TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10673
38 Comments
memomachine wrote:
Hmmm.
An actual conservative Republican President would point the DOJ and federal prosecutors at this.
But since we have a -compassionate conservative- President he won't do anything.
...
Goddamn. What I wouldn't give for Republican politicians that will actually fight. Frankly I'd trade the whole damn GOP party for Ted Kennedy, and he's practically on his deathbed.
But at least he'd fight to the bitter end.
Leland wrote:
I was informed this was not the case for just our precinct, but for all of Hennepin County. I can tell you I did not transmit the info and the head judge left with the card, the ballots, and the official tape in her car on the way to City Hall all by herself (I trust her, but others may not be so trusting).
This doesn't pass the smell test either way. If true, the head judge should be investigated for allowing themselves the be solely responsible for handling the tape until it reached the county transmit location. If the person is lying, then that too ought to be investigated. I'm not an election judge, but no way would I be "so trusting" of anyone who wanted to carry election ballots, by themselves, in their own car, any freaking where.
Raoul Ortega wrote:
Nothing new here. The Dems are just following the playbook they perfected in the Upper Left Washington governor's race in '004. All "accounting errors" favor one candidate, keep "finding" ballots that haven't been "counted" before, then stop once you've dragged your candidate over the finish line.
No, all we're seeing here is the same thing we saw in Florida in 2000, which is that our electoral process is not very good when the margin between winners and loosers is very close. All these "massive" vote swings are 100 votes or so.
Bill Maron wrote:
Who said "massive" Chris? I read the story and never saw that. Mountain Iron has 3000 people so 100 votes would be a big deal.
Tom wrote:
Don't worry. There isn't any hanging chads like in Florida and unlike what happened in Florida, Minnesota will be sure all legitimate votes are counted. An explanation was already provided for the late arriving votes. Of course the first thing Republicans want to throw up is a bunch of mud instead of letting the verification and recount process work as intended. Sorry but you are just going to have to wait a few weeks. And no, it is not stealing the election if, on recount, Al turns out to be the winner. That is why there are recounts which look at all ballots since machines aren't perfect.
Norm is certainly nervous but if he was behind, he would be complaining the opposite way. I'd be nervous too given the number of undervotes and misreads in democratic leaning areas.
Bill Maron wrote:
Well Tom, the first thing Democrats do is engage in voter fraud. See how easy it is to make accusations without a source? Are you Jim Harris' brother?
Michael Lonie wrote:
Democrats like Tom have never forgiven the GOP for not sitting around and allowing them to steal the Florida election in 2000 without protesting and doing something about it. After the election the New York Times went in and did many recounts of the votes, and always got a Bush win. So they buried the story. The Dems tried to steal it and got caught, and the USSC prevented them from succeeding.
The Democrats gave up on democracy long ago. Now they have the courts order their legislative choices by judicial fiat, stael elections, shred the campaign finance laws as Obama did in this campaign, and make sure no negaive information reaches the voters by having the media in their pockets. Now in office again they'll close down what little media not under their control still remains by a misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" and threats to sic the DOJ, FBI, and IRS on radio or television broadcasters, as the Obama campaign did during the election campaign.
Leland wrote:
No, all we're seeing here is the same thing we saw in Florida in 2000, which is that our electoral process is not very good when the margin between winners and loosers is very close. All these "massive" vote swings are 100 votes or so.
Michael, Between the bogus voter purges and the biased butterfly ballot design, the Florida election was already stolen by the Republicans in 2000.
Regarding what happened afterwards, I'll take the study done by NORC which showed that if there had been a Florida wide recount, Gore would have won.
And I think you'll find that the lies and bigotry spewed out by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will continue for a long time.
Rand Simberg wrote:
Between the bogus voter purges and the biased butterfly ballot design
You mean the butterfly ballot design that was designed by Democrats?
Boy, is that Karl Rove a devious genius.
II wrote:
And I think you'll find that the lies and bigotry spewed out by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will continue for a long time.
Good! The longer they do this and the viler their spew, the smaller, nastier, older-whiter the GOP becomes. Especially when their recommendations are of such sterling caliber as Sarah ImPalin!
Heh!
There is a better Sarah. Sarah Silverman - 2016!
Mike Puckett wrote:
Sounds like II is opposing the so-called fairness doctrine!
He may not burn in the hottest part of hell yet!
