MN Sen Recount (UPDATE: Stuart Smalley certified winner, lawsuit forthcoming)

[muon2]

And you thought challenge *overkill* was bad before...  I'm hoping this is a misprint, otherwise I'll have as much *fun* as with Hennepin.

Sherburne
Vote Changes
Coleman -433, Franken -426

Challenges
Coleman 452, Franken 422

...help...

I just saw this as well. This is almost as many challenges as in Hennepin! I understand that the canvassing board has pleaded for help from both sides to reduce the challenge pile. Does that mean that the attys will agree swap challenged ballots and allow them either both in or out at the same time?

[muon2]

And you thought challenge *overkill* was bad before...  I'm hoping this is a misprint, otherwise I'll have as much *fun* as with Hennepin.

Sherburne
Vote Changes
Coleman -433, Franken -426

Challenges
Coleman 452, Franken 422

...help...

I just saw this as well. This is almost as many challenges as in Hennepin! I understand that the canvassing board has pleaded for help from both sides to reduce the challenge pile. Does that mean that the attys will agree swap challenged ballots and allow them either both in or out at the same time?

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/35166869.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUT

I wonder if the timing of the escalation correlates with the decision of the canvassing board to leave the rejected absentee ballots off the count.

[muon2]

Can we all agree that many Coleman challengers are complete fucking morons?

Only if we can all agree that Franken challengers are complete fucking morons.

Coleman's people are not morons, in any case.  They're engaged in a petty case of tit-for-tat frivolous challenges with Team Franken.  Part of it is petty revenge, part of it is PR: Coleman doesn't want Franken to dramatically outpace them on challenges, or the running tally (which doesn't include challenged ballots) will start showing a Franken lead.

Having returned recently from MN, I would agree that this is the most accurate interpretation of the goings-on.

[muon2]

Maplewood is a St Paul suburb of 35,000.

The wiki article has only this to add to the standard statistical crap...

"Politics

Maplewood's Mayor (Diana Longrie) and Council (Rebecca Cave, Erik Hjelle, Kathy Junemann, and Will Rossbach) have garnered metro-area attention over the last year for a number of issues. Chief among these issues are the firings, resignations, and re-organizational plan that eliminated some positions."

lol

Also notable is its really weird and illogical shape. It's mostly north of St. Paul, but then a sliver of it about a mile along runs down the east side of St. Paul and is the only thing separating it from Washington county.

The sliver represents the land the 3M selected to be its corporate headquarters in the 50's. 3M didn't want to annex its land to St. Paul. The remaining part of New Canada township after Little Canada incorporated attached that sliver and became Maplewood.

I have the advantage of going to HS in Little Canada so I picked up a share of history of that area.

[muon2]

This is excellent news. I had all but reconciled myself to loss.

It was inevitable and you know it.

Oh no, I really thought he'd steal this one. Fortunately, we stole it instead.

This is one reason to like a runoff system for major races. The revote will usually remove any idea that one side or the other "stole" the election. It also gives the 3rd party voters a chance to decide what (if anything) they want to do with their vote.

[muon2]

This is excellent news. I had all but reconciled myself to loss.

It was inevitable and you know it.

Oh no, I really thought he'd steal this one. Fortunately, we stole it instead.

This is one reason to like a runoff system for major races. The revote will usually remove any idea that one side or the other "stole" the election. It also gives the 3rd party voters a chance to decide what (if anything) they want to do with their vote.

It actually creates an extra opportunity for a screw up. First, when the third candidate comes within .01% of the second and they battle it out, who should have gone into the run-off (not that unrealistic in MN, come think of it). And second, when the final result is 50.01% vs. 49.99%

The possibility for a separate runoff producing an equally close result exists, but it is not probable. As the recount shows, two experts looking at the same pile of ballots with the same standards can vary by a few votes per 10,000 cast. That establishes a margin of error for any voting system, albeit a small margin of error.

A separate runoff creates a different pool of voters. The differences in the pool increase with the size of the electoral constituency. That makes it very unlikely that the new pool of voters would be within the same margin of error when they vote. Thus it is improbable to have a runoff require a recount.

[muon2]

The possibility for a separate runoff producing an equally close result exists, but it is not probable.

That's not the issue. You're looking at it the wrong way. It doesn't have to be close to begin with. Let's say we use a runoff system. Here's the initial count.

