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
How many do you think have Xs that didn't count for Franken?
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.
Here's one that didn't count for Franken, what do you think okie?
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.
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.
No, I didn't do all of the research, I don't have time. Lott has turned up inconsistencies
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.