The Star Tribune reports that Al Franken holds a 48-vote lead over Norm Coleman, with thousands of withdrawn challenges having been added back in to the respective candidates' totals. This number would be roughly in accordance with the 35-50 vote lead projected by the Franken campaign.
The Star Tribune's reckoning appears to come from a spreadsheet (.xls) available on the Minnesota Secretary of State's website. The spreadsheet appears to show 3,191 challenged ballots resolved for Franken and 2,955 for Coleman -- a net gain of 236 for Franken, which would put him 48 votes ahead given Norm Coleman's 188 vote lead prior to the challenge phase of the recount process. An additional group of 542 challenges ballots were deemed to be illegal votes (undervotes, overvotes, etc.), or were assigned to third-party candidates.Challenged By Ballot Allocated To______
These are draft numbers, and as such are subject to change. Minnesota's Canvassing Board will meet again tomorrow morning to resolve a few odds and ends, apparently including the resolution of a small number of remaining challenged ballots.
__ Franken Coleman Other
Franken 66 2923 295
__ 2.0% 89.0% 9.0%
Coleman 3120 29 243
__ 92.0% 0.9% 7.2%
Both 5 3 4
__ 41.7% 25.0% 33.3%
Total 3191 2955 542
__ 47.7% 44.2% 8.1%
In all likelihood, however, Coleman will need to rely on the addition of rejected absentee ballots or the subtraction of so-called duplicate ballots in order to regain the lead from Franken. The former class of ballots will be resolved by the counties between now and December 31; the latter group may or may not be reviewed, depending on a ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court anticipated tomorrow.
12.22.2008
Franken Maintains 48-Vote Lead
@ 6:25 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments
Norm has already declared 4 or 5 times that he has won. I don't know why we waste taxpayer money on this. Just take him at his word and move along. Stubborn people.
C'mon, Senator Franken! I hope it happens!
FIRST!!!!
First, I tells ya!
I am just so damn happy right now, I am downright irrational.
~ Latte
TYPO: "show 3,191 challenges ballots. . . ."
Should be challengeD ballots.
best news i have had all day. maybe since obama won!
well i guess now its on to court. any guesses for how long? coleman wont go down easy.
anyone think this forces coleman to OPEN those rejected absentees?
NATE: Huh? "which would put him 48 votes ahead given Norm Coleman's 188 votes ahead"
Do you mean "Coleman's 188 vote lead"?
Pursuant to the cop out MNSC decision, will the "5th pile" absentee ballots remain sealed until the parties "agree" to open them? If so, then Coleman will want to count every friggin one if he is behind and the duplicate b.s. doesn't confuse the CB into giving Coleman a lead.
On the other hand, there is room for a lot of gamesmanship (despite the MNSC's admonition not to act inappropriately -- a toothless gesture) if the result of each vote is known beforehand. (Of course, Coleman can try to cherry pick and only agree to military absentee ballots, I suppose.)
@STepper: there was an article in this morning's Star Tribune in which the counsel for Coleman implied that they might seek to increase the size of that "5th pile" -- presumably by looking at absentee ballots that were classified into one of the first 4 piles for some that might provide Coleman votes but were "misclassified" as ineligible.
If the Coleman campaign follows through with that we can expect to have every disqualified absentee ballot -- not just those in the 5th pile -- subject to a review.
So Theres this post and some guys like "FIRST" so im all like THIS IS GREAT NEWS! FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
and then theres this conservatroll and hes all complaining about the recount in minnesota and im like THIS IS GREAT NEWS! FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
and then Nate posts some poll numbers and im all like "THIS IS GREAT NEWS!" and Nate's like "Lemme guess...for john mccain, right?" and im all like actually i wasnt gonna say that..............FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
CUZ THIS IS MY UNITED STATES OF FIVETHIRTYEIGHT
AND THIS IS UNITED STATES OF FIVETHIRTYEIGHT
AND THIS IS UNITED STATES OF FIVETHIRTYEIGHT
Whoah! Easy on the egg nog!
Does this include the 12 military overseas absentee ballots they found?