Candidate A: 45%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 25%

Here, A and B go into a runoff. It turns out that candidate C voters split such that the final result is:

Candidate B: 50.001%
Candidate A: 49.999%

Now we're locked in endless recounts as Candidate A fights to win and everyone is saying how nice it would be if we had just used a plurality system as then the result would have been clear in this case.

I think it is the issue. Consider these two setups with three candidates that give a recount:

Setup 1: A 42.01%, B 41.99%, C 16.00%. No runoff, A or B is eventually declared winner.

Setup 2: A 45%, B 30%, C 25%. Runoff with B 50.01%, A 49.99%. B is declared the winner.

I think that Setup 2 provides the stronger claim for legitimacy. Both will be contested, but at the end of the process only Setup 2 gives one candidate over 50%.

[muon2]

I'll agree with you that run-off is better than no run-off but close results are just as likely. That's the point I'm trying to make. The voting method should be a separate consideration from how to deal with close elections. Because we will have these rare, close elections under any system.

What's less likely is two consecutive close races. The assuming equal probabilities at each stage, the combined probability decreases as the square of the probability.

[muon2]

I'll agree with you that run-off is better than no run-off but close results are just as likely. That's the point I'm trying to make. The voting method should be a separate consideration from how to deal with close elections. Because we will have these rare, close elections under any system.

What's less likely is two consecutive close races. The assuming equal probabilities at each stage, the combined probability decreases as the square of the probability.

In a plurality system you can't have two consecutive races, so technically it's greater (since it's greater than 0) in a run-off system.

I think you're still looking at this wrong. Yes, if your initial results are:

A: 40.01%
B: 39.99%
C: 20%

Then yes, it is unlikely the run-off will be close. But here's the crux. The chances, on average, of having elections close in the initial tally are balanced, on average, by the chances of having run-offs where the result is close, even though the initial tally wasn't.

I disagree. You assume that all races are equally likely to be close. I assume that races with more than two candidates have a greater likelihood of being close due to the reduced pool of voters for the top two candidates.  With fewer votes the statistical fluctuations that can lead to a close vote have a greater impact. This leads me to fewer close races after a runoff than in a plurality system.

A hybrid of plurality and runoff is also possible. I could strengthen my suggestion for run-off by only invoking it if a candidate has less than 50% of the vote and the margin of victory is less than 5% (or some other small but significant margin.)

[muon2]

Not only are the dates not required to match in order for the vote to be counted, the signatures aren't required to be dated in order for the vote to count.

Coleman is scum.

That's true. But suppose under the witness signature, the witness wrote "I didn't acutally witness this. I was just given the ballot and asked to sign." Should that ballot be counted because there is no requirement that the handwritten witness statement confirm that s/he actually witnessed the ballot signing...or even a requirement for a handwritten witness statement?

Every state has some level of this type of election laws. When they are enacted, everyone is wildly in favor of them as protections against fraud. However, as we see in MN, many of the laws seem overly picky when they have to be tested in a close race. I'm not sure how to resolve the apparent public good attempted by enacting the laws versus the public desire for common sense when the laws are put to the test.

It gets more confusing when you look at the individual state case law. In each state some of the picky rules will have been judged enforceable and mandatory, and others are not fatal to a candidate or vote. Legislatures rarely clean up the laws like these that courts have ruled against, so they remain on the books but unenforced. Without an experienced election attorney, it's impossible to know which laws must hold.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's because the employment system is so messed up that it requires a high school education to get a decent(ish) job.

Education up to second level, mass education that is, is a waste of time if you want to really know stuff. (Yes, I can be an intellectual elitist - but on this point alone. Given the talent variation between 13 year olds it seems a waste of time to lump them all together into some mediorce mush.)

Actually, in the US today the employment system effectively requires at least a college degree to get a decent(ish) job. Studies this decade show that people with less than a college degree have employment with wages that do not grow in real buying power. Here's the table from one IL study comparing median hourly wages from 1980 to 2006 in adjusted 2006 dollars:

Education	1980	1990	2000	2006
Less than HS	$13.11	$10.22	$9.58	$9.34
HS degree		$14.25	$13.03	$13.00
Some College	$14.59	$14.73	$14.48	$13.95
BA or Higher	$20.12	$22.02	$23.72	$23.01

[muon2]

Will Cornyn or someone plan to draw a distinction between the seating of Franken compared to Burris in the Senate? Both will arrive with official credentials from their state and both with a legal cloud surrounding the credentials for that seat. It's true that one is an election and one