Sort of 'evolution in action'.;)

Points to anyone who can name the sci-fi story that used that phrase (I can't remember the title).

Oath Of Fealty, by Niven & Pournelle. "Think of it as evolution in action," as a graffito near a ledge popular with jumpers in the arcology.

It's gotta be twenty years at least since I read it, and I had to google.

Examples of why voters make vote counting so difficult - from The Economist:

Where is the difficulty?

Completely fill in the bubble, do not use checks, x's, and do not make any other marks in other boxes.

It must be the North Dakota immigrants...

I got that PH, but seriously - is there ANY DOUBT about the intent of either of those ballots. I'm sure there are much better examples of confusion, but those two appear very clear.

That's why that dude only got a 2 on his SAT...bubble filling challenged. ;)

Of course they are both voters for Franken -no wonder they couldn't follow the directions....


JUST KIDDING

These were the best examples of how messed up the ballots can get.

There is no doubt for anyone with common sense. There is doubt for politicians that are trying to win an election.

The ones in tw's link are quite clear - Those in the other link are pretty obvious too, for the most part. This seems like a bunch of BS to me.

Clearly you've never dealt with the general public in matters of forms and publications...you'd be amazed!

If the machine cannot read it, then it is not obvious and must be reviewed.

Better voting machines read your ballot, tell you what it could not read, and ask you if that mistake is OK.

Obviously, MN has better voting machines than those bought by bean counter intelligence who saw the word 'computer' and then knew it must be better (ie customers of Diebold).

But do MN voting machines ask the voter if that is what he intended? If yes, then the reason to accept or reject a paper ballot completely changes. It has a check mark. The voting machine says that entry for Senator is empty. The voter says yes. Then the check mark is a blank - voter voted for nobody. If the machine sees he voted, then says nothing - machine accepts the check mark as a vote. No problem. No challenge.

We don't know if voting machines read and asked the voter about vague intents. Therefore we don't know the criteria used to recount those votes. Not at all obvious until we first know if machines asked voters about vague intents.

Still, you can't un-stupidfy people.

There is an edit when filling out the fafsa when the student enters taxes paid as equal to adjusted gross income (say they made 25000, and they enter that they paid 25000 in taxes.) A box pops up and says "dude, you just said you paid out your entire income in taxes. Are you really sure?" More often than not, they will say "yes, I'm sure...hmph." Then again "are you surely sure?" "YES I'm surely sure you damn computer." Then they bitch when selected by the feds for verification. :D

I can't imagine voters are a smarter population, on the average, than students.

We are way past the machines - we are at the review stage. So we have a bunch of people looking at these things and trying to determine if the intent was for candidate (A) or (B) or unknown. It is that simple. They are making a mountain out of this. Oh and somewhere somehow a mountain of money too.

The states have election laws that includes processes for reviewing election results. Many "good government" organizations have recognized MN as having one of the most thorough and open processes.

The attempt is to avoid or prevent disenfranchising a voter for being stupid at the polls (or machine malfunctions).

In any case, I read recently that Coleman, if/when he loses the final state review, will attempt to take a "fast track" to the US Supreme Court, claim a violation of his 14th amendment due process rights, and suggest that a new election should be ordered by the Court.

Boy you are starting to sound like a talking point. I think I'm beginning to understand what you mean when you reference that.

I've been calling for a new election since this BS started. With that many people to have an election THAT close.... seems like the only way to get it right. We all discussed the costs of doing that, but this process sure as hell can't be cheap either.

His ballot has marked both. Computer asks if he chooses to vote for neither. He says yes. So ballot is accepted.

Both checked marks means he intended to vote for neither and confirmed it when the machine asked. But you say otherwise - that his intent was to vote for Franken. Why do you contradict what the machine and voter both agreed?

Now, if machines do not confirm a vote and does not ask questions, then that same ballot could be a vote for Franken. Without knowing how machines work, then a voter's intent is not obvious. You may be way past the machines. But those who decide by first learning facts may not have an 'obvious' choice.

Helpful would be training on how to color pictures with crayons.

So you want a "mulligan" or a "do-over" when elections are that close? What if it is that close a second time?

The election review procedures in state laws are to mitigate the need for do-overs in as fair and transparent manner as possible. The process in MN has been recognized as better than most states.

I don't know.
Whoopdie-doo. If this is "better than most" then we're really screwed.

HAHAHA! Al Gore, redux.