Can someone explain the duplicate ballot situation please? I understand that sometimes duplicate ballots are made by election officials either because original ballot would not scan or it's an email ballot from overseas. And, if I understand correctly, the original and the duplicate are supposed to be so marked and kept together. So, the problem is that there are duplicates without attached originals, or originals without attached duplicates, or, some combination of both. Coleman thinks both duplicates and originals were counted in recount, and wants some ballots uncounted. Did I get that basically right? If I did, then is Coleman trying to uncount dupe without attached originals or originals without attached dupes (seems like it cannot be both or otherwise you're missing valid votes)? How many votes are at issue? Is there any reason to believe there is a sysematic bias in the alleged double counted ballots?
Every absentee ballot should be reviewed - they deserve the same right to vote as people who voted on election day.
But lets get this review done faster and put a lid on this...
....though the course may change some time, rivers always reach the sea.
another mike-
Do a goole news search. The ballots from one precinct were likely double counted and it accounts for about plus 50 for Franken. Yup, plus 50.
LOL!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/20/politics/main4679466.shtml
@another Mike- yeah, that's the basic situation.
@Stepper- It's worse than you think. Those envelopes are signed. Each side has partisan lists. So they have a very good idea of who will gets the votes in many if not most of the ballots, by party, not just by broad demographic category.
@ fred- I checked that link and it doesn't say remotely what you claim. It's Coleman's lawyer estimating that Franken may have picked up a net 50 state-wide from duplicates. As you should know from many previous posts here (esp. from ecarlson) the dups are scattered around many precincts. Likely Coleman dups (mostly Dakota county) haven't been tabulated. So I think we can take 50 as pretty much an upper bound for the Coleman gain if these are tossed. With Franken ahead by 48......
Yes Fred, a 50 vote shift is what Coleman is saying, but Coleman's pile is only part of the duplicate ballots out there. Franken was complaining about this much earlier and using a larger number that probably favored him in their demographics (Fox news has a perfect example). As Nate has already said, the duplicates are pretty close to random sample. So we can expect them to fall out more or less along the same lines as the vote itself. Is Coleman going to get 50 more votes from 500 in a random sample? The God's of statistics say no.
Of course, Coleman has no actual proof that ANY of these votes were double counted. Indeed they almost certainly won't, because the main reason for making a duplicate is that the original didn't scan properly!
Both points lead to Coleman not making up 48 votes and/or losing his challenge in court. Now, perhaps the latter outcome is what he expects and hopes for, because he can then cry foul head to federal court where he hopes THEY will overturn the vote and seat him.
I think I probably need to look at Coleman's actual petition to the MN Supreme court itself to make heads or tails of this issue. Anyone got a link? I'm googling but not finding.
oooooh - mbw attacking me instead Nate tonight!
It is one estimate of the votes.
The first dups were from one precinct, and it is thought by most that they were double counted.
We will all find out tomorrow.
the fact that this is only the BEST NEWS EVER FOR JOHN MCCAIN goes without saying, but bears repeating.
This is the great news for John McCain. Not as good as Ms Palin's future in-law being busted for felony possession, but still, best news ever.
~ Latte
PS: not sure if you saw MN Att General brief filed with the MN SC in re the duplicates law suit (www.theuptake.org has the details), and the Hennepin County Attorney supporting brief underlining some of Lori Swanson's points. The way I see it, wrong venue on top of everything else. The suit shall be tossed, and that is my precise mathematical analysis. I predict the suit will be dismissed between the hours of 5 and 6 PM tomorrow.
~ Latte
does anynone know how to tell from the spreadsheet which challenges were accepted and which were rejected? What do the codes in column H mean?
There is a Star Tribune web site that details the number of absentee ballots by reason (1 to 5) per county with the fifth group being those that are at issue. The site also shows the pre-recount vote totals for Franken and Coleman. As of Monday evening, 52 of the 87 counties have completed the review of the absentee ballots with a total of 723 ballots in the fifth group. If the "group 5" votes are split by the same percentage as the original votes in each county, Coleman would get 360 to Franken's 363. The URL is http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/absentee.html
Absentee Ballot Sorting - Has it restarted?
When Colemn issued his challenge, the counties stopped sorting the absentee ballots into the 5 piles - the 5th piled was for WRONGLY rejected absentee ballots. The Court ruled against Coleman and said to count the wrongly rejected ballots. Have counties which had not sorted their rejected absentee ballots started sorting? If not, why not and when will they. The Court wanted them counted by Dec 31
Minnesota Public Radio says the Attorney General will have something to say about protecting privacy of absentee voters on Tuesday.Where can we find out how it is going? Time's awastin.
