don't vote, you don't count.
Stop making excuses for being such a lazy, uninvolved ass who loves to bitch and complain, but can't bring himself to do one fucking thing about the problems you complain about. Unless you enjoy being impotent
What message does the Elections Board get from your not even bothering to show up? They receive no message, it's as if you don't even exist. You make zero impact.
Okay, it doesn't have the same "effect" per se, but when I - and potentially hundreds, thousands, or tens/hundreds of thousands of others in a district, state, or across the country - don't vote, that too sends a message. When they look at election results, they see very clearly how many votes were cast in an area versus the registered voters. It may not be as "cool" as writing in something as fanciful as "lizard people," but it sends a strong message as well when voter turnout is say, 50% or less.
A vote for Lizard People counts.
Uh, technically yes, in that it's included in the offical tally maybe. In a literal sense, though, it does not count. There are no "lizard people" so a vote for them is just a throwaway move. What was it you told me about standing for something...there not being the "perfect candidate" to represent me....et al? This is still no different. It's a non-vote because these "people" do not exist.
If you don't vote, you don't count.
And neither does voting for made-up people/things.
This shouldn't even be a discussion.
in florida, we may not know how to count our votes, but at least we know how to vote. thanks for being the new laughingstocks minnesota!
What message does the Elections Board get from your not even bothering to show up? They receive no message
And what message does the Elections Board - and politicians for that matter - get when they see a vote (or a few even) for "Lizard People"?
Do you really honestly believe they get some clear and direct message? Seriously? Or do you think they get a laugh (or agitated) about it and the only message they receive is that there's a few tards out there who want to be cute. That's the message I would get.
Let's take a district with 25,000 registered voters....just a random number. Let's say there's only 50% turnout. It says far more to me that 12,500 people didn't vote - thereby meaning the winner may be garnering as little as one quarter of the support of the electorate in that area - than 10, 15, 20 people - and that's likely stretching it - who vote vore "Lizard People", "Bozo the Clown", etc.
I try to be open-minded but there's no rational justification for voting for "Lizard People" over a non-vote. Period. End of story.
Keep in mind, Statler, that I'm talking about silly, off-the wall votes of fairy-tale characters and not attacking write-in votes in general as a protest vote. I can see where that would send a message if done in a serious manner - and especially if the person has more extensive support than just a handful of votes.
Well, you yourself have just said that Lizard People does count- it's tallied as a none of the above, which does send a message - if a significantly large enough number of voters vote for neither candidate, that tells you that neither candidate has a strong mandate.
If you don't vote at all, again, there is no impact-it literally does not matter that you did not vote. Your non-vote will not be tallied anywhere. You do not exist.
In Zimbabwe's recent electoral fiasco, The opposition party of Morgan Tsvangerai removed their candidate's name from the ballot at the last minute because of the wave of violence Robert Mugabe was bringing down on anyone who voted for the Movement for Democratic Change. Voters still turned out in record numbers, and cast spoiled ballots - write in candidates for nonsense, drawing a large X over the entire ballot, etc. The result is that when the government reported the results, they had to report that Mugabe did not recieve the majority of the votes - even though his was the only name on the ballot. The international press picked this up immediately, and governments around the world brioought the sanctions hammer down on Mugabe until he was forced to work with Tsvangerai. Mugabe's still doing monstrous things, but the MDC has a foothold now. Those spoiled ballots made an impact.
Same thing holds here in the states. Maybe it's true that everyone on the ballot is someone you don't like - so don't give them a mandate! Quit being such a sucker = if you don't vote, the low voter turnout isn't going to be remembered for very long. Look at the recent election for Congress down here - the press is wildly abuzz with the percentage of votes Cao won - they almost never report the actual number or even mention the pathetically low number of votes. Therefore, if you lived here and chose not to vote that day, your non-vote doesn't matter. Nobody even noticed that you didn't vote. they watch the percentages, not the total number of ballots cast.
You want to make a statement fine, but putting in "lizard people" and "Bozo the clown" is making an ambiguous statement, easily confused with a statement from someone who just thinks its funny to submit votes for non-existent people, or someone who is simply insane.
The public is getting a close view of something those of us who have worked in customer service or survey research have always known. 1% of the public is batshit crazy. If your statement can't be distinguished from the batshit crazies, you are just going to be lumped in with them.
