Disputed recount ballots posted on MPR website - interactive
Yes, challenged ballots from the Minnesota Senate race recount are being posted at this Minnesota Public Radio web page, and you can look at them and judge the voter's intent yourself -- it's good stuff.
Overall -- and if this is a representative sample -- I think the challenged ballots will favor Franken. But see for yourself:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/
Overall -- and if this is a representative sample -- I think the challenged ballots will favor Franken. But see for yourself:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/
Advertisement
My favorite is the Lizard People ballot. What the hell?
November 20, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought I might have known the Lizard People guy until I saw it was Beltrami County.
An "interesting' acquaintance of mine, to say the least...
November 20, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lizard People in 2012! Get on the Lizard Bus now, or be left behind.
November 20, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
#1-Franken - the "arrow" but rather "coloring outside of the lines")
#2-Accept
#3-Nobody
#4-Neither the "No" seems clear, but should have got another ballot
#5-Franken 10/10 - Lizard People circle wasn't colored in thus it's not a double vote
#6-Nobody 10/10 - checkmark not in the circle means nothing
#7-Neither. It's a double vote. Person might have thought you could vote for two candidates
#8-Franken. Not enough to call it a double vote
#9-Barkley. I don't understand Franken's argument on this one
#10-Barkley
#11-nobody, both bubbles are colored in and line could be cross out or underline. Should have got another ballot.
November 20, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with you in places:
#1-Not sure I can gauge intent here, which is the milestone. Nobody.
#2-Accept
#3-Again, the key issue is intent. I would look to other votes on the ballot to determine if these marks were used elsewhere. If so, then it should go to Franken.
#4-Of course the person should have gotten another ballot, but that's not the standard. Can you ascertain intent? I agree, as you say, that the "No" seems clear. This is a vote for Franken.
#5-Normally, I would agree with you that this goes to Franken. But under Minnesota law, if you write in a candidate's name but don't mark the "write in" circle, it still counts as a vote for the write-in candidate. I don't think the law contemplated a rule for an overvote where one of the "votes" is an unmarked write-in, but the law is the law. Nobody should get this vote.
#6-Franken. It doesn't matter that the checkmark isn't in the circle. The intent is clear.
#7-Intent unclear. There's a suggestion that the person may have started to fill in Franken, and then switched to Coleman, but that's conjecture. On the face, this vote is ambiguous.
#8-Franken.
#9-Barkley. (And it's not Franken's argument, but the argument of an over-zealous Franken volunteer.)
#10-Barkley.
#11-I'm torn. I'm inclined to say this is a Coleman vote, since it is almost 100% clear that the person, after filling out a vote for Franken, tried to cross Franken's name out. But there's some slim chance that the Franken explanation is correct: it may have been an attempt to underline Franken's name. I think this one is the toughest call.
November 20, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're off more than I think we agree. Though after you've explained the Minnesota law regarding write in votes, I think the "Lizard People" vote has to be "nobody get it".
November 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think that 4 and 6 should go to nobody? Minnesota law says "A ballot shall not be rejected for a technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter's intent." If the mark is not in the circle, but intent is clear, it should count. Similarly, if a voter accidentally fills in two bubbles, but clearly expresses intent by writing "No" next to one candidate's name, it's a technical error.
It's not just that we disagree, Jonze. It's that you're wrong.
November 20, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, this is also part of the Minnesota statute: "If a mark (X) is made out of its proper place, but so near a name or space as to indicate clearly the voter's intent, the vote shall be counted."
November 20, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I was/am wrong. Feel better now? I'm not a Minnesotan and thus don't know the ballot rejection rules and was simply clicking on an internet poll as to how I would treat "questionable ballots". I don't believe I made claim anywhere that I was some sort of authority on the matter.
It's also worth noting that in your initial post you made this statement
so I echoed your language on the matter in my follow up.I didn't know I was talking with THE authority on all things regarding Minnesota elections, but rather thought I was having a friendly conversation about where we differed in our layman decisions of how we'd decide questionable ballots.
November 20, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all in good fun, Jonze. Now that the election is over, it seems that there are fewer and fewer opportunities to fight.
Confession: I'm a lawyer, so I really enjoy this kind of combat over minutia.
November 20, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink