Franken vs. Coleman

[NeonBlack]

Does anyone remember the day after election day when Franken was down a few hundred votes and Coleman said that if he were in Franken's position, he would concede the election? Now he's losing and suing.

From today's Star:

Franken's increased lead prompted New York Sen. Charles Schumer to declare Sunday that Franken had won. But Knaak [one of Coleman's laywers] dismissed the comment as an attempt by Democrats to pressure Republicans and Coleman to give up.

The irony is great.

[SH3RL0CK]

I don't have a horse in this race either way, but for Franken to pick up this many votes on the "recount" could it be that voter fraud is happening?

[Pangloss]

Oh no of course not. Voter fraud only happens when Republicans are winning.

[ecoli]

Oh no of course not. Voter fraud only happens when Republicans are winning.

 

pshh... Pangloss, that's not voter fraud, that's voter 'disenfranchisement.' How dare you keep the dead and illegal immigrants from voting... it's unamerican.

[iNow]

I'd suggest that any fraud was well weeded out by the LENGTHY recount process, as well as the state supreme court in certifying it.

[Sisyphus]

Voter fraud is always a possibility, and some degree of deliberate disenfranchisement is pretty much inevitable in large elections. And in extremely close elections like this one it actually can make a difference. The changing totals are not evidence of that, however. The wikipedia entry on the recount explains the process in detail, and its clear that everything is at least out in the open and available for challenge. In that respect it's at least much better run than the cluster**** in Florida in 2000.

 

I'm not shilling for Franken, btw. I find the idea of Senator Franken kind of hilarious, but not especially good for the country.

[bascule]

I don't have a horse in this race either way, but for Franken to pick up this many votes on the "recount" could it be that voter fraud is happening?

 

Given the margins involved here (less than one tenth of one percent of the total votes cast) I think the degree of error we're seeing here is normal.

 

Oh no of course not. Voter fraud only happens when Republicans are winning.

 

Some nice partisan flamebaiting by our fair moderator...

 

pshh... Pangloss, that's not voter fraud, that's voter 'disenfranchisement.' How dare you keep the dead and illegal immigrants from voting... it's unamerican.

 

*facepalm*

[ecoli]

 

*facepalm*

[Pangloss]

Please please, no applause from the peanut gallery.

[iNow]

Some nice partisan flamebaiting by our fair moderator...

 

<...>

 

*facepalm*

 

I had the SAME reaction when I read that, and I respect that you, I, nor anyone else took said bait and just ignored it. Perhaps applause really is in order.

[padren]

I don't have a horse in this race either way, but for Franken to pick up this many votes on the "recount" could it be that voter fraud is happening?

 

It's the "Stoner Effect" in action:

 

Voting machines are notorious for failing to correctly tally the "High Vote" and as such, in a physical recount the candidate with the highest "Stoner Bias Index" tends to pick up a slight advantage¹.

 

This this race, the SBI was heavily in Franken's favor, so the trend does not actually indicate fraud.

 

 

1. It's only a slight advantage, as many in this demographic who thought they were voting were actually still sitting on their couches at home.

[Pangloss]

I had the SAME reaction when I read that, and I respect that you, I, nor anyone else took said bait and just ignored it. Perhaps applause really is in order.

 

Apparently I'm not allowed to express my opinion. It was clearly not aimed at anyone here, so who are the real flamebaiters? Rofl.

[SH3RL0CK]

Given the margins involved here (less than one tenth of one percent of the total votes cast) I think the degree of error we're seeing here is normal.

 

Maybe so and maybe not, but I really don't have the expertise to know for certain. Again, to be clear, I do not have a preference in this race but I am very much in favor of clean elections as I beleive the consequences of voter fraud could be far more severe than other people might think. (As an extreme example, we could speculate on whether or not Nixon aides would have ordered the Watergate burglary had they believed his 1960 election not been stolen for Kennedy?)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_presidential_election#Controversies

 

Many Republicans (including Nixon and Eisenhower) believed that Kennedy had benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, of which Lyndon Johnson was Senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley's powerful Chicago political machine.[15] These two states are important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have won the election in the electoral college. Republican Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater also believed that vote fraud played a role in the election,[1] and they believed that Nixon actually won the national popular vote. Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both these states at the time—as well as in nine other states. David Greenberg wrote in Slate, "The thought that Nixon was cheated out of presidency in 1960 has almost become an accepted fact."[18] Some journalists also later claimed that mobster Sam Giancana and his Chicago crime syndicate played a role in Kennedy’s victory in Illinois.[18]

 

 

Franken has picked up far more votes in absentee ballots, etc. than Coleman. Since the overall vote is roughly 50-50, why is it that these ballots are overwhelmingly for Franken (I would have expected a roughly 50-50 mix here as well)? Can anyone explain what it is about Franken voters such that only they incorrectly submit these (or conversely, why only these have been originally rejected)?

 

It smells very fishy to me.

[npts2020]

Maybe so and maybe not, but I really don't have the expertise to know for certain. Again, to be clear, I do not have a preference in this race but I am very much in favor of clean elections as I beleive the consequences of voter fraud could be far more severe than other people might think. (As an extreme example, we could speculate on whether or not Nixon aides would have ordered the Watergate burglary had they believed his 1960 election not been stolen for Kennedy?)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_presidential_election#Controversies

 

 

 

Franken has picked up far more votes in absentee ballots, etc. than Coleman. Since the overall vote is roughly 50-50, why is it that these ballots are overwhelmingly for Franken (I would have expected a roughly 50-50 mix here as well)? Can anyone explain what it is about Franken voters such that only they incorrectly submit these (or conversely, why only these have been originally rejected)?