Mike Puckett wrote:
Why do these recounts always end up with the democrat gaining?
Statistically, its simply not possible.
What it is is irrefutable, incontrovertable mathematical proof of the existance of democrat voter fraud.
Sometimes I think Bush should have sent in tanks to bring democracy to Chicago, just like he did in Iraq. Although Hyde Park would have put up a nastier resistance than Anbar Province did.
I bet I can guess who would have been manufacturing the IEDs...
Leland - did I do some personal wrong to you? If so, please clue me in. If not, please re-evaluate your statement and decide if it's an example of rational discourse or spittle-flinging invective.
Regarding Iron Mountain - my understanding from the media reports is that the error occurred when somebody was manually transfering data from one system to another, AKA "a typo."
This is why we have recounts, folks.
Bob wrote:
Mike Puckett, I don't know that recounts do always end up with the Democrat gaining, but suppose they always do. It wouldn't "prove" what you think it proves.
Here's an alternative possibility: Suppose recounts unveil votes where the voter intent was obvious, but the voter was too stupid to indicate his vote clearly enough for a machine to pick it up. If a majority of such recounted votes are for the democrat, you can feel pleased for two reasons: You can be happy that democrats are revealed to be consistently bumbling idiots who are far more likely to fail to mark their ballots clearly (from the point of view of a machine), and you can feel pleased that that no voter fraud is actually occurring, even if there is a bias toward the democrats.
And this alternative possibility isn't wildly imaginative: I read that there are roughly 9,000 ballots (IIRC)in Minn. where the voter voted for a Senator, but not a president. Since it is unlikely that so many people would sit out such an exciting presidential race but still would care about the senatorial race, the ballots are getting examined by hand.
Since I'm writing to you, Mike, I'll just add that I'm disappointed by your lack of follow-up on the whitey tape. Did you ask your source what happened? I thought of a graceful retreat you could use: you could say that McCain requested that the tape not be released. But that's just my imagination - I'd rather hear the truth from you.
memomachine wrote:
Hmmmm.
@ Tom
"Don't worry. There isn't any hanging chads like in Florida and unlike what happened in Florida, Minnesota will be sure all legitimate votes are counted. An explanation was already provided for the late arriving votes. Of course the first thing Republicans want to throw up is a bunch of mud instead of letting the verification and recount process work as intended."
Well since you seem to be on the ball here you can go right ahead and explain why the voting count receipt for Mountain Iron is dated November -2-.
memomachine wrote:
Hmmmm.
IMO before we continue this discussion perhaps a few people should actually read the article linked to in the original post.
Bob wrote:
Memo, if you're referring to me, this article backs up what I said about Minn: http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/34116044.html (it loaded funny on firefox, but I hit "ok" a few times, and the text became visible.)
I just want to just follow-up by noting that study after study has shown that Republicans are more likely to be tidy than Democrats. This could extend into the voting booth for voting systems which allow handwriting. The powerline article makes it sound like this doesn't apply to Minnesota, but the star tribune implies otherwise.
The paper ballots at my polling place required you to draw a line between two posts. I have terrible felt-tip marker "skills", and at least once, I managed to goof up this simple task such that I briefly considered asking for a new ballot. I let it go because I knew my intent would be clear if the ballot needed to be examined. Still, I prefer the paper ballots to the touch screens that were also on offer, because the former leaves a paper trail that isn't generated by a machine. I really liked the old punch system, but chads have made them a thing of the past.
Leland wrote:
Gerrib, simply providing context to what you wrote. Others were wondering. If you don't like the context, perhaps you shouldn't have written the original comments.
memomachine wrote:
Hmmmm.
@ Bob
"The checks throughout the day, by multiple judges, guaranteed the transparency of the issue. Furthermore, voter "intent" as an issue is utter nonsense. If the machine could note discern "intent" the ballot was REJECTED! The voter was then given the opportunity to revote with a replacement ballot so "intent" would manifest, or the voter could state that it wasn't that vital, and the machine would read those races where intent was clear.
While I was there we had half a dozen rejected ballots. One lady was obviously casting her first vote in her life and had hers rejected two times before she correctly filled out a replacement ballot.
The point is there simply can't be any "ballots" to "find." If what is happening in Mountain Iron (and apparently elsewhere) is allowed to stand it will show that Minnesota is as corrupt as Chicago, Albuquerque and Boston."