You want to make a statement that all of the above suck? I recommend a "none of the above" or "all of the above suck", or "I would rather vote for Kang and Kotos than any of these yahoos" write in. It is far more clear.
Statler, you are hilarious! You talk all the way around my points/arguments and twist everything I said. Are you the new Mason? He would do that and it'd drive me crazy.
He'd say something should be X. I'd make my point that it should be Y. He would never refute my claim about Y but instead start twisting Z into the conversation and totally obfuscate the point.
Yes, I said that kind of vote "counted." The same way when a lowly football team (I'm thinking Bills, Dolphis, etc.) would score two field goals against the 2007 Patriots while they were running up 40, 50 points. Those 6 points technically "counted" but there was no message sent to the Patriots that they were even remotely a competitive football team worthy to be playing against them.
Same thing here - it goes in the official record, but that's about it. It doesn't matter. I still say that if a significantly large number of voters don't vote for any candidate because they simply don't vote, then it sends just as much or more of a message. Trust me, they see it plain and clear - not that they always do care - when voter turnout comes in very low.
You said:
If you don't vote at all, again, there is no impact-it literally does not matter that you did not vote
Well, if you vote for a fantasy character, it doesn't matter either. The Tooth Fairy cna't be your Senator. Or Lizard People. Donald Duck. You get the idea. So it doesn't matter that you did vote.
Anyway, I think Raskolnikov's post makes the point brilliantly. He said sort of what I was trying to relay but in a different way and with some extra points. And I'd agree, that kind of nonsense - voting for "lizard people" - isn't accepted as a protest and just accepted as that small portion of the population that's batshit crazy.
If the best you can manage is an ad hominem attack, you're an idiot. I'm not impressed by your trollish behavior and just about ready to put you back on the ignore list. Attack my logic, not my person.
Actually, it does matter, because it reduces the percentage of the vote won by any of the candidates, therefore reducing any potential mandate.
Now, if you go back and re-read what I said before, you'll see this is the point I was trying to make about Zimbabwe.
Now, we don't ahve to agree with each other, but I must insist that you use some degree of logic when picking apart an opponent's position. If you can't, then there is very little point in talking to you.
Mule Rider says "...I still say that if a significantly large number of voters don't vote for any candidate because they simply don't vote, then it sends just as much or more of a message."
And you're still wrong. It sends NO message, none whatsoever.
"Trust me, they see it plain and clear - not that they always do care "
They NEVER care. Never ever ever. If as in Zimbabwe all those people showed up and spoiled their ballots instead-- THEN they would care.
Can you show us the whole Brett Favre ballot? The whole lizard people ballot is available at http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/ballots/lizardpeople.pdf
Based on what I can see, I would conclude that Brett Favre is intended as a sincere write-in candidate for US president (assuming that's the only race where he's written in, and it's not an overvote). On the other hand, Lizard people is either an invalid prank ballot (since he's written in for every race, and this justification works even if you assume that the US senator dot is in the wrong place), or he's an identifying mark on the ballot (if the dot is in the right place, he's certainly not a write-in candidate).
@ Raskolnikov: 1% of the public is batshit crazy.
More like 10%.
The "Lizard People" ballot was CLEARLY a vote for Franken. The circle was darkened in for Lizard People in the presidential race category, but NOT in the senate race section. The voter simply wanted to ensure that the Lizard People were given proper accord as viable senate candidates -- even though the voter certainly did not want the Lizard People elected to senate.
"Neither Regan or Schwarzenegger have any type of comic talent."
You obviously have never seen "Kindergarten Cop". I love that movie.
"Ahm the pahty poopah!"
If the best you can manage is an ad hominem attack, you're an idiot. I'm not impressed by your trollish behavior and just about ready to put you back on the ignore list. Attack my logic, not my person.
Dude, this was your initial response to me:
Stop making excuses for being such a lazy, uninvolved ass who loves to bitch and complain, but can't bring himself to do one fucking thing about the problems you complain about. Unless you enjoy being impotent
Talk about an ad hominem attack. I did tryin and point out through logic - whether it made sense to you is a different story - that voting for fantasy characters is meaningless. Rasko followed that up and echoed the point brilliantly. If you're going to make a statement, then "lizard people" isn't the way to go. You get lumped in with all of the crazies and then you don't matter.
the point I was trying to make about Zimbabwe
Apples and oranges, buddy. A highly corrupt, third world backwater "democracy" with tyrannical leaders versus a semi-corrupt, developed/advanced industrial and military power with too many inept leaders. Big difference. Don't even go there.
but I must insist that you use some degree of logic when picking apart an opponent's position.