 

It smells very fishy to me.

 

I thought it was because more ballots for Franken were challenged than for Coleman? Am I wrong about this?

[iNow]

I thought it was because more ballots for Franken were challenged than for Coleman? Am I wrong about this?

 

No, this aligns with everything I've read. Also, to the heart of Sh3rlock's question, at best we can speculate. Maybe it's because people who are absent, but support Coleman are too busy molesting cattle in Wisconsin to fill out and submit their ballot. Or, maybe people who are absent, but support Coleman don't know how to use a stamp so couldn't mail them. Or, maybe people who support Franken, but are absent are overwhelmingly executive assistants in California who have access to free envelopes which increased both their motivation and ability to participate in the voting process. Or, maybe absent voters just tended to prefer Franken for one reason or another... ad infinitum.

 

First, Sh3rlock, your information is limited to what gets reported to you.

Second, you're likely to interpret it through your perceptual filters, so perhaps (like all of us) will have unintentionally introduced bias.

Third, more ballots for Franken were challenged, which is why we see more absentee ballots in his favor through those news stories (there's a selection bias in your personal sample).

Fourth, I was running out of creative energy on my maybe comments above, so am leaving now to grab a cup of coffee.

[Riogho]

More democrats voted early, remember during the presidential campaign that like 25% of democrats voted early, while only like half of that in republicans did.

[SH3RL0CK]

Riogho, it is more complicated than you make it out to be. Here are some of the things that are bothering me.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html

 

The title echos one of my concerns:

Funny Business in Minnesota

In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken.

 

And further into the article:

 

it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

 

In other cases, the board has been flagrantly inconsistent. Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes.

 

Meanwhile, a Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct. This gave Mr. Franken a net gain of 37 votes, which means he's benefited both ways from the board's inconsistency.

 

And then there are the absentee ballots. The Franken campaign initially howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. Many Franken-leaning counties did so, submitting 1,350 ballots to include in the results. But many Coleman-leaning counties have yet to complete a re-examination. Despite this lack of uniformity, and though the state Supreme Court has yet to rule on a Coleman request to standardize this absentee review, Mr. Ritchie's office nonetheless plowed through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees this weekend, padding Mr. Franken's edge by a further 176 votes.

 

 

Given the above, and granting this is an op-ed peice which does have a particular political slant, I almost have to conclude that either Coleman's handlers "fixed" the election beforehand and Frankens lawyers are now cleaning it up. Or, Coleman won and now Frankens handlers are "fixing" the election. Which of these do you think is more likely? And either answer bothers me greatly.

[Pangloss]

I think just because the overall balance was virtually 50-50, that doesn't mean that each categorical subset will be 50-50.

 

But I also think it's reasonable to ask questions. It was reasonable when Democrats asked questions in 2000, and it's reasonable for Republicans to ask the same questions now. Drawing conclusions, of course, is another matter, but I don't care if it's the "stoner effect" or they're all "molesting cattle" (wow, nice bit of flame baiting there... oh yeah, that wasn't aimed at anyone here, so it's not) instead of voting.

 

All I care about is that the vote is fair.

[john5746]

Given the above, and granting this is an op-ed peice which does have a particular political slant, I almost have to conclude that either Coleman's handlers "fixed" the election beforehand and Frankens lawyers are now cleaning it up. Or, Coleman won and now Frankens handlers are "fixing" the election. Which of these do you think is more likely? And either answer bothers me greatly.

 

I think this election is probably no different than others, just so close that the crap that is normally covered is seen. I would think there is more of a chance of rigging and bias in the recount, but more of a chance for plain error in the original election. But, just my opinion.

[iNow]

Apparently I'm not allowed to express my opinion. It was clearly not aimed at anyone here

 

Okay, I'll accept that. I must have misinterpreted your intent, and was probably overly sensitive to what I considered unecessary and unhelpful mocking. My bad.

[Pangloss]

Interesting argument from a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. He says that the recount was unconstitutional, based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as applied to election law by the 2000 Supreme Court decision in Bush v Gore, which essentially said that because no equal standard was applied to the determination of ballots, none of the questionable ballots could be counted.

 

In other words, because there's no standard for what constitutes a vote and what does not, and that standard equally applied to all ballots, the election cannot count. It's an interesting argument. His conclusion is not that Coleman won, mind you, but that a new election is mandatory under both state and federal law.

 

By a vote of 7-2, Bush v. Gore (2000) ruled that Florida's recount violated the principle that all votes must be treated uniformly. Applying precedents dating to the 1960s, the Court found that the Equal Protection Clause meant that ballots must be treated so as to give every vote equal weight. A state may not, by "arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Florida's lack of standards produced "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respects." The state's supreme court "ratified this uneven treatment" and created more of its own, and was unconstitutional.

 

Consider the inconsistencies: One county "found" 100 new votes for Mr. Franken, due to an asserted clerical error. Decision? Add them. Ramsey County (St. Paul) ended up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted -- once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines' tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.

 

I'm not sure I entirely buy the argument (who says it's not a valid standard?), but it might be enough for Coleman to take it all the way to the Supreme Court with. That would be interesting, because I expect Franken will be seated the moment the state of Minnesota certifies the results. But if the Supreme Court ruled the election invalid, I'm not sure what would happen then.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Pangloss

[Sisyphus]

A good point, actually. Also, it does sound like there's shenanigans afoot, although there's such scrutiny being applied to every last questionable vote that it's hard to believe actual fraud could get through. It sounds more like they just don't know what they're doing, which I guess is basically what this guy is saying. Why is it so hard? We can put a man on the moon, etc., etc.