Like I pointed out before. I you actually had READ the article then you'd have seen this.
memomachine wrote:
Hmmmm.
WTF? The italics ended after the first paragraph.
"Like I pointed out before. I you actually had READ the article then you'd have seen this."
This is my addition, the rest came from the article.
Leland - well, sir, you may not like the facts regarding Ayers. I am afraid that does not make them any less factual.
For the record, I did not call Todd Palin a radical sleeper agent. I said he appeared to be affiliated with a party that advocates sucession from the Union, and I would like to hear his views on the subject.
I served my country (noted on my website) and took an oath to defend the Constitution. I consider myself a patriot, and I don't like your implication that I would support stealing an election.
Bob wrote:
Memo, We are going in circles. I read both the Powerline article and the Star Tribune article. They contradict each other. One way to reconcile the two articles is to consider whether Minnesota uses different voting methods at different polling places, as many states do. Another way to reconcile the two articles would involve an explanation of the engineering details of the machines, which we're not privy to. Moreover, I was primarily addressing Mike Puckett's more general point, which was not state-specific.
Bob wrote:
Memo, maybe this detail helps:
From an AP article:
Minnesota ballots are fed into optical scanners, which depend on voters filling in ovals to make their choice.
Kim Brace, president of the consulting firm Election Data Services Inc., said there's no reason a ballot without a vote for a particular race would be rejected.
"Usually they're set to kick back to the voter if there is an overvote," said Brace, who has been an expert witness in court cases stemming from disputed elections. "But in most instances they're not set to kick back to the voter if there is an undervote. After all, the public has a right to not vote for somebody for a particular office."
Recount teams will look for whether stray or light marks on ballots signaled a voter's preference.
Mike G in Corvallis wrote:
And this alternative possibility isn't wildly imaginative: I read that there are roughly 9,000 ballots (IIRC) in Minn. where the voter voted for a Senator, but not a president. Since it is unlikely that so many people would sit out such an exciting presidential race but still would care about the senatorial race, the ballots are getting examined by hand.
Why is this so unlikely? The presidential race may have been "exciting," but I personally know one man who claims he couldn't bring himself to vote for any of the presidential candidates of the major or minor parties. (And had I not felt so strongly about the need to register my opposition to one of the candidates, I might have chosen that course this time as well.)
Consider: Nearly three million people went to the polls in Minnesota, so 9,000 presidential "undervotes" represent about three-tenths of one percent of the ballots.
Suppose recounts unveil votes where the voter intent was obvious, but the voter was too stupid to indicate his vote clearly enough for a machine to pick it up. If a majority of such recounted votes are for the democrat, you can feel pleased for two reasons: You can be happy that democrats are revealed to be consistently bumbling idiots who are far more likely to fail to mark their ballots clearly (from the point of view of a machine), and you can feel pleased that that no voter fraud is actually occurring, even if there is a bias toward the democrats.
These two alternatives do not exhaust the list of possibilities. If you're a dishonest Democrat, you might feel pleased that voter fraud actually is occurring as poll workers "discern" the supposed intent of voters who did not clearly indicate such intent, and you might be doubly pleased that there will always be people who will rationalize away voting fraud as unimportant.
Andy Freeman wrote:
> Since it is unlikely that so many people would sit out such an exciting presidential race but still would care about the senatorial race, the ballots are getting examined by hand.
9,000 out of 3m is 0.3%. How low does the percentage have to be to satisfy your definition of "unlikely"?
Bob wrote:
Mike G and Andy, you both make a good point about the numbers. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, it doesn't hurt to take a look at the ballots and see what is going on so that they can be counted accurately. Minnesota law calls for a recount in the case of a close election, so, fortunately, likelihood isn't the deciding factor here.
I still see no reason to be concerned about "discerning" the intent of the voter -- I haven't bothered to look up the particulars in the case of Minnesota, but I have faith that the people looking at the ballots are either bipartisan or have bipartisan supervision and that partisan bias isn't allowed to leak into the discernment.
Leland wrote:
Gerrib, now you are just being moronic.
I judge your bias based on your comments that Ayers is ok and Palin is a seccessionist. It tells me quite a bit about you.
What that implies is that you have no problem overlooking a person actually committing violent acts to overthrow the government, so long as they hold social values you agree with. But if a person's social values differs from you, then they are potentially violent radicals for once attending a meeting of people whose ideas also differ from yours.
