Funny Business in Minnesota

Did Al steal your diaper Waterman?

Happy New Year Parasite!

Baby Franken is your boy, not mine.

But still you are doing all this crying and whining.

I am convinced Franken must have taken your diaper for all the wailing coming from you.

You sure are cranky this morning, it must be time for mommy to change your diaper... or is it depends?

EXACTLY the response I expect from a moron like you.

The message you fool is this country is still having problems getting people elected in an efficient manner.

Jeepers you are really stupid!

Please point out the errors in this document Woiyo
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/recount_guide_2008.pdf

It is the recount guide created before the MN recount began. Kindly tell us which of the counting methods is flawed or illegal. Be specific and reference MN election law.

A close election doesn't mean it isn't "efficient" unless your standard for efficiency is one candidate winning big.

Frankly, I would rather have an orderly and legal process than one that is efficient. Saddam held "efficient" elections. The recount process in MN was open and available to anyone willing to watch.

I have a problem with a-holes that decide they don't like the process simply because they don't like the outcome. You don't know the process Woiyo. You can't tell us what part of it was wrong. You can only throw out attacks based on your ignorance. You couldn't tell me who was on the canvassing board. You couldn't tell me what decisions they made. You certainly can't point to a single ballot they ruled on outside the standards put in place prior to the recount.

Anyone that has actually voted in the US should know that the process of elections isn't "efficient". Standing in line, sometimes for hours, to sign in on the voter registration isn't efficient. Standing in a second line to get a ballot isn't efficient. Having to wait for an open voting booth isn't efficient. Efficiency has NOTHING to do with the voting process. It is designed to allow for secret voting while keeping fraud to the minimum. You want "efficient" elections and then call me stupid? Maybe you should learn something before you call someone else stupid.

So, here is your opportunity to be a smart guy Woiyo.

Tell us specifically what you think was wrong with the election in MN. No vague responses. I want a reasoned argument from you with supporting facts.


I bet you can't come up with one that isn't easily defeated or shown to be flawed.


But jeepers, you aren't really that stupid are you Woiyo? You can tell us why you are whining about the election, can't you? I eagerly look forward to your arguments.

Stupid Says =

My point exactly. Why is that the case in the 21st Century?

I await your excuses.

Excuses are for losers... in case you haven't noticed we have been winning of late.

I would love to see how you propose to make it efficient since you are so smart.

Voting has requirements that are an impediment to efficiency.
1. The ballot is secret.
2. There must be some way to confirm voter before voting.
3. 1 and 2 require a way to separate the two which means there will always be an extra step in the process.
4. The voters are human and always will be.
5. The only way to ensure belief in integrity is to have cross checking by more than one political party. There is a reason for 2 election judges and it adds inefficiency.

I'm guessing that the vote is supposed to be secret to protect the voter's privacy and avoid reprisals and recriminations from others who disagree with your selection. But if the voter volunteers the information on his ballot, why shouldn't his vote count?

You may regret asking this question, but since you asked...

My analysis was not exhaustive, just looking that ballots that were scanned on the website for Dec 16 and Dec 17 (those two days represent 415 of the 1330 challenged votes that you can see on Internet). I also only looked at those ballots that the Board voted differently than the supermajority (65%) or better of the Internet vote. In other words, 65% or more of the Internet voters felt the vote belonged to one candidate, but the board disagreed and awarded the vote to someone else or nobody. 51 ballots fell into this category (so about 12%). Of those 51 ballots, 4 appeared to be for Franken but the Board believed otherwise. 8 appeared to be “no votes”, but the Board found a way to discern that the voter actually intended to vote for some candidate. It is somewhat telling that 7 of those 8 ended up going Franken’s way. The remaining 39 were apparently obvious votes for Coleman but the Board voted otherwise (usually they awarded the vote to no one thus failing to count 9% (39 of 415) of obvious Coleman voters.

At first I was incensed that the Board appeared to be tossing out 9% of obvious votes for Coleman but only 0.5% of obvious votes for Franken. But that was before I looked closer to see the reasons why. Look at this particular ballot. If you just look at the page that pops up initially you will be hard pressed to say this is not a valid vote for Coleman. But note that you only see a partial ballot. Up above the ballot extract is a second link which takes you to rest of the ballot. There you will see what appears to be a signature (an identifying mark) which according to Minnesota law invalidates the ballot. 18 of the 51 subject ballots had some kind of identifying mark. 17 of those 18 were votes for Coleman that were challenged by the Franken campaign.

