Mischief in Minnesota?
The Wall Street Journal editors are tracking the recount in the Minnesota Senate race between incumbent Norm Coleman and Democrat challenger Al Franken, who trailed Coleman by 725 votes on Election Day. They think something fishy is going on.
Coleman’s lead has shrunk to 206 votes. Proportionally, the recount hasn’t resulted in the same gains for other Democrats in the state.
According to conservative statistician John Lott, Mr. Franken’s gains so far are 2.5 times the corrections made for Barack Obama in the state, and nearly three times the gains for Democrats across Minnesota Congressional races. Mr. Lott notes that Mr. Franken’s “new” votes equal more than all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the Presidential, Congressional and statehouse races combined (482 votes).
This entire process is being overseen by Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who isn’t exactly a nonpartisan observer. One of Mr. Ritchie’s financial supporters during his 2006 run for office was a 527 group called the Secretary of State Project, which was co-founded by James Rucker, who came from MoveOn.org. The group says it is devoted to putting Democrats in jobs where they can “protect elections.”
WSJ doesn’t traditionally traffic in far-flung theories, so it might be time for some reporters to start digging deeper into this race that could tip the Senate even more Democrat. Before the election, Politico wrote about an administrative “Dem firewall” in closely contested states, where Democrat secretaries of state oversee election results, as is the case in Minnesota.
With a Democrat now in charge of the offices, which oversee and administer their state’s elections, the party is better positioned than in the previous elections to advance traditional Democratic interests —such as increasing voter registration and boosting turnout — rather than Republican priorities such as stamping out voter fraud.
Perhaps more important, in those five states Democrats are now in a more advantageous position when it comes to the interpretation and administration of election law…
Election officials don’t expect the contest to be resolved until mid-December, and Franken, who has a whopping 1,250 lawyers on the job, just filed a lawsuit today that adds a twist to the process.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top35 Comments to “Mischief in Minnesota?”
It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes…
Meanwhile, Stevens is now behind in the Alaska vote count:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/stevens_slips_i.html
Report comment to moderator
Where is Jimmy Carter? Isn’t he the grand election overseer?
Report comment to moderator
“…so it might be time for some reporters to start digging deeper into this race that could tip the Senate even more Democrat.”
DON’T hold your breath. The media is firmly ensconced as an advocate for anything Democrat.
Report comment to moderator
Tell me, where are the UN observers when we really need them?
Report comment to moderator
Without a shred of evidence the Republicans are trying to smear the Minnesota Secretary of State. The “Karl Rove” brand of politics still has some life in it. The Republicans are attempting to undermine the democratic process in MN.
Report comment to moderator
Fortunately, Democrats have a Marxist counting in MN.
Report comment to moderator
Why can’t democrats just accept losing? Enough with the recounts.
Report comment to moderator
#7 Why can’t Republicans accept recounts? Enough with the cheating.
Report comment to moderator
Minnesota law requires a recount when there is less than .5% of a difference between the two candidates. The Secretary of State is obeying the law.
Report comment to moderator
The crazy thing about this is, when the difference is that small, it’s physically impossible to count the votes with enough accuracy to determine who actually got more. 700 out of 2 million? That’s one vote in 3000! I don’t know anybody that could sort 3000 ballots without making at least one mistake. In manufacturing, the rule of thumb is that visual sorting is only 80% effective.
To have any confidence of an answer, they’re going to have to count them all several times. They’ll get a different answer every time, but the average will fall on one side or the other. Maybe that’s what they’re doing.
Report comment to moderator
“We are not suing to have these in the count,” said Franken’s lead attorney, Marc Elias. “We are simply looking for the data so that we can identify people who were legal and lawful voters to ensure their ballots are counted.”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081113/D94E8FJ80.html
They are not doing that. They are simply doing that.
I get it.
Report comment to moderator
Frankly, Franken would fit right in with the Congressional crowd of late…
Report comment to moderator
What they’re doing (or going to do), John M., is go through each ballot and re-check it. If either side objects to the ballot or has a question about it, it gets set aside. The Canvasing Board will take a look at each disputed ballot and make a decision. It’s an orderly, lawful process as mandated by MN law.
Report comment to moderator
Seems to me that if it were computerized process, it would go a heck of a lot faster, and would be way more accurate.
But obviously we don’t want those things.
Report comment to moderator
Our voting system is stuck in the dark ages.
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man, #14,
It sure does seem that way. I don’t have the solution, but you’d think that with today’s technology, we could have a nationwide election where voting is secure, votes are counted in real time, and a winner is announced at the close of polls.
Report comment to moderator
you’d think that with today’s technology, we could have a nationwide election where voting is secure, votes are counted in real time, and a winner is announced at the close of polls.
I don’t think that it’s a lack of technology that keeps this from happening. The problem with this is that there would be no way to verify the legitimacy of the outcome.
