Fat Lady Sings At Last: Franken is Senator of Minnessota!

@joefromchicago,

Wall Street Journal: Franken Stole Election

"The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.

Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat's strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total."

The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of last year's disputed Senate race, and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman's gracious concession at least spares the state any further legal combat. The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.

Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat's strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.

But the team's real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman's lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.

What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right. The three-judge panel overseeing the Coleman legal challenge, and the Supreme Court that reviewed the panel's findings, in essence found that Mr. Coleman hadn't demonstrated a willful or malicious attempt on behalf of officials to deny him the election. And so they refused to reopen what had become a forbidding tangle of irregularities. Mr. Coleman didn't lose the election. He lost the fight to stop the state canvassing board from changing the vote-counting rules after the fact.

This is now the second time Republicans have been beaten in this kind of legal street fight. In 2004, Dino Rossi was ahead in the election-night count for Washington Governor against Democrat Christine Gregoire. Ms. Gregoire's team demanded the right to rifle through a list of provisional votes that hadn't been counted, setting off a hunt for "new" Gregoire votes. By the third recount, she'd discovered enough to win. This was the model for the Franken team.

Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.
________________________________________________

By deciding which districts to recount and to re-qualify ballots that had been disqualified, the Franken lawyers decided this race, not the voters. There was no uniform method of vote checking and it is just as much Coleman's lawyers fault for not fighting against the methods used as was Frankens lawyers.

But, the deed is done and Franken is now a US Senator... I doubt he wins the re-election.

1 Reply

It's always interesting to see how it's always articles on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal that end up as evidence for the truth of an alleged fact. Somehow the journal's reporting, which usually relies on careful research, never makes the cut. It's also interesting how conveniently the article ignores that the recount was automatic under Minnesota law, and that Franken won the recount.

2 Replies

@Yankee,

Quote:

Maybe not fraud, but a fairly sloppy election according to the above.

And that is as opposed to the perfected election results tabulation process established in which states?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

It's always interesting to see how it's always articles on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal that end up as evidence for the truth of an alleged fact. Somehow the journal's reporting, which usually relies on careful research, never makes the cut. It's also interesting how conveniently the article ignores that the recount was automatic under Minnesota law, and that Franken won the recount.

Truth has no place in politics. If it were provable, Coleman would have won, that's fairly easy to see. Still doesn't change the fact that Franken's lawyers used every trick in the book to see to it that their client won. Allowing previously disqualified ballots, recounting districts that favored Franken, while not giving equal due process to districts favoring Coleman... The mere fact that they had to resort to these tactics should raise some doubts. Much like hanging chads...

If you want facts, read the encyclopedia. Not a political forum.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

By deciding which districts to recount and to re-qualify ballots that had been disqualified, the Franken lawyers decided this race, not the voters. There was no uniform method of vote checking and it is just as much Coleman's lawyers fault for not fighting against the methods used as was Frankens lawyers.

So, using that reasoning, you'd also agree that George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election, correct?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

It's always interesting to see how it's always articles on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal that end up as evidence for the truth of an alleged fact. Somehow the journal's reporting, which usually relies on careful research, never makes the cut. It's also interesting how conveniently the article ignores that the recount was automatic under Minnesota law, and that Franken won the recount.

Don't confuse McG with the facts. It just makes him angry.

Here's what the Minnesota Supreme Court said (emphasis mine):

Quote:

More than 2.9 million Minnesotans cast ballots in the November general election, including approximately 300,000 who voted or attempted to vote by absentee ballot. On November 18, 2008, the State Canvassing Board accepted the consolidated statewide canvassing report as showing that Coleman received 1,211,565 votes and that Franken received 1,211,359 votes for the office of United States Senator, a margin of 206 votes in Coleman‟s favor. Because the margin separating the two candidates was less than one-half of one percent of the total number of votes counted for that office, the State Canvassing Board directed the Minnesota Secretary of State‟s Office to oversee a manual recount, as required by Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 1(b)(1) (2008).

The statewide manual recount was conducted between November 19, 2008, and January 5, 2009, pursuant to instructions drafted by the Secretary of State‟s Office and approved by the State Canvassing Board after consultation with representatives of Coleman and Franken. During the recount, local election officials and the candidates reviewed the absentee ballot return envelopes that had been rejected on or before election day and agreed that some of them had been improperly rejected. See Coleman v. Ritchie, 758 N.W.2d 306, 308 (Minn. 2008). On January 3, 2009, the Secretary of State‟s Office opened and counted the 933 ballots identified during this process.1 On January 5, 2009, the State Canvassing Board certified the results of the election as 1,212,431 votes for Franken and 1,212,206 votes for Coleman, a margin of 225 votes in Franken‟s favor.

On January 6, 2009, appellants Coleman and Sheehan (hereinafter “Coleman”) filed a notice of election contest in Ramsey County District Court under Minn. Stat. § 209.021 (2008), contesting the election results certified by the State Canvassing Board and seeking a declaration that Coleman was entitled to the certificate of election as United States Senator. On January 12, 2009, under Minn. Stat. § 209.045 (2008), we appointed three judges to hear and determine the contest. Testimony in the trial commenced on January 26, 2009, and concluded on March 12, 2009. Coleman sought during trial to have additional absentee ballots counted. No claim of fraud in the election or during the recount was made by either party. At the conclusion of the trial, the court determined that 351 additional absentee ballot return envelopes satisfied the statutory requirements and ordered that these envelopes be opened and the ballots inside counted.

