Minnesota Recount Update

Dave, you and Caleb have now both cited Nate Silver (fivethirtyeight.com) as a source on this story, but I'm not sure either of you has actually read what he's been saying about it. For that matter, I'm not sure you're reading what *you're* saying about it:


>While this seems outrageous on the face of it (and it is)
>remember, that this is a strategy. Every vote challenged is
>one less vote on the opponents pile. While it's Franken
>here, if Coleman was behind he would likely also be pursuing
>a "challenge everything strategy". But ultimately it
>shouldn't make a difference. The more one side is
>challenging, the more probable it is that that side
>has the weaker position in the recount battle. The challenges
>will eventually be resolved by an impartial panel made up of
>judges and officials.
>
>According to the Strib, Coleman is challenging 1600 ballots
>and Franken about 1500.

Sounds like both sides *are* pursuing a "challenge everything" strategy. At several points in the process (as documented by Nate, from Strib's and MN Sec of State's figures), Coleman has been challenging *a lot more* than Franken. At one point Franken caught up (in ballots challenged per 10,000 reviewed), then both were skyrocketing, then today Franken leveled off while Coleman continued to skyrocket. Of course some of this depends on which counties/precincts are getting reviewed on which day, but it certainly doesn't seem like Franken is "out-challenging" Coleman. As for which, if either, has "more substantive" challenges, I don't know that, neither do you, neither does Nate, and in some sense neither do the people doing the actual challenging. I do know, or at least strongly suspect, that anyone who presents "obviously ridiculous" challenges from one side *or* the other has probably actually seen only a very small number of the thousands of challenged
ballots, and a smaller number (if any) of the "substantive" ones.

So, what does it all mean? One of Nate's points is that the official "margin" as announced by Strib/SecState is exactly meaningless. As you yourself note, *every* challenged ballot immediately comes off the opponent's "total" until the challenge is resolved, but it's likely that few will stay off. The point is, there's no way of telling until then *how many* will stay off (i.e. how many challenges will stick), so once the total number of challenges approaches the original margin (and it has by now far exceeded it), no one knows how the margin will change. So it's misleading at best to characterize any running "margin" as a "lack of progress" for anyone.

A related point of Nate's is that if one person is challenging more, there will be an artificial change in the "margin" in favor of that person, whether the challenge is "frivolous" or not. Note that this is by no means the same as your statement that "the more probable it is that that side has the weaker position." It only means that that side's "apparent numbers" are likely to worsen when the challenges are resolved. (In that case, why over-challenge at all? I can think of two reasons. One is that you don't know how the judges are going to rule, so you don't want to miss making any challenge that *might* stand up. A more cynical one is management of the "news cycle": the more you can claim to be "leading" in the "recount" (even if your "lead" is totally bogus), the more people will think you "should" win.)

As for "so far [thousands of undervotes for Franken] haven't materialized," to the extent that suspected undervotes are the reason for the challenges, of course they won't "materialize" until the challenges are resolved. I haven't followed the "primary source" (Strib/SecState) on this, so I don't know if there are any actual numbers on undervotes found by the "normal" recount process apart from the challenges.

I wrote:

>At one point Franken caught up (in ballots challenged per
>10,000 reviewed), then both were skyrocketing, then today
>Franken leveled off while Coleman continued to skyrocket.

As of Nate's latest update, Franken has caught up again.

Nate's statistical analysis still predicts Franken will gain when all is said and done, but his margin of error is still so big that he can't confidently say Franken will win.

I think this whole thing is cooked. It's a rare opportunity for Minnesota to be in the national limelight. It's been a long dry spell since Jessie "The Body" Ventura was their governor.

Oh yeah, yesterday somewhere around here some wingnut mentioned the "Wellstone assassination". That's one I'd never heard before.