I tried. I don't know a more logical way than to say if you vote for people who don't exist, it's meaningless because
a)it's not someone who can actually serve or do anything of merit because the person is just "make-believe",
b)you're dismissed as nuts, and
c)as a result, how does that send any more of a message than not-voting since the only thing you've done is made them think there are nutty people in their district/state/etc.
Batshit crazy or not, you still have the right to vote. If we decided to not count the votes of crazy people, we'd first have to define what crazy means - is it someone that votes for a candidate just because their parents or their church tells them to, thereby completely disregarding the very concept of democracy? Is it someone that votes on name recognition, without any consideration of who it is? Is it someone that votes for a candidate because a TV channel regularly endorses that candidate with splashy graphics band sound effects? Is it someone who votes for the candidate with the best bumper stickers?
Crazy is as crazy does. And judging by the near total lack of participation of our citizens in government and willingness to surrender our brains to Talk Radio and The View - I'd say we're all batshit crazy.
You know what's really crazy? I see all these guys running around with flags printed on their shirts and yellow ribbons on their cars, who play the holier than thou thing on immigrants or people that disagree with the government, and claim that some parts of this country are pro-American and others arent. Crazy is saying that you've earned the right to be holier than thou just because you fell out of your mother,s pussy over American soil.
A veteran, returned Peace Corps Volunteer, Americorps Member, soup kitchen volunteer. candy striper at a hospital, Red Cross volunteers, those people have actually done something to earn the right to claim that they are real Americans. If all you do to show support for your country is buy a flag sticker at Wal-Mart, you ain't shit. Shut the fuck up and leave the immigrants alone. You didn't do anybody any favors by falling out of your mom's pussy somewhere in the US. That doesn't make you a hero. Go charge San Juan Hill sometime, and then we'll talk about your hero status.
But this country is full of fake heroes, who think it's okay to let our kids die in Iraq as long as they put a yellow ribbon sticker on their car. This country is full of people that will scream 'family values' and then attack anyone who risks life and limb to come to the US and do back breaking work just to feed their kids. This country is full of hypocrites that will espouse freedom of religion and then insist that only one religion is acceptable.
And that my friend is batshit crazy.
If we discount all the crazy people from voting, nobody could vote at all.
@Statler,
Again - obfuscatin, obfuscation, obfuscation. Dude, you're coming uhinged and twisting the argument way away from where it started.
Nobody said anything about whether or not crazy people should vote. That's not the issue. The issue was what kind of a message does it send when you write-in "lizard people." The response was simply if you're wanting to send a message, that's not the way to do it as it makes you like silly and not serious about taking a stance against what you deem to be subpar or completely incompetent candidates.
I can even take the Brett Favre vote - as he's at least real. But voting for fantasy characters makes you look like a loon. And if you look like a loon, you haven't made your point.
I won't even touch your ranting using stereotypical hyperbole? Are people hypocrites? Yes. You don't have to make sweeping, categoric assertions about people because of a few knotheads.
How many people really believe they are heroes because they "fell out of their mother's pussy somewhere in the US"? Do you know such people? Seriously? And they call themselves heroes? Do you know whether or not they've served in any capacity or not? Or are you just making prejudiced assumptions based on hate and fear?
I'm guessing the latter, because most of your posts are filled with such.
No longer really relevant for this discussion since the ballot seems to be rejected as an overvote, but as one poster mentioned before, why is that "identifying mark" rule still used in the first place?
I guess it made sense at a the time when all votes were counted by hand, probably by the town's boss and his cronies, and at a time when oversight by the public was not really an issue (much less possibility of any voting scandals getting known by the general public when there are no faxes, phones, internet etc.).
These days, votes are counted by machines to begin with, and on the other hand, as long as there is a write-in possibility anywhere on the ballot, I would think making an ID mark is always possible. If voter and vote buyer just agree beforehand on any name (could be a celibrity, could be the first name on page 7 of the local telephonebook, could be any name as long as the first name starts with "A" and the last name with "P", whatever), who is to prove that it really is fraud? So what is the rule really worth?
Nate -
Question about these ballots. On the Favre ballot, Favre is written in for a candidate for another office, it appears. So it seems like the person who filled out that ballot intended to vote for Coleman for senator and Favre for some other office.