On April 13, 2009, the trial court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, finding that Franken received 1,212,629 votes and Coleman received 1,212,317 votes in the November 4, 2008 general election, a margin of 312 votes in Franken‟s favor. The court found that Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast in the election for United States Senator for the State of Minnesota and concluded that Franken was entitled to receive the certificate of election.

To sum up: the initial vote count had Coleman ahead by 206 votes. Because of the close margin, an automatic recount was ordered. After that manual recount, Franken jumped ahead by 225. Coleman objected, and the court agreed to count additional ballots. After those ballots were counted, Franken was even farther ahead than he was before (312 votes).

At that point, Coleman had pretty much run out of reasons to contest the vote count, since there were no allegations of fraud. He was left to argue that the state should have adhered to a "substantial compliance" test for absentee ballots rather than a "strict compliance" test -- in other words, if the ballots came close to the statutory requirements, the court should have counted them.

Oddly enough, that was pretty much Al Gore's position in the 2000 Florida recount. It is, therefore, passing strange that conservatives now want the Gore argument to prevail in Minnesota, given how unenthusiastic they were about that argument back in 2000. Oh well, I guess they've repented their past mistakes and admitted the error of their ways.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
By deciding which districts to recount and to re-qualify ballots that had been disqualified, the Franken lawyers decided this race, not the voters. There was no uniform method of vote checking and it is just as much Coleman's lawyers fault for not fighting against the methods used as was Frankens lawyers.

So, using that reasoning, you'd also agree that George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election, correct?

tsk, tsk. changing the subject already?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Is is not an indication of anything other than the facts represented in the article.

For what reason are you defensive about the information contained in the article?

1 Reply

@Yankee,

I'm not defensive about anything. The only facts about the Minnesota election which i have seen presented in this thread so far is the statement of the Minnesota Supreme Court which Joe has posted. The opinion pieces presented by you and McWhitey don't constitute facts.

If you assert that you have a broad and deep, nay, comprehensive knowledge of election results tabulation and certification in all 50 states, and can demonstrate as much--you might have some credibility in claiming that there were any chicanery involved here. But until you demonstrate that, saying that it was a sloppy procedure just makes you look like an idiot--it certainly doesn't constitute an astute observation about the certification of election results in Minnesota.

Given these last two posts, i wonder if either Yankee or McWhitey has actually bothered to read the statement of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
So, using that reasoning, you'd also agree that George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election, correct?

tsk, tsk. changing the subject already?

I knew you couldn't answer that one.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You certainly are acting defensive about the objective analysis of the Minnesota election system. Seems to me the writer outlined very well how confusing it is given the many districts involved.

I suppose, you would object to any opinion that may contradict your point of view. Unfortunately, your paranoia is an issue you and your physician must deal with.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
So, using that reasoning, you'd also agree that George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election, correct?

tsk, tsk. changing the subject already?

I knew you couldn't answer that one.

"couldn't"? I certainly could, I simply choose not to chase your tangent. Of course I can understand your unwillingness to move beyond Bush being elected, it's only been 9 years. It's hard for an old dog to let go of his favorite bones. I suspect that 9 years from now, I will not be discussing Frankens election.

I am sure that the judges in the Minnesota case ruled as they saw the fit based on the case and evidence provided. We all know that judges always get it right, right?

1 Reply

I'm not paranoid about anything here. But your projection of your own point of view does add humor to the thread. I have not claimed that there were anything amiss in the election certification process in Minnesota, so there is no basis upon which to allege that i am being paranoid. Nothing which i have written suggests for a moment that i believe that anyone is out to get me. It is a pretty pathetic and childish sort of tactic to suggest that someone else is motivated by a pathological attitude rather than addressing substantive criticisms--and all the more ironic coming from a member who routinely excoriates those with whom he disagrees by calling them childish or immature.

Did you bother to read the statement by the Minnesota Supreme Court which Joe quoted and linked? Or are you content to continue to rely on an obviously biased opinion piece which makes vague charges but cites no authorities for it's charges?

Whose paranoia are we actually discussing here? Is it not the paranoia of those who allege that the Minnesota recount process (which was required by law) was somehow flawed? Is that paranoia not made all the more evident by the complete failure of the authors of these opinion pieces to substantiate their vague allegations?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
So, using that reasoning, you'd also agree that George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election, correct?

tsk, tsk. changing the subject already?

I knew you couldn't answer that one.

"couldn't"? I certainly could, I simply choose not to chase your tangent.

Yep, I was right: you can't answer it.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Whose paranoia are we actually discussing here? Is it not the paranoia of those who allege that the Minnesota recount process (which was required by law) was somehow flawed? Is that paranoia not made all the more evident by the complete failure of the authors of these opinion pieces to substantiate their vague allegations?

