Al Franken...is this for real?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

We don't know ~snip~ Therefore we don't know

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

We are way past the machines - we are at the review stage.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

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

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

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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

Originally Posted by tw

Why do you contradict what the machine and voter both agreed?

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.

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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?

Originally Posted by tw

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

Oh thats great.

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.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

HAHAHA! Al Gore, redux.

[classicman]

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.

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

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

I don't know.

Originally Posted by Redux

The process in MN has been recognized as better than most states.

Whoopdie-doo. If this is "better than most" then we're really screwed.

Originally Posted by classicman

I don't know.

Whoopdie-doo. If this is "better than most" then we're really screwed.

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?

[piercehawkeye45]

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.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

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.

[TGRR]

How many recounts does Coleman want?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Redux

...and I dont think the third party candidate could be left off the ballot.

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.

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

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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