With Lizard People, it's written in on each section for a write-in candidate, but for senator, the voter did not bubble-in the circle. It seems to me that the voter clearly did not intent to vote for Lizard People for senator, but rather wanted to vote for Franklin.
Both ballots seems valid for each candidate - but I must admit, I'm not privy to the standards used to make the decisions.
For those who don't know, Brett Favre is a football player. (I don't follow sports, so I didn't.) It's the equivalent of writing in a celebrity's name (Say, Mel Brooks). It is highly unlikely that Brett was voting for himself at this precinct, hence no identifying mark.
As for the other ballot, if this election goes to Coleman because of this one decision, Mr. Lizard People is going to become VERY famous. I wonder if he'll seek out a book deal.
I actually will touch it, come to think of it:
Batshit crazy or not, you still have the right to vote.
Yeah, and I have the right not to as well. I think I'll take my chances sitting an election or two out waiting for something better to come along than to make a "point" by voting for people who don't exist.
is it someone that votes for a candidate just because....
What do you want me to tell you? Yeah, this happens all the time. It's sad. It's stupid. But make no mistake - and I don't think you are in this regard - this happens equally on both sides of the aisle. In other words, people programmed to vote Democratic or Republican with regard to nothing else and no thought for themselves.
I'd say we're all batshit crazy.
Pretty close.
Crazy is saying that you've earned the right to be holier than thou just because you fell out of your mother's pussy over American soil.
Do you even know what "holier than thou" means? Is this something you've really ran across or had a problem with. Because I haven't.
A veteran, returned Peace Corps Volunteer, Americorps Member, soup kitchen volunteer. candy striper at a hospital, Red Cross volunteers, those people have actually done something to earn the right to claim that they are real Americans.
I won't argue that those are vital and important positions. The people who do those things are to be admired. But it goes beyond a title. It's your way of life and how you treat and serve others. And a lot of people - that you're probably not giving credit to - are very much involved in making their community a better place in the very same ways as the folks you mention but in an "under-the-radar" kind of way.
If all you do to show support for your country is buy a flag sticker at Wal-Mart, you ain't shit.
I agree. Some people are all about talking a good game and "symbols" but don't have shit otherwise to offer.
Shut the fuck up and leave the immigrants alone. You didn't do anybody any favors by falling out of your mom's pussy somewhere in the US.
No, I agree that simply "falling out" of you know where doesn't make anyone special. And I'm sure there are people who hawk the immigrants who really haven't done much to earn their keep here either. But don't confuse this with the law of the land and the need to enforce it. You can talk all day about who "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" to be here for whatever reason, but we have to have boundaries and do things in a civilized manner or anarchy would reign.
That doesn't make you a hero. Go charge San Juan Hill sometime, and then we'll talk about your hero status.
Again, I don't know too many people (none, actually) who claim hero status over empty symbolism. Spare me the drama.
But this country is full of fake heroes
I agree. But it's also full of wonderful people.
who think it's okay to let our kids die in Iraq as long as they put a yellow ribbon sticker on their car
I don't know of anyone who thinks it's okay or good for this to happen. I'm very much against what's going on in Iraq, so I can't give you the slightest perspective on the kind of people you refer to except to say I think you're being a bit ridiculous.
This country is full of people that will scream 'family values' and then attack anyone who risks life and limb to come to the US and do back breaking work just to feed their kids.
Yeah, and there are people who throw garbage lines like this out who don't stop to consider that letting illegal immigrants take and work millions of jobs at cut-rate wages - where they can take back to Mexico or wherever else and be welcomed culturally and have several times more spending power - and how that's just like outsourcing jobs across the globe - except of course, being on our own soil - while men and women here in the US can't feed their kids and are willing to break their back to do it but can't live here for $5/hour and certainly can't take their family to Mexico just so their money will go farther.
This country is full of hypocrites that will espouse freedom of religion and then insist that only one religion is acceptable.
I agree that religious zealots go too far, but there's nothing about tolerance of other religions that says you have to believe they are right as well. Everyone has the right to believe that their religion is the only acceptable one to God. They just aren't supposed to force that way of thinking through some form of public policy. Personal beliefs are different. Don't confuse the two.