With that in mind, I'm not surprised you would write this: No, all we're seeing here is the same thing we saw in Florida in 2000, which is that our electoral process is not very good when the margin between winners and loosers is very close. All these "massive" vote swings are 100 votes or so.
Massive wasn't in the article. There were other issues beyond just Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain was just a visible issue that was being covered by the press, and just one aspect of the article Rand linked. You were in short assuming the rest of us were talking about what we might have heard, rather than actually discussing what Rand provided as a topic of discussion on his blog.
Speaking of blogs, if we wanted to just randomly speculate on the days events in a fashion you'd agree to, then we would just go to your blog. But we don't, and perhaps there is a lesson for you to learn.
Leland - actually I have quite a bit of a problem with anybody, of any ideology, trying to violently overthrow the US Government. I'll be more clear - violence committed to attempt to overthrow the US government or even influence an election is wrong.
What that has to do with ballot issues in an election that, at last recall, had a vote spread of under 300 votes I have no idea.
I'm also confused about the rules here. My understanding of the general conduct of discussions is that if somebody starts a topic, such as "Minnesota elections" using an article as an example, others are not bound to rely solely on the article cited as a source of information.
My original suggestion, which still stands, is that perhaps before folks sling wild accusations they might want to wait at least until the official results are in.
Leland wrote:
perhaps before folks sling wild accusations they might want to wait at least until the official results are in.
Physician, heal thyself.
II wrote:
Leland,
Don't be moronic. Chris certainly did not deserve your nasty bile. I on the other hand often might. Need to call a spade a spade, you know.
We now know that Urban Dictionary is indeed not a dictionary but a Fark-like website. (Or maybe it's a little of both.) When proper names inspire the emergence of new words (e.g. bork, fisk, lynch), they do it only once - not twenty times.
memomachine wrote:
Hmmmmm.
"Recount teams will look for whether stray or light marks on ballots signaled a voter's preference."
For Democrats only of course.
As for relying on the Urban Dictionary for -anything- ... really. Just wear your underwear on your head instead. You'll look more intelligent to complete strangers.
Bob wrote:
> For Democrats only of course
That's so depressing. You have no basis for saying that. Look up who is on the recount teams and how they work before you undermine American democracy like that.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on November 8, 2008 1:07 PM.
Hmmm.
An actual conservative Republican President would point the DOJ and federal prosecutors at this.
But since we have a -compassionate conservative- President he won't do anything.
...
Goddamn. What I wouldn't give for Republican politicians that will actually fight. Frankly I'd trade the whole damn GOP party for Ted Kennedy, and he's practically on his deathbed.
But at least he'd fight to the bitter end.
I was informed this was not the case for just our precinct, but for all of Hennepin County. I can tell you I did not transmit the info and the head judge left with the card, the ballots, and the official tape in her car on the way to City Hall all by herself (I trust her, but others may not be so trusting).
This doesn't pass the smell test either way. If true, the head judge should be investigated for allowing themselves the be solely responsible for handling the tape until it reached the county transmit location. If the person is lying, then that too ought to be investigated. I'm not an election judge, but no way would I be "so trusting" of anyone who wanted to carry election ballots, by themselves, in their own car, any freaking where.
Nothing new here. The Dems are just following the playbook they perfected in the Upper Left Washington governor's race in '004. All "accounting errors" favor one candidate, keep "finding" ballots that haven't been "counted" before, then stop once you've dragged your candidate over the finish line.
No, all we're seeing here is the same thing we saw in Florida in 2000, which is that our electoral process is not very good when the margin between winners and loosers is very close. All these "massive" vote swings are 100 votes or so.
Who said "massive" Chris? I read the story and never saw that. Mountain Iron has 3000 people so 100 votes would be a big deal.
Don't worry. There isn't any hanging chads like in Florida and unlike what happened in Florida, Minnesota will be sure all legitimate votes are counted. An explanation was already provided for the late arriving votes. Of course the first thing Republicans want to throw up is a bunch of mud instead of letting the verification and recount process work as intended. Sorry but you are just going to have to wait a few weeks. And no, it is not stealing the election if, on recount, Al turns out to be the winner. That is why there are recounts which look at all ballots since machines aren't perfect.
Norm is certainly nervous but if he was behind, he would be complaining the opposite way. I'd be nervous too given the number of undervotes and misreads in democratic leaning areas.