Another common error was where the voter filled in the oval but then X'd thru it example. Only when you open up the entire ballot do you see that the X is inconsistent with other marks/votes on the same ballot which were dutifully filled in without the X. 16 ballots of the 51 fell into this category and typically the board would award these votes to “other or no one”.

Remaining 17 ballots of the 51 were awarded for any number of odd reasons, including overvotes, oval not completely filled in, wrong ballot used, etc. Remember that from the Internet user’s perspective the voter intent from each of these ballots was easy to discern, but the Board decided against the obvious choice.

Few would argue that the Board has NOT effectively disenfranchised substantial numbers of obvious Coleman voters but I can’t lay the blame for that disenfranchisement at the feet of the Canvassing board. There is clearly a legal precedent for their decision (even though the law makes no sense).

As I mentioned in my earlier email, I conclude from my analysis that the Franken camp had a much stronger strategy for vote challenges than the Coleman camp. The Franken camp challenged large numbers of ballots with identifying marks, while the Coleman camp challenged hardly any. Assuming that an equal percentage of Franken voters left identifying marks on their ballots, it would appear that, for whatever reason, the Coleman camp failed to challenge those ballots. Had they challenged them, Franken's vote tally would be substantially less. Combined with the other suspect votes appearing from nowhere, Coleman would have a much greater chance to win.

And we are supposed to believe Parados instead?

Politics has reached a new low, if Franken could even get 5% of the vote, let alone win under dubious circumstances.

What a joke.

Whine all you want, Franken is going to be the next Senator from MN, you know it, so why the complaining?

It really says something about how pathetic the Republican party has become, when we can beat you with comedians, Okie. Pathetic and weak.

Cycloptichorn

Because the law says as much.
This is the note for the law

This is the specific law on counting the ballot
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/2008_chapter_204c_-_6-24-2008_final.pdf

Those ballots represent ONLY the ballots challenged by Franken so your analysis starts with a flawed sample since you didn't look at any Coleman challenges.

The board used the law to decide ballots. Internet voters did not.

So 18 out of ALL of Franken's challenges had identifying marks. Your analysis is still flawed because you looked at ALL of Franken's challenges yet only came up with 18 ballots with identifying marks.

Yes, the board followed state law. And your problem with following the law is what?

It's rather hard to argue disenfranchisement when you have a ballot in hand. The voter made a legal mistake on the ballot, but it doesn't mean they were prevented from voting.
Legal precedent? There's a LAW. They followed the LAW. No court in the country is going to believe an argument that voters were disenfranchised when the law was very specifically followed. You claim the law makes no sense. Which part of the law are you referring to? I am curious. Is it the really the law you think makes no sense or your interpretation of what you think the law is that makes no sense?
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/2008_chapter_204c_-_6-24-2008_final.pdf


Where did you learn math? You identified 18 ballots with identifying marks from Franken challenges. Franken and Coleman had almost the same number of votes. If an equal percentage of Franken voters identified ballots that would mean 18 ballots. You didn't look at any of the Coleman challenges to see the reason for not counting them. For all you know there could have been 300 ballots with identifying marks on them challenged by Coleman that reduced Franken's count by 300.

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ballots/index.php?review_date=2008-12-18&index=28
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ballots/index.php?review_date=2008-12-18&index=29
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ballots/index.php?review_date=2008-12-18&index=30
It looks like the problem isn't that Coleman didn't challenge ballots because of identifying marks. It seems they don't know the difference between write in candidates and identifying marks. 3 of the first 30 Coleman challenges were for identifying marks. (That would work out to almost 100 challenges for identifying marks if it continues.)

Just to check, I went to 50.. 8 out of 50 challenges by Coleman were for marks on the ballots.

I provided reasons why the WSJ was Bullshit.

I notice you didn't refute any of my arguments. Nor has the WSJ.

Well, a fourth rate movie actor was president, at least in theory, twice. And the US is just ending 8 years of having a simpleton as president. The Repubs do pretty well considering they keep nominating idiots and layabouts.

We? Who the **** is "WE".

Are you still part of the herd?

Not my job to figure out the solution.

Yet, I love the fact that you are comfortable with the current system. Most likely because "your guy" from your herd just might win the thing.

I wonder what your opinion was of the fiasco in Florida in 2000?

Your a sorry partisan asshole!

'We' is the Democratic party. 'You' is the Republican party, though don't waste your breath protesting against that fact; you consistently champion Republican causes.

Cycloptichorn

Nope.

"WE" is the herd of dumbmasses that voted for O boy.