NPR has talked with a 25 year old man who claims to be the Lizard People voter.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2008/11/qa_with_the_lizard_people_vote.shtml
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/11/23/so_why_would_someone_for_the_lizard_people/?refid=0
Seems everyone has an opinion here, so I may as well vote. Coleman counts, Franken doesn't. The MN CB has been very consistent about not counting over votes, and this is an over vote. While one can argue that "Lizard People" is clearly not a real person, the CB doesn't need to get into the business of decided whether a name is legitimate or not.
As for where "Lizard People" come from, my theory is that the voter was an old Phish head. See their song "Lizards" here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoi7R3DZWUk.
-Dave
Dominic said "...It is highly unlikely that Brett was voting for himself at this precinct, hence no identifying mark"
He used to be a resident of Wisconsin, but is now in New York, so yeah...
@Dave
The "Lizard People" are the aliens disguised as humans who secretly run the world in David Icke's conspiracy theory, loosely based on the movie "THEY LIVE" (with Roddy Rowdy Piper; rent it sometime if you can find it, it's excellent) which Icke thought was based on true facts.
The Franken vote counts. The standard I'm using here is where the actual dot is filled in. Writing in a candidate is not a vote for them, filling in the dot is the actual act of voting.
I don't understand how this is so hard to see. Show me a Coleman vote with the same set of circumstances and I'll say Coleman gets the vote.
Just to be a complete asshole (I am currently only 1/4 asshole, on my mother's side), I intend to vote for Lizard People in the next election. I encourage everyone across this great land, and up in Canada too, to write-in Lizard People on the next ballot. Can be for any or all offices, doesn't matter. I just want to see an election somewhere int he world where the declared winner is Lizard People.
Mrs B, matador, if you,re listening, will you please write-in Lizard People on a ballot in Italy and the UK as well? If this actually makes the news someplace, we will have succeeded in the ultimate trolling experience---trolling an election!
@ Nate, Radio Campaign and Babar -- This ballot was not decided on the basis of identifying marks. It was deemed an overvote. Why, you ask, Babar? Because the judges looked to the statute that says a name written in on the write-in line is a vote, even if the oval isn't marked. They weren't making it up. They believed the statue dictated that result.
I've written a diary on DKos arguing that's not so. The provison is meant to save write-in votes from being rejected as undervotes. There is no reason to apply it in that case. As you note Radio, the oval wasn't blackened, even though it was for the other write-in votes on the ballot. The voter treated that race differently. Probably stopped himself from marking the oval. He wanted to vote for Franken.
The Bd. should have disregarded the write-in rule and looked just to the voter's intent. Unfortunately. when the Bd. member asked Elias to confirm that was not significant, he did not disagree. Instead, he made a lame argument about Lizard People not being a person, and therefore not a real vote.
Nate -- you ought to correct this. People are going around the net, repeating your misunderstanding as gospel truth.
Wow, I'm a little shocked Nate got this one so wrong.
I'm for Franken all the way, but unless the voter also wrote "Favre" under the senator section, then that was clearly a vote for Brett for president and Coleman for senator (seems this voter couldn't stomach voting for McCain). So unless we're only seeing part of the ballot, then it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Lizard People ballot, which had a write-ins in both the presidential AND senate sections.
Hard to believe the Franken people challenged that Favre ballot. Again, unless the voter also wrote Favre in the senate section and we just don't have a photo of the whole ballot.
MPR earlier showed a more or less identical ballot for Coleman, with his circle marked, and "Bachmen" (= Michelle Bachmann???) as a write-in candidate. See it here, ballot #2 in round 1.
I suppose that one must have been judged an overvote as well, and the two cancel each other out :).
Actually, you've got it wrong Nate. Lizard People was rejected due to "voter intent," not an "identifying mark."
The idea is that since the voter filled in the circle for Franken AND wrote in Lizard People, it wasn't clear who they were really voting for. I personally think that since they didn't fill in the bubble for Lizard People as well, the voter intent is clearly for Franken, but that's just my narrow interpretation of the law.
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,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,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,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,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,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,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 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
視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,聊天室,視訊,情色視訊,免費視訊聊天室,視訊交友,成人聊天室,情色交友,嘟嘟成人網,免費視訊,微風成人區,尋夢聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,情色網,女優,AV女優,UT聊天室,自拍,豆豆聊天室,18成人,免費A片,做愛,成人貼圖,美女交友,視訊做愛,做愛,日本AV,080聊天室,本圖自拍,A片,免費A片,成人論壇,一夜情聊天室,情人,12星座情人,
thanks u r information
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