Remember the 2000 Presidential race in Florida? The one where Al Gore lost until he found some hanging chads and fought it all the way to the US Supreme Court?
Remember this year's Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries that were discounted after going heavily for Clinton and then reinstated then after it was clear that Obama would win regardless?
Now the latest episode is in Minnesota where an incredibly biased canvassing board is overseeing a hand recount (how on earth is a hand count more accurate than a computer one?) of the Senate race between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken. I won't go into great detail, but suffice it to say that there have been a GREAT deal of inconsistencies in the challenged ballots. It seems that whenever the rules favor Coleman, they are discarded. But whenever a rule needs to be bent in favor of Franken, they are.
Update: A few fellow bloggers have informed me that this particular example was a typo, so I tip my hat to them. I've replaced it with a different example that was not a typo (see below).
This ballot was NOT counted for Coleman:
But this ballot WAS coutned as a vote for Coleman.
Here is a link to some more examples with links to the sources. Another good list is in the Fox News report about the same issue. For all you liberal Fox News haters, at least look at it please. It's not more biased that thte New York Times.
7 comments:
Simple. If you looked at the actual results from the canvassing board, instead of merely accepting Lott's statements as blind fact without checking their veracity, you would see that that vote was indeed counted for Coleman. Someone made a typo on the MS-T website.
If you're really a student of political science and this is your fact-checking abilities, I hope you are not planning to go into education. I would pray for the future students you will be teaching.
Thanks Ben, beat me to it.
No, I don't plan on going into education. I couldn't get a job in our schools, anyways because of my political affiliations. They wouldn't want someone who believes in traditional marriage and intelligent design teaching in public schools, let alone a global warming skeptic.
I updated the post, and I admit that I did not spend hours checking the facts. This is a blog, not a scientific journal. I made a mistake, and I made it better, but the fact remains that there are some interesting inconsistencies in this convassing board.
Anyone want to actually debate the issue, or do we want to take the low road and attack eachother personally?
I don't know if you watched the action online as the canvassing board decided on all the ballots. If you didn't, I'll explain what happened.
As a ballot came to their desk, they first showed it to the camera. They then discussed it, explaining their rationale for if the ballot should be counted or not. The rules were admittedly complicated, but absolutely rigid. They stayed consistent throughout the days of ruling, and the system could not have been more transparent.
As I said, the rules were complicated. I can't tell you why these ballots were counted or not without seeing the full ballot. Obviously if one had an identifying mark such as a signature, it would not count. But a circle with an x through it should not count as a vote. However, an x then covered by a circle should count as a vote. If all votes have xs through them, that is intent as the voter apparently thought they should x all their choices. They also said if president and senate (the first two voting options) had xs and no more did, that should count, as the voter perhaps thought they should use xs and then realized they should bubble. Complicated? Yes. Can you tell why these votes were different without seeing at least the Presidential box? No. But should there be any reason to think the system was not honest and transparent? Absolutely not.
Ben, many of your points are well taken. Please note, however, that I do not dispute the transparency of the proceedings. I applaud the board for publishing each ballot, etc.
However, there are always going to be major issues when using a board to determine the "intent" of each voter. When decisions become that subjective, dishonesty is easily cloaked with complicated rules and arguments. Then you end up with rules like: if the first two have x's then the votes count, but if the second two have x's then they don't. I could just as easily come up with a complicated set of rules that would come to completely different conclusions.
I don't think that the board is stupid enough to just blatantly count one vote for Coleman and not an identical ballot. All they need is one little difference between two ballots to give them a reason to not count one of them. Then things get so complicated that all of the non-political-junkies stop caring.
Instead of making a huge set of complicated rules, how about sticking with the original rules and stop trying to guess at what each voter meant?
The original rules are that your vote should count as long as there is intent. Many voters can't hold a pen or see as well as you or I can, so if we say your ballot only counts if you fill in exactly one bubble in every race, we're possibly disenfranchising the handicapped.
I couldn't find it in a brief search just now, but I remember seeing one ballot last month that had every bubble just to the left of the actual bubbles. Should we count those?
If so, what about this ballot? http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/images/noballot.jpg It is clearly a vote for Al Franken. Whether two circles are bubbled or not, shouldn't this ballot count?
Then where is the line drawn on intent? Should the vote be counted only if a board agrees unanimously or if there's a simple majority? You and I may disagree on the answer to that question, but what's important is the state of Minnesota agreed on an answer, set rules for how to proceed with this agreement, and then followed through with the rules set.
I'm not crazy about Al Franken in the Senate either, but the rules were followed as they were set down, and he won fair and square in my eyes. Contrary to the title of your post, I don't believe the rules were changed as they went.
Believe me, I know about those who cannot see or write. I have worked in a retirement community for 7 years. But there are plenty of ways to help handicapped people vote effectively.
As for the others, the Fox News article reported that voters who make a mistake, like in the ballot you posted, are supposed to get a new ballot when they make a mistake. If that is true, then those with anything other than a filled-in bubble ought to be thrown out. Including those for Coleman. The government must protect the right to vote, but it cannot guarantee a voter's competence to do it correctly.
There is no line to be drawn on intent, it ought not to be decided by third parties, unanimously or by majority. Instructions for voters ought to be clear, handicapped voters ought to be given help, and those going outside those directions ought to be disqualified.
What if the coard called every voter who abstained in the Senate race and asked them whether they "intended" to vote for a Senator but just missed it? Could we count those? It sounds absurb, but wouldn't that enfranchise a lot more voters?
Post a Comment