Well Tom, the first thing Democrats do is engage in voter fraud. See how easy it is to make accusations without a source? Are you Jim Harris' brother?
Democrats like Tom have never forgiven the GOP for not sitting around and allowing them to steal the Florida election in 2000 without protesting and doing something about it. After the election the New York Times went in and did many recounts of the votes, and always got a Bush win. So they buried the story. The Dems tried to steal it and got caught, and the USSC prevented them from succeeding.
The Democrats gave up on democracy long ago. Now they have the courts order their legislative choices by judicial fiat, stael elections, shred the campaign finance laws as Obama did in this campaign, and make sure no negaive information reaches the voters by having the media in their pockets. Now in office again they'll close down what little media not under their control still remains by a misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" and threats to sic the DOJ, FBI, and IRS on radio or television broadcasters, as the Obama campaign did during the election campaign.
No, all we're seeing here is the same thing we saw in Florida in 2000, which is that our electoral process is not very good when the margin between winners and loosers is very close. All these "massive" vote swings are 100 votes or so.
This said by a fiction writer from Chicago who thinks Ayers is just working as a "distinguished professor" at U of Chicago, "palling around" with respectable folks, and Todd Palin is a radical sleeper agent.
Michael, Between the bogus voter purges and the biased butterfly ballot design, the Florida election was already stolen by the Republicans in 2000.
Regarding what happened afterwards, I'll take the study done by NORC which showed that if there had been a Florida wide recount, Gore would have won.
And I think you'll find that the lies and bigotry spewed out by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will continue for a long time.
Between the bogus voter purges and the biased butterfly ballot design
You mean the butterfly ballot design that was designed by Democrats?
Boy, is that Karl Rove a devious genius.
And I think you'll find that the lies and bigotry spewed out by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will continue for a long time.
Good! The longer they do this and the viler their spew, the smaller, nastier, older-whiter the GOP becomes. Especially when their recommendations are of such sterling caliber as Sarah ImPalin!
Heh!
There is a better Sarah. Sarah Silverman - 2016!
Sounds like II is opposing the so-called fairness doctrine!
He may not burn in the hottest part of hell yet!
Why do these recounts always end up with the democrat gaining?
Statistically, its simply not possible.
What it is is irrefutable, incontrovertable mathematical proof of the existance of democrat voter fraud.
We are all Chicagoans now.
Sometimes I think Bush should have sent in tanks to bring democracy to Chicago, just like he did in Iraq. Although Hyde Park would have put up a nastier resistance than Anbar Province did.
I bet I can guess who would have been manufacturing the IEDs...
Leland - did I do some personal wrong to you? If so, please clue me in. If not, please re-evaluate your statement and decide if it's an example of rational discourse or spittle-flinging invective.
Regarding Iron Mountain - my understanding from the media reports is that the error occurred when somebody was manually transfering data from one system to another, AKA "a typo."
This is why we have recounts, folks.
Mike Puckett, I don't know that recounts do always end up with the Democrat gaining, but suppose they always do. It wouldn't "prove" what you think it proves.
Here's an alternative possibility: Suppose recounts unveil votes where the voter intent was obvious, but the voter was too stupid to indicate his vote clearly enough for a machine to pick it up. If a majority of such recounted votes are for the democrat, you can feel pleased for two reasons: You can be happy that democrats are revealed to be consistently bumbling idiots who are far more likely to fail to mark their ballots clearly (from the point of view of a machine), and you can feel pleased that that no voter fraud is actually occurring, even if there is a bias toward the democrats.
And this alternative possibility isn't wildly imaginative: I read that there are roughly 9,000 ballots (IIRC)in Minn. where the voter voted for a Senator, but not a president. Since it is unlikely that so many people would sit out such an exciting presidential race but still would care about the senatorial race, the ballots are getting examined by hand.
Since I'm writing to you, Mike, I'll just add that I'm disappointed by your lack of follow-up on the whitey tape. Did you ask your source what happened? I thought of a graceful retreat you could use: you could say that McCain requested that the tape not be released. But that's just my imagination - I'd rather hear the truth from you.
Hmmmm.
@ Tom
"Don't worry. There isn't any hanging chads like in Florida and unlike what happened in Florida, Minnesota will be sure all legitimate votes are counted. An explanation was already provided for the late arriving votes. Of course the first thing Republicans want to throw up is a bunch of mud instead of letting the verification and recount process work as intended."
