The canvassing board has started to consider the challenged ballots, ushering the Minnesota Senate recount in its decisive stage. We will have much more to discuss in the hours ahead, but for those of you who are very obsessive political junkies, here is a live feed of the easy-to-follow proceedings: Ballots are projected as they are discussed, allowing us to easily follow discussions.
Only ballots challenged by Franken will be considered today, so Norm Coleman will see his vote total increase considerably by tonight (and until Coleman challenges start being considered). For now, the canvassing board has upheld three Franken challenges, costing Coleman two votes that had been awarded to him in the initial count and awarding Franken a vote that had been considered an overvote in the initial count.
The most heated discussion that has gripped the canvassing board is whether a voter’s initials next to a crossed-out vote can be described as an identifying mark. The closest vote for now was a 3-2 vote to not attribute a ballot rather than award to Coleman because the mark straddled two ovals.
—
The board’s meeting intervenes as momentum appears to have swung towards Franken. Two extensive analyses of the challenged ballots - one published by the Star Tribune and one by the AP - estimate that Franken will gain more votes as challenged ballots are examined; both suggest that his gains could be large enough to erase Coleman’s lead.
These articles come just a few days after the canvassing board awarded Al Franken two crucial victories - allowing a Minneapolis precinct to use its original tally rather than its recounted one (saving 46 Franken votes) and recommending that counties count improperly rejected absentee ballots.
As the Star Tribune’s very useful chart shows, counties have identified hundreds of such absentee ballots already but a significant number of counties have chosen not to participate in the process or have not scheduled a time to do so - making it probable that the Franken campaign will drag them to court.
But it is the Coleman campaign that went to court first, as they rushed to the state Supreme Court shortly after the canvassing board’s recommendation to ask the Justices to block counties from processing this fifth pile of absentee ballots. Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hold a hearing on the issue (a victory for Coleman) but it declined to issue an emergency order barring counties from counting these absentee ballots (a victory for Franken).
In other words, the rejected absentee ballots have become the focal point of the recount dispute - more so than the challenged ballots that are being processed rather harmoniously by the canvassing board.
It is time to start to consider a “do over” election. The lawyers and courts
should not determine who wins….
Anon, that is very hard to envision: The US Senate would have to declare the seat vacant, and it wouldn’t do that unless the election deadlocks for many more months.
I’m worried about the transparency of this election too, but I don’t want a “do over” election…at this point.
From a partisan standpoint I hope Franken wins the election. If he does win, I’d hope that the electorate from Minnesota accepts the victory as a whole. The same thoughts apply if Coleman wins the election.
With all of this sloppiness, how could you tell if candidate X TRULY WON the election? Unless there’s a clear victory by someone, I continue to maintain it should be done over. They did a re-do in New Hampshire in 1975 and they can do it here if necessary. This is SIX years in the Senate we’re talking about.
Ken, Anon,
A re-do election is also not fair and will not be accepted as such by whichever side ultimately loses.
#1 Turnout will be much lower, mostly to the advantage of the Republicans (no Obama on the ballot and so forth)
#2 The election will cost lots of money
#3 Both candidates have probably angered some of their non die-hard supporters, through the legal maneuvering. That could give one side an unfair advantage, even though it is the cadidate’s right to a fair election through the court system.
#4 Do we include third party candidates? Or just the top two? Do we start over with new candidates? Have a whole new primary?
The fact is that the best way to secure the most fair outcome is by going through the legal system. That is what happens in close elections., like it or not. (Except when the US Supreme Court steps in and stops the whole process).
Eric,
In answer to your fourth point:
The problem is only with the general election, so I’d see no reason to redo the primary. All candidates who were on the general election ballot on Nov. 4 should also have a right to be on the redo ballot. Conceivably, if a whole lot of people (and it would take a whole lot) are turned off by the post-election maneuvering of both major party candidates, the third guy (who I regard as a pure spoiler for Franken) might win. More likely, I think, is that a lot of Barkley’s previous votes would go to the second choice of those voters because they’d have figured it out by now that their guy was just a spoiler and had zero chance of victory. I can’t imagine Franken not benefiting from that. While the absence of Obama from the ballot wouldn’t help him, gaining a lot of the Barkley vote would.
I hold to my previous view that getting it right is what’s important. Unless the current process produces a clear winner, we’ll never know whether they got it right.
Unless the current process produces a clear winner, we’ll never know whether they got it right.
What if you do a re-do and…the result is just as close as it was originally, leading to the same disputes over missing, absentee, and contested ballots? Do another re-do? How many re-does would we have to do before we gave up and finally decide to decide the thing?
Sometimes the electorate is pretty evenly split. If it’s close, then it’s close, and there’s really not much we can do about that.
There has to be a decision process. And I think the result should be whatever is determined by that process (as long as that process meets minimum standards of fairness). The fact that it’s close shouldn’t justify doing the process all over again.