If a second election happened solely between Franken and Coleman, the race would not be as close because of third party candidates. I also imagine that the resources needed for a second election would be enormous and most likely would just add fuel to the fire.

Maybe the relatively recent push to think outside the box(circle), don't worry about the guide lines, be creative, is the problem.

Where did I say otherwise. Don't start this shit again Tom.

What are you talking about - WE ARE PAST THE MACHINE PART. We covered that already FOR MONTHS, come on. We are talking about the disputed ballots that are being looked at by HUMANS - not machines.

Thats where we are big boy - Thanks for the pointless recap of the last four months. Now that you have joined the rest of us - Whats your plan?

Oh thats great.

What dont you like about a process that gives both candidate the opportunity to exercise a means to challenge the results...first with the state elections board and then, if necessary through the state courts?

A new election would enable every voter in MN to change their vote based on a new dynamic that didnt exist in Nov (A Dem in the WH and 58 Dems in the Senate)...and I dont think the third party candidate could be left off the ballot.

A new election should be held if the courts find that there was wide spread voter fraud.

You dont have "do overs" because it was close the first time.

How many recounts does Coleman want?

He wants to keep the legal battle going for six years, and then run again.

He wants to do exactly what Al Gore didn't want to do. Fuck the country.

Coleman answers to a high authority:

Gore and Coleman are both whiny retards. EOS.

I agree, but at least Gore had the decency to walk away rather than fuck the country.

Took him long enough...but yeah, he did. And then he made a speech telling everyone to get behind the new president-elect.

Somehow, I don't think Coleman will do that. :lol:

It would depend if we are talking about another election or if we are talking about a tie-breaker between Franken and Coleman. If it was another election altogether, a third party would honestly in my opinion get more support out of spite from this whole fiasco but a tie-breaker vote would be much quicker and efficient.

If a tie-breaker does happen, it should be set up so the ballet has two choices, Franken or Coleman, no write-ins and anyone who leaves any extra marks besides the bubble will be disqualified. That would stop all the bullshit and prevent this from happening again.

I agree but when it gets to the point where it is more practical to just have a tie-breaker vote, that should be used. I have no idea where that point is though, from my lack of knowledge and interest.

Only if the state constitution allows tie breaker runoffs. If they have to change the constitution it would take even longer.

True. I would just prefer to see a practical solution that will end this as quickly as possible.

Kill Coleman.

I still say, some superior court should step in and tell them when to stop counting.

I thought it was a superior court that required the last recount of some votes. It really is not a problem to anyone but those who must certify the count. When it is done, only then do the lessons apply to everyone else.

It would be interesting if it did actually go to the Supreme Court and they reversed themselves on Bush v. Gore. Still, they can do this because they had to deliberately write the decision to not set a precedent since the logic was so contrived that it would have rewritten a good portion of existing law.

So they could, with a straight face, make the opposite decision and decide for Coleman.

Of course, pretty much the entire world would be laughing at them if they did it, since Bush v. Gore was a historic decision.

Don't kill Franken, just make him the laughing stock of the Demoncrats, well after Burris of course.

Why? He won. We just have to wait for Coleman to stop sniveling.

Dear me, Bruce, why is it again you can't tell the Left, and fascist lovers everywhere, from "the country?" You kinda forgot a lot of the country is more like me on this one. The fascists, the Taliban, and the Idiot American Left -- they got the shaft all right. They are not "the country," but embarrassments to it. The Real Right supports human freedom, and don't think it should be denied to a bunch of rather unwashed Arabic speakers either, come to that. So we undertook, without much thanks except from the people of freedom, whose appreciation of freedom may be measured in their thanks, to break the power of a couple of repressive governments of the most illiberal description. What did so-called "liberals" have to say to that? In effect: leave illiberal, tyrannical oppressors alone. That's not liberal, that is the grossest fascist sympathizing. The Right knows this very well, and the Left... won't.

Really, being left of center or just plain anti-Republican obliges otherwise intelligent Dwellars to say fatuous things. I ain't fucked after 8 years of Bush, and I daresay you ain't either. Don't turn into Radar, who to hear him holler sounds like he cut himself on a Republican when he was three. And it hasn't clotted yet.

What the fuck? Try to follow along, will ya? We were talking about this planet. :rollanim:

WTF?

Classic, read it again to cure your WTF. However sanitary or otherwise these furriners might be, do they not bleed if oppressed? Do they not suffer when they aren't living in a liberal social order and a democratic polity? That is what I see. "No man is an island," and that is trebly true of me.