Well since you seem to be on the ball here you can go right ahead and explain why the voting count receipt for Mountain Iron is dated November -2-.
Hmmmm.
IMO before we continue this discussion perhaps a few people should actually read the article linked to in the original post.
Memo, if you're referring to me, this article backs up what I said about Minn:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/34116044.html (it loaded funny on firefox, but I hit "ok" a few times, and the text became visible.)
I just want to just follow-up by noting that study after study has shown that Republicans are more likely to be tidy than Democrats. This could extend into the voting booth for voting systems which allow handwriting. The powerline article makes it sound like this doesn't apply to Minnesota, but the star tribune implies otherwise.
The paper ballots at my polling place required you to draw a line between two posts. I have terrible felt-tip marker "skills", and at least once, I managed to goof up this simple task such that I briefly considered asking for a new ballot. I let it go because I knew my intent would be clear if the ballot needed to be examined. Still, I prefer the paper ballots to the touch screens that were also on offer, because the former leaves a paper trail that isn't generated by a machine. I really liked the old punch system, but chads have made them a thing of the past.
Gerrib, simply providing context to what you wrote. Others were wondering. If you don't like the context, perhaps you shouldn't have written the original comments.
Hmmmm.
@ Bob
"The checks throughout the day, by multiple judges, guaranteed the transparency of the issue. Furthermore, voter "intent" as an issue is utter nonsense. If the machine could note discern "intent" the ballot was REJECTED! The voter was then given the opportunity to revote with a replacement ballot so "intent" would manifest, or the voter could state that it wasn't that vital, and the machine would read those races where intent was clear.
While I was there we had half a dozen rejected ballots. One lady was obviously casting her first vote in her life and had hers rejected two times before she correctly filled out a replacement ballot.
The point is there simply can't be any "ballots" to "find." If what is happening in Mountain Iron (and apparently elsewhere) is allowed to stand it will show that Minnesota is as corrupt as Chicago, Albuquerque and Boston."
Like I pointed out before. I you actually had READ the article then you'd have seen this.
Hmmmm.
WTF? The italics ended after the first paragraph.
"Like I pointed out before. I you actually had READ the article then you'd have seen this."
This is my addition, the rest came from the article.
Strange.
Leland - well, sir, you may not like the facts regarding Ayers. I am afraid that does not make them any less factual.
For the record, I did not call Todd Palin a radical sleeper agent. I said he appeared to be affiliated with a party that advocates sucession from the Union, and I would like to hear his views on the subject.
I served my country (noted on my website) and took an oath to defend the Constitution. I consider myself a patriot, and I don't like your implication that I would support stealing an election.
Memo, We are going in circles. I read both the Powerline article and the Star Tribune article. They contradict each other. One way to reconcile the two articles is to consider whether Minnesota uses different voting methods at different polling places, as many states do. Another way to reconcile the two articles would involve an explanation of the engineering details of the machines, which we're not privy to. Moreover, I was primarily addressing Mike Puckett's more general point, which was not state-specific.
Memo, maybe this detail helps:
From an AP article:
Minnesota ballots are fed into optical scanners, which depend on voters filling in ovals to make their choice.
Kim Brace, president of the consulting firm Election Data Services Inc., said there's no reason a ballot without a vote for a particular race would be rejected.
"Usually they're set to kick back to the voter if there is an overvote," said Brace, who has been an expert witness in court cases stemming from disputed elections. "But in most instances they're not set to kick back to the voter if there is an undervote. After all, the public has a right to not vote for somebody for a particular office."
Recount teams will look for whether stray or light marks on ballots signaled a voter's preference.
And this alternative possibility isn't wildly imaginative: I read that there are roughly 9,000 ballots (IIRC) in Minn. where the voter voted for a Senator, but not a president. Since it is unlikely that so many people would sit out such an exciting presidential race but still would care about the senatorial race, the ballots are getting examined by hand.
Why is this so unlikely? The presidential race may have been "exciting," but I personally know one man who claims he couldn't bring himself to vote for any of the presidential candidates of the major or minor parties. (And had I not felt so strongly about the need to register my opposition to one of the candidates, I might have chosen that course this time as well.)
Consider: Nearly three million people went to the polls in Minnesota, so 9,000 presidential "undervotes" represent about three-tenths of one percent of the ballots.
