Minnesota Recount: Mystery Ballots, Phantom Votes and Other Phenomena

Caleb wrote:

>Democratic Secretary of State Mark
>Ritchie, in opposition to his own
>canvassing board's earlier decision, has
>asked election officials across the state
>to review the approximately 12,000
>rejected absentee ballots which the
>Franken campaign has been pushing for
>review.

Not exactly. According to the Star-Tribune,

(1) The request for sorting the rejected absentee ballots came not from Ritchie but from his deputy, Jim Gelbmann, political affiliation unstated.

(2) Gelbmann stated:

"Board members expressed an interest in knowing the number of Absentee Ballots that may have been mistakenly rejected. In other words, the Board has heard anecdotal evidence of absentee ballots being rejected, even though the facts surrounding the ballot did not meet one of the four reasons stated in statute upon which an absentee ballot may be rejected."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/35383869.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs

So the Canvassing Board itself wants to know if any of the ballots in question may have been wrongly rejected. And why wouldn't it?

Furthermore:

(3) I don't think this request is by any means "in opposition to" the Canvassing Board's earlier decision. That decision as I understand it was not to *order* the counties/precincts to *open and examine all* of the rejected ballots. All sources I read at the time said that it left open the possibility that the Board (at its scheduled meeting this week) could still decide to issue case-by-case instructions on *individual* rejected ballots. Of course in order to do that, it needs to know things like why they were rejected. Hence the current request.

(4) All of this (including the "losing," "finding," etc., of various ballots) is totally aboveboard and "standard procedure" (albeit uncommon procedure because recounts are uncommon to begin with). For instance, from the Star-Tribune article again:

>Gelbmann said the sorting of ballots
>should be done in a public setting where
>the Coleman and Franken campaigns can
>watch the process, adding that the
>campaigns will not be able to challenge
>any of the ballots.

Nobody is "stealing" anything. People charged with counting votes, and even (to a lesser extent) the machines that people manufacture and use in the process, make mistakes. They happen in every election ever held with more than a few thousand voters total, and plenty of smaller ones too. They're just irrelevant, and therefore ignored, when the election isn't close enough for them to potentially make a difference in the result. That's why there are provisions for recounts when the election *is* close -- automatic when it's *this* close, or at the "losing" candidate's request (and, typically, expense) for somewhat larger margins. When that happens, there's no winner or loser of "the initial, certified election." (There also isn't an "initial election" as opposed to a subsequent one, except in very rare cases like NH 1974. There's one election, with an initial *count* and subsequent recounts, challenges, etc.) The "certification" is just the Secretary of State (yes, the very same Mark Ritchie you so love to demonize) saying "We had an election, and these are the numbers as we've counted them so far." If there's a recount, those numbers, however "certified," are immediately and automatically irrelevant.

Of course both sides are going to try to get the result that's most favorable to them, even in cases where the initial count was clearly correct. But as with all those challenges that turn out to be an almost-full oval for one candidate and a single dot for the other, what either side claims is the case won't be the final result unless the official review determines a true error in the initial count. And if there was a true error, it would if anything "stealing" *not* to correct it.

Why can't Dems ever accept ballots and tabulations, they always challenge, and do this. I get so tired of it year after year. And I don't want to hear about Republicans cheat. It's just bunk. Neither party is successful, but the Dems can never accept when they loose. I suggest significant prison time for cheaters, maybe this would all stop.

How is it possible that right wingers can complain about this? Coleman will probably win, anyway.

These unscrupulous cheats have the gall to complain when we want to make sure ballots are properly identified in a recount, yet in the 2000 general election Katherine Harris stymied the Florida recount long enough for the Supreme Court to appoint George W Bush as president? We can accept our losses and we may not always adopt the most sportsmanlike attitude when we do, but it sounds to me that suppressing voters and using cheap and illegal political tactics is the ultimate lack of acceptance there is. Are you guys just projecting, or what?

I'm an unabashed liberal and all I want is the people's collective voice to be recognized, even if that means Coleman is re-elected for an additional term.

The recountn wasn not deanded by either party in Minnesota. It is state law. Look it up and then ignorance will not be necessary!

Oh, now comes the GOP whining. The Republicans stole a big election in 2000 and got smug. They won't steal this one. Coleman may win, but he won't steal it.

I read today that Franken is going back to comedy I wonder if any ballots will be tossed at him when he is on stage. Personally I would be throwing tomatoes, but to each his own.
And BTW liberal Democrat here, not whining nor complaining being realistic. Franken should get out now before he becomes more of a laughing stock..oh yeah he likes that.

Wendy, why should Franken "get out now"? The race is not decided, and indeed seems to be changing every day. Mostly just in the "normal" course of the recount, not anything Franken (or Coleman for that matter) is doing or not doing. (Remember, most of the actual ballot challenges, on both sides, are likely to fail.) Most or all of what seems to be a "laughing stock" right now (but really isn't -- as I keep saying, people make mistakes) -- "lost and found" ballots and the like -- is coming from the local and/or state election officials, not either campaign.

Were you urging Gore to "get out now" on this date in 2000? Or, uh, Hillary this past May?

"I'm an unabashed liberal and all I want is the people's collective voice to be recognized, even if that means Coleman is re-elected for an additional term."

Jeremy, you hit the nail on the head. That's sums up the way a lot of Liberals feel. We don't mind losing when, fair and square, we come up short.

Unfortunately, all too often, the Atwaters and Roves of the world have used our sportsmanlike penchant for fairness against us. While we say, "Be fair and count all the votes", they say, "Win at all costs and bury your opponents."

m. smith,
The same can be said for the candidates and their campaign managers who use groups like ACORN who pay homeless people to come and vote.
It is not true that liberals don't mind losng fair and square. I got so sick and tired of the Libs saying that George Bush stole the election from Al Gore. There was recount and the most extensive investigation in history to try and prove Bush didn't win. But, in the end, he was declared the winner and the Libs never accepted it.