I wonder if Nate or someone could address something I've been pondering.
These "5th pile" absentees will only be opened and counted if both campaigns agree, right? Not having seen a MN absentee ballot in person, I imagine there's probably a signature or name/address or other identifying information on the outside of the ballot to tell WHOSE ballot it is.
Will the campaigns be able to see that info when they're debating what ballots to reject? Because I would imagine both sides have enough data banked from the campaign to know how likely it is that Absentee Voter X was a Franken (or Coleman) voter.
If indeed the campaigns will be able to know whose absentee ballots they're debating, I could see one side or the other refusing to accept a ballot simply because they know it's probably a vote for the other guy.
In other words, this could get ugly quick.
If the Coleman campaign follows through with that we can expect to have every disqualified absentee ballot -- not just those in the 5th pile -- subject to a review.
As they should, actually. Logistically, it's a nightmare, but how do we KNOW each and every county (87?) used the same exacting criteria on sorting the ballot envelopes into the five piles?
Not to mention the elephant in the room, how many absentee voters who cast "defective" ballots were allowed to correct such defects, in SOME instances, in SOME counties?
WV-castop-ketchup.
Keep on fighting Al! Having Al Franken in the Senate is a very very groovy thing and it must happen.
Nate, just to be pedantic, a 48 vote lead isn't "roughly in accordance with the 35-50 vote lead projected by the Franken campaign", it IS in accordance. 33 would be "roughly" as would 51, surely if they're going to project a 15 vote range, and the result is in the range, then they should get kudos for that.
Back on topic - man, this recount is glacially slow. I mean, thorough is good, but this is beyond thorough and on into ridiculous. There are only a few important decisions to make - general rules for what challenges will be accepted, and what to do with the fifth pile votes. Each day we see a bit more argy-bargy about these issues from the campaigns and a few hundred votes counted, and about once a week a decision from the canvassing board. How many people are working on this? And how do I get a job that pays that well for so little actual output?
This has probably been addressed before, but I'm tired of hearing Fox Noise complain about Franken voters being too stupid to know how to vote "correctly." I direct Fox Noise, and anyone else who is interested, to the voting instruction at the top of most MN ballots:
"To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: [perfectly filled in oval]"
I've looked at 2400 challenged ballots, and if the voting instruction were enforced, at least half the votes for both Coleman and Franken would have to be tossed. Why? Because part of the oval is not filled in. Anything less than 100% filled in is technically not a vote. Marks beyond the oval are fine, if irrelevant.
So it looks to me like MN voters on both sides are...well, no. Looks to me like the "can't follow directions" complaints arise from a blindered class of anally retentives.
I think that if this thing stays close to nates 27 vote est. in the end then we need dunk Nate in the lake until he confesses he's a witch!
Stone em! Stone em!
Eric in Austin
A lot of the "stolen election" talk traces back to John Lott. Lott has been famously wrong before, and he's wrong about Coleman-Franken.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/11/17/franken/
http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2008/12/22/5476/john_lott_wrong_again
http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2008/12/19/5441/recount_how_lott_misleads
Someone asked about the actual petition from Coleman: the website for the minnesota courts -- mncourts.gov -- has a link to all the filings about the Senate Race. Having read it, I think Coleman's approach uses the presumption that the election judges acted correctly to presume how they acted incorrectly (and yes, I know that doesn't read right, but that's the illogical approach of the petition).
As to the underlying issue -- on election night, the judges were supposed to make duplicate ballots and mark the duplicate and original to match them (e.g. duplicate 1 and original 1, duplicate 2 and original 2, etc.). The originals were then supposed to go into a separate envelope and the duplicates were mixed in with the other ballots that were fed to the machine.
For the recount, the duplicates were supposed to be sorted out and matched with the originals from the "originals envelope," and then the originals were to be used to determine the votes.
Coleman wants to assume that the duplicates were made (as required by law) but either the duplicate or the original was not marked (even though that is also required by law).
Franken believes that you can't make that assumption. Three things could have happened -- 1) no duplicate was made; 2) either the duplicate or the original was not marked; or 3) either the duplicate or the original was misplaced. Determining which of these three is correct is a precinct-by-precinct process that is appopriate for an election contest, not a recount.
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 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