Report comment to moderator
Stuart Smalley will win by 100,000 vo9tes instead if 50,000 if the MSM gets involved but they don’t like to work, are lazy and have already written their final columns reporting that Smalley won by 50,000 due to the right keeping poor minority socialists locked up in their basements and away from the polls on election day
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis; “We are not suing to have these in the count,” said Franken’s lead attorney, Marc Elias. “We are simply looking for the data so that we can identify people who were legal and lawful voters to ensure their ballots are counted.”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081113/D94E8FJ80.html
They are not doing that. They are simply doing that.
I get it.
I kind of think you don’t. What Elias is saying is that they’re not suing to have all the rejected absentee ballots counted … only any that were rejected improperly and should have counted.
That’s fairly clear in context, less so when you lift the quote out by itself. The story also notes that it’s unlikely any votes would or even could be un-rejected at this point.
Report comment to moderator
“The problem with this is that there would be no way to verify the legitimacy of the outcome.”
Really? I find that hard to believe. Obviously the bank finds a way to do it.
Report comment to moderator
With near 100% accuracy I might add.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
But even if they have more than one person looking at each ballot, there are still going to be transcription and recordkeeping errors. Somebody has to physically write down the results or type them into a computer or something. I don’t see how they can do each set of 3000 ballots without making one or two mistakes, no matter how orderly the process is.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s note that these were optical-scan ballots — so the computer had looked at them. These are the ballots that the computer could not determine the vote.
Nate Silver has far and away the best technical analysis of what is involved, the percentages and the like.
This article from The Washington Post has more information on the process and its monitoring.
The point? This is going to be a very thorough recount with Republicans, Democrats and the Press watching it all. (That, and just a few lawyers
). Paranoia may strike deep, but really, a bit of reality is better.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and one other, more journalistic aspect. The Wall Street Journal news department is not tracking the story, this comes from their editorial page. Editorials are hardly neutral sources, are they?
Report comment to moderator
WSJ doesn’t traditionally traffic traffic in far flung theories
Except that unregulated free markets are good for us all and that all CEO’s have at least on foot on the top of Mt Olympus.
Report comment to moderator
Now, here’s where democrats, who truly cared about the system, would realize that there is something “fishy” going on, and would denounce it.
Report comment to moderator
Allegations of a cheatin’ recount?
Faux gay militant violence?
Zat all ya got guys? Sinkin’ fast, I’d say.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis at #11: What he’s saying is that they’re not suing to get all of the disqualified ballots counted, but to be able to verify that they were properly disqualified and count any that should not have been disqualified.
The article makes that distinction clear enough, along with noting that at this stage its unlikely to make any difference.
Report comment to moderator
TRS — I miss why you think something fishy is going on. The basic reason for a recount, is that automatic systems have an error margin (see the Silver article), when the victory margin is smaller than the expected error rate of the machine/automated
counting device, then the results are statistically in question. That’s why you recount.
In MN, they already have guidelines in place about when to do the recount, based on the victory margin. The decision to undertake a recount is automatic.
And because it’s possible to game the system even in recount, that recount must be done with representatives from both sides — the contest is also an assurance that voters’ choice gets honored. But really, this is about maintaining the integrity of the system.
A word of caution. If all we see is a partisanship at play, we place ourselves in the position of admitting that given the chance we would in fact game the system. Now I don’t think any of the writers here at WMB are on the side of cheating at the polls. So if not, then let’s keep our head on straight and look to maintain the integrity of the process, understanding that it will necessarily be contested (this contested integrity is the heart of court systems).
Report comment to moderator
If all we see is a partisanship at play, we place ourselves in the position of admitting that given the chance we would in fact game the system.
That may be true in the abstract. However, we’re talking about a known liar, Al Franken.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, 19 -
No, the statements are blatantly contradictory. These means any or all of them.
They want it both ways. They want to be quoted as saying that they are not trying to count them, but they are definitely trying to count them.
Report comment to moderator
However, we’re talking about a known liar, Al Franken.
I’m too much of a Calvinist here. I don’t think it true in the abstract, I think that if left to our devices we would all be tempted to cheat — on both sides (fwiw, there was a fringe on our side who were exceedingly upset at ballotting — “cheating”– in OH in ‘04). Again, while the Franken campaign wants the recount, the recount itself is not triggered by a campaign, but by the margin of the vote. I see it like the replay in football.
Report comment to moderator
Frankly, if there were that many folks in MN that would vote for Franken, I think they deserve him…. The opposition should have showed up in Avalanche Proportions and shut his campaign down.
Report comment to moderator
I thought the whole issue was the lack of consistant democratic increases in votes? Why would someone vote for Franken and McCain? Granted theres one or two weirdos, but 500? Thats what smells.
Report comment to moderator
Minnesota, the new Florida.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!