Comments on: Minnesota recount enters decisive stage

By: dsimon

dsimon — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:12:51 +0000

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.

By: Ken Stevens

Ken Stevens — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:45:26 +0000

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.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:01:53 +0000

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).

By: Ken Stevens

Ken Stevens — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:34:55 +0000

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.

By: MSW

MSW — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:05:08 +0000

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.

By: Taniel

Taniel — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:59:35 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:50:04 +0000

It is time to start to consider a “do over” election. The lawyers and courts
should not determine who wins….