Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

@parados,

parados wrote:

The report is BS okie. I looked at 318 ballots. The first 159 Franken challenges and the first 159 Coleman ones.

Of 318 ballots There are 6 ballots marked Coleman that have an X through them that didn't count for Coleman. Yes, that is a grand total of 6.
Here is another one for Coleman with an X that counted
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ballots/index.php?review_date=2008-12-16&index=77
and another
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ballots/index.php?review_date=2008-12-16&index=84
another
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ballots/index.php?review_date=2008-12-16&index=90

6 votes is alot of votes in this race, especially considering you only looked at a very small portion of the contested votes.

Quote:

How many do you think have Xs that didn't count for Franken?
Here's one
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Crow%20Wing_Baxter%20P2E_challenged%20ballot%201.pdf
and another
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ballots/index.php?review_date=2008-12-18&index=7
third
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/minneapolis_8_2_challengedballot2.pdf

So of 319 ballots out of the 1400 challenges the results were 6-3 in X marked ballots. But Coleman had almost twice as many challenges as Franken so it would be about even if we assume the first 159 challenges are representative of all the challenges.

I'm not sure about your math. Coleman challenged twice as many votes or there were twice as many Coleman votes challenged by Franken? Regardless of which it is, it would be illogical to try to extrapolite likelihoods for all of the challenges based upon a small portion of them. I am not going to attempt to research all of it, you can go ahead, but it seems obvious that what has been looked at by others and by you only confirms the fact that rulings have been inconsistent, which is what I have asserted. You have confirmed what I asserted, not disproven it at all.

Quote:

Here's one that didn't count for Franken, what do you think okie?
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Bloomington_P7_challengedballot1.pdf

I don't know, perhaps there is more to that ballot than we are seeing? It appears to be a wrong ruling, but I would hesitate to say for sure unless I could see the entire ballot or hear the explanation for the ruling.

Quote:

Coleman and Franken were about equal in X marked ballots that counted for them. And also about equal in ballots that had 2 candidates filled in with an X over one.

But of course, you didn't look at any of the ballots, did you okie? You just took the word of Fox news. By the way, Lott has admitted that the primary ballot he used to show bias was wrong on the website he used. He never checked the official count before he made his accusations. Shoddy work at best on his part.

No, I didn't do all of the research, I don't have time. Lott has turned up inconsistencies, and I am sure this will all go through further scrutiny, probably in the courts. Look, talk about Lott's shoddy work, what about the shoddy work of the vote counters, thats where it really matters. And by teh way there are examples of things on the site I posted that you don't seem to address. There is no doubt in my mind that Franken will use any ploy to win, and he probably will win.

1 Reply

@okie,

I looked at 318 out of the roughly 1400 ballots that went to the canvassing board. Well it isn't a majority, I wouldn't call it a small portion.

Coleman challenged twice as many votes. (318 out of 1400 isn't small)
Where did I show it being inconsistent? You didn't look at them but you are willing to declare it inconsistent? I was not pointing out they were inconsistent. I was pointing out that Lott's argument was BS because he didn't look at the ballots either.

Quote:

I don't know, perhaps there is more to that ballot than we are seeing? It appears to be a wrong ruling, but I would hesitate to say for sure unless I could see the entire ballot or hear the explanation for the ruling.

You want to see the entire ballot? Hmm.. but you didn't require that in order to believe Lott when he said the rulings were inconsistent. It seems it's only wrong when it suits your partisan purposes.

Quote:

No, I didn't do all of the research, I don't have time. Lott has turned up inconsistencies

Lott has turned up nothing. He failed to look at entire ballots and failed to even check the rulings on the ballots he did cite as being "inconsistent." He failed to check facts. His arguments are meaningless because he failed to do what you wanted to do on a single ballot that appears wrong.

1 Reply

@parados,

Well, you turned up inconsistencies, and instead of finding it troubling, or confirming that problems exist, you defend the process? I hope it all ends up in court, and at least some consistent rules are applied across the board. It seems obvious to me that any distinct mark on a candidate's oval should count, whether it is an x or something else, or a combination, as long as not more than one candidate is marked. We should not get into the business of reading the minds of voters, we must go by what they marked. And if it was double marked for more than one candidate, throw the votes out, simple as that.

2 Replies

@okie,

The ballot I showed that only has Franken marked has a problem that pdf doesn't clearly show. If you look closely you will so no oval at all for Coleman on the copy, let alone anything marked in the oval. Copying introduces issues that that are not there in the originals.

The real issue is those that rely on copies to point out "inconsistencies." The inconsistency can't be declared to exist based on solely looking at a copy. Lott is wrong in what he did. You are wrong in relying on Lott.

1 Reply

@okie,

Four of the five members of the canvassing board are sitting judges. 3 appointed by Republicans and one of them the Chief Justice for the state supreme court. I doubt courts are going to find them to be "inconsistent" or biased in their choices as much as you wish it to be.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

The ballot I showed that only has Franken marked has a problem that pdf doesn't clearly show. If you look closely you will so no oval at all for Coleman on the copy, let alone anything marked in the oval. Copying introduces issues that that are not there in the originals.

I did not notice that until you pointed it out.

Quote:

The real issue is those that rely on copies to point out "inconsistencies." The inconsistency can't be declared to exist based on solely looking at a copy. Lott is wrong in what he did. You are wrong in relying on Lott.

I am not relying on Lott to produce an accurate count, Parados, but I can rely on it to point out possible inconsistencies, and I believe there are obviously inconsistencies.

[/quote]

1 Reply

@okie,

Lott can't point out inconsistencies since he isn't looking at ballots correctly if he is at all in some instances. His argument is based on garbage and results in garbage.
1. He doesn't look at the entire ballot.
2. He doesn't look at the originals to see difference with the copies.
3. He failed to double check his facts and claimed the board ruled a ballot for Franken when they ruled the opposite and it was counted for Coleman.
4. He failed to confirm the real reason why ballots were rejected, claiming it was rejected because of an X when in reality it was rejected for other reasons.

I have pointed out and you agreed that Lott was WRONG on several instances but you still consider Lott to be a source for inconsistencies in the counting. Lott is NOT a source because Lott has no substance when the ballots are examined in relationship to his complaints.

0 Replies

Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know