Bruce, it's going to be much, much harder to cure you of your WTF. Fatuity may be less fixable even than stupid. Now answer my question: why can't you tell the Left from "the country?" Roughly half of the population holds opinions more in common with mine than with yours.

I notice that you did not specifically state half of the human population.

I'm willing to concede the rats and squirrels to you.

And that suffces you for a response, does it? :rolleyes: Going by previous examples, yes, you are happy with childish replies.

Rich, this should tell you something: you're out of good ideas. I'm not.

I need not read it again. I personally found your description ignorant, to tell you the truth. Why do they need to be described as such? Nevermind - they needn't.

:lol:

Fanatic ranting FTW.

If the country was more like you, McCain would be president, and we'd be dropping things on Iran.

Hey, kid, it happened with George W. Bush, and good for us and all of humanity -- and yes, it was and is expensive, bearing the brunt of it as we did. Now we're (ill-advisedly) going to take a break from smashing nondemocracies, and that's a big lugie in the face for liberty lovers, and just fine with fascist-liking/-loving pus-lickers. I for one am not down with that.

Trying to call the guy who's right a "fanatic" is like trying to tell a priest he's too goody-goody... it just makes you look like a jerk.

I'm obsessed with liberty. I think liberty is so good for humans that it really ought to be obvious that no population should be without a large portion of it -- no population anywhere. You haven't anything like that to inspire your life, do you? You'd think a guy living in AZ would have a bit more bedrock sense in these matters. That's a state that likes its freedoms.

:lol: I wish.

Yes, because George Washington and the founders were always raving like you (and the Taliban, come to think of it) about exporting ideology by force. Right?

You wouldn't know liberty if it bit you on your arse, son.

I call 'em the way I see 'em. You're a 100% fanatic screwball. Sorry about that.

No, you're obsessed with jingoism.

I sure do. I go shooting right off my back porch, for example.

But I don't think we should invade Togo or the UAR to make them do the same things. You aren't about exporting liberty, you're about exporting the United States. And these days, those can be two very different things.

MINNESOTA:

If he can stretch this and his appeals out for five years, he won't even need a do-over.

lol - Its really pathetic.

Well, TG, from my international experience, exporting "the United States" and exporting liberty differ only minutely, and the difference if any isn't enough to get crabby about. If you've been outside our borders and seen for yourself, I haven't heard about it.

What we are boils down to "the most successful at it." Being the best example, it's hardly sinful to export it also. It is not in any case a one-way deal.

You might take a read of Thomas P.M. Barnett, too. The guy's scary good and there's a lot of interesting stuff in there. It's even intelligently nonpartisan.

Jingoist? Nah. Therefore, why do you insist on connecting me with jingoism? I'd like to see your argument.

You seem to be siezed with the idea that fascist and communist ideologies are something other than mass miseries. This gross misunderstanding prevents you from coming down on the side of the good, does it not? Where is there anything in fascism, communism, autocracy, or oligarchy that makes them worthy of preservation? This is not fanaticism, this is morals.

You're equating the United States with liberty. How very odd. Perhaps you can explain to my why that is, when my calls can be listened to, when American citizens get denied due process for years at a time, when I can't walk out and buy the machine gun of my choice, and when a man can get tossed in jail for a decade or three because he has chosen to use the wrong intoxicants?

Or maybe you mean "liberty for the right people. I mean, it's okay to dump on Gays, people with weird little religions, and people who just want to be left the hell alone in whatever mountainside compound they legally purchased? Am I losing the plot here? In short, you get liberty here, so long as you limit your freedom to being like everyone else?

Rubbish. We just yell the loudest. And then we drop bombs on people who never hurt us, to "liberate" them. After we "liberate" a few hundred thousand or a few million of them into greasy spots, we finish plundering and leave. What's really funny is that recently, we use foreign wars to plunder our OWN country, to hand it all over to no-bid contractors like the good folks at Halliburton. But that's what America is all about: Motherhood, apple pie, and bloodsucking contractors.

What the hell? I'll give it a read.

Your own post: Our nation is the absolute best at freedom, so we can go jam our way of life down other peoples' throats. Because WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! Classic jingoism.

And just where the hell did I say that? Oh, yeah. I didn't. You just made shit up. Please attempt to be more honest. Thanks.

Depends what you call "good", I suppose.

That's a hell of a strawman you have there, sir. Where did you get it?

I saw something about that from the AP. There is also a big issue with Coleman's data leak too.

I just finished reading this sumary of the leak.