Every election in the US is flawed. It can never be perfect under the present rules. Some States apparently have more flaws than others.

For you to ignore this reality, again is an issue for you and your physician.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

I have no issues here, and no reason to take as valid ex cathedra statements from you on the election process in the several states. To date, you have shown no reason for anyone to consider you expert in any area. Most of us don't claim expertise in the areas upon which we comment, although many of us speak authoritatively at times. That is the reason why we provide quoted material and link to it so that people can examine the material themselves. This is something i've rarely seen you do. This is exactly what Joe has done by quoting and linking the statement of the Minnesota Supreme Court. I see no reason to take anything you say as true just because you've said it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Your arrogance is duly noted.

I state nothing except post an objective article for discussion.

You choose to ignore the realities present in the article, then boast your superior knowledge of all things.

Trust me, sir, your opinions of me or my level of expertise is of no importance. I've done too much in my life, to be concerned about what you may or may not think of me.

I know you think very highly of yourself and you like to "grade" people on the quality of their posts/opinions. I doubt many in this chat room care.

Again, you and your physician should meet soon to see if there is a remedy for your delusional episodes. Maybe you are just another insecure "shut in" who get it's "jollies" thinking they are superior to others.

You bore me little person.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Your arrogance is duly noted.

Arrogance is taking rights or privileges to which one is not entitled. I am entitled to express myself here, whether or not you like, and whether or not you know the definition of arrogance--and it appears that you do not.

Quote:

I state nothing except post an objective article for discussion.

This is a lie. You stated that all elections in the United States are flawed, and it was an ex cathedra statement for which no basis was provided, and for which, apparenly, the only authority was your "say-so."

As for the article you posted, it was an opinion piece, and is subjective, not objective. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the statement of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Quote:

You choose to ignore the realities present in the article, then boast your superior knowledge of all things.

I have boasted of no superior knowledge--i have pointed out that Joe has quoted and linked the statement of the Minnesota Supreme Court, which flatly contradicts several of the statements made by the lawyer in the piece you quoted. I will accept the authority of the state's Supreme Court over that of an otherwise anonymous commentator on a public radio program.

Quote:

Trust me, sir, your opinions of me or my level of expertise is of no importance. I've done too much in my life, to be concerned about what you may or may not think of me.

You might well imagine, then, my indifference to the snotty remarks which pass for debate on your part, most of the time.

Quote:

I know you think very highly of yourself and you like to "grade" people on the quality of their posts/opinions. I doubt many in this chat room care.

First, of course, this is not a chat room. I certainly do discriminate between the quality of posts and the quality of the evidence which people allege to present, and the quality of the sources to which they refer. Everyone makes such judgments every day of their lives, from the time they arise to the time they go back to bed. That's life, big boy, get over it.

Quote:

Again, you and your physician should meet soon to see if there is a remedy for your delusional episodes. Maybe you are just another insecure "shut in" who get it's "jollies" thinking they are superior to others.

You bore me little person.

I apparently don't bore you sufficiently that you refrain from replying. If you did, i assure you that i would experience no sense of loss. There is nothing resembling delusion in pointing out that your "source" did not provide any evidence to back up his claims, and that it is contradicted by the statement of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Again, alleging pathological motivation to what one says rather than dealing with the substantive argument presented is pathetic and childish, and evidence of a weak mind.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Arrogance is taking rights or privileges to which one is not entitled. I am entitled to express myself here, whether or not you like, and whether or not you know the definition of arrogance--and it appears that you do not.

Well, maybe you need to contact whoever is responsible for the English Dictionary.

ar⋅ro⋅gance
/ˈærəgəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ar-uh-guhns] Show IPA
Use arrogance in a Sentence
"noun
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.
Also, ar⋅ro⋅gan⋅cy.

Origin:
1275"1325; ME < MF < L arrogantia presumption. See arrogant, -ance

Synonyms:
haughtiness, insolence, disdain.

Antonyms:
humility, modesty, diffidence.

Quote:

This is a lie. You stated that all elections in the United States are flawed, and it was an ex cathedra statement for which no basis was provided, and for which, apparenly, the only authority was your "say-so."

That is correct and I am correct. No election in the US is 100% perfect.

Quote:

First, of course, this is not a chat room.

This is not a Mensa meeting area either. Laughing

Quote:

I apparently don't bore you sufficiently that you refrain from replying.

Correct. This for me is fun. You are a source of entertainment for me.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

"The English Dictionary," do you seriously believe that any such thing exists?

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

Quote:

arrogate

1. a : to claim or seize without justification b : to make undue claims to having: ASSUME

Anyone can play the dictionary game, Bubba. That does not alter that it is not arrogance to point out the flaws in what passes for reasoning at your house, nor is it arrogance to point out that your source is unreliable.

You did not say originally that no election in the United States is 100% perfect. You're attempting to move the goal posts because you can't defend your original statement.

As far as entertainment, Bubba, you're more fun that a room full of monkey's with typewriters . . . or, wait . . . that's where you're posting from, right? Come one, pull the other leg . . .

1 Reply

Fat Lady Sings At Last: Franken is Senator of Minnessota!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know