Suppose recounts unveil votes where the voter intent was obvious, but the voter was too stupid to indicate his vote clearly enough for a machine to pick it up. If a majority of such recounted votes are for the democrat, you can feel pleased for two reasons: You can be happy that democrats are revealed to be consistently bumbling idiots who are far more likely to fail to mark their ballots clearly (from the point of view of a machine), and you can feel pleased that that no voter fraud is actually occurring, even if there is a bias toward the democrats.
These two alternatives do not exhaust the list of possibilities. If you're a dishonest Democrat, you might feel pleased that voter fraud actually is occurring as poll workers "discern" the supposed intent of voters who did not clearly indicate such intent, and you might be doubly pleased that there will always be people who will rationalize away voting fraud as unimportant.
> Since it is unlikely that so many people would sit out such an exciting presidential race but still would care about the senatorial race, the ballots are getting examined by hand.
9,000 out of 3m is 0.3%. How low does the percentage have to be to satisfy your definition of "unlikely"?
Mike G and Andy, you both make a good point about the numbers. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, it doesn't hurt to take a look at the ballots and see what is going on so that they can be counted accurately. Minnesota law calls for a recount in the case of a close election, so, fortunately, likelihood isn't the deciding factor here.
I still see no reason to be concerned about "discerning" the intent of the voter -- I haven't bothered to look up the particulars in the case of Minnesota, but I have faith that the people looking at the ballots are either bipartisan or have bipartisan supervision and that partisan bias isn't allowed to leak into the discernment.
Gerrib, now you are just being moronic.
I judge your bias based on your comments that Ayers is ok and Palin is a seccessionist. It tells me quite a bit about you.
What that implies is that you have no problem overlooking a person actually committing violent acts to overthrow the government, so long as they hold social values you agree with. But if a person's social values differs from you, then they are potentially violent radicals for once attending a meeting of people whose ideas also differ from yours.
With that in mind, I'm not surprised you would write this:
No, all we're seeing here is the same thing we saw in Florida in 2000, which is that our electoral process is not very good when the margin between winners and loosers is very close. All these "massive" vote swings are 100 votes or so.
Massive wasn't in the article. There were other issues beyond just Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain was just a visible issue that was being covered by the press, and just one aspect of the article Rand linked. You were in short assuming the rest of us were talking about what we might have heard, rather than actually discussing what Rand provided as a topic of discussion on his blog.
Speaking of blogs, if we wanted to just randomly speculate on the days events in a fashion you'd agree to, then we would just go to your blog. But we don't, and perhaps there is a lesson for you to learn.
Leland - actually I have quite a bit of a problem with anybody, of any ideology, trying to violently overthrow the US Government. I'll be more clear - violence committed to attempt to overthrow the US government or even influence an election is wrong.
What that has to do with ballot issues in an election that, at last recall, had a vote spread of under 300 votes I have no idea.
I'm also confused about the rules here. My understanding of the general conduct of discussions is that if somebody starts a topic, such as "Minnesota elections" using an article as an example, others are not bound to rely solely on the article cited as a source of information.
My original suggestion, which still stands, is that perhaps before folks sling wild accusations they might want to wait at least until the official results are in.
perhaps before folks sling wild accusations they might want to wait at least until the official results are in.
Physician, heal thyself.
Leland,
Don't be moronic. Chris certainly did not deserve your nasty bile. I on the other hand often might. Need to call a spade a spade, you know.
For a change of pace, check this out and chill:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=palin
That's who Rand wanted as first female President.
Heh-Heh. What will he predict next?
What will he predict next?
I fearlessly predict that you will continue to make a cowardly anonymous trolling asshat of yourself on my site, unless I ban you.
We now know that Urban Dictionary is indeed not a dictionary but a Fark-like website. (Or maybe it's a little of both.) When proper names inspire the emergence of new words (e.g. bork, fisk, lynch), they do it only once - not twenty times.
Hmmmmm.
"Recount teams will look for whether stray or light marks on ballots signaled a voter's preference."
For Democrats only of course.
As for relying on the Urban Dictionary for -anything- ... really. Just wear your underwear on your head instead. You'll look more intelligent to complete strangers.
> For Democrats only of course
That's so depressing. You have no basis for saying that. Look up who is on the recount teams and how they work before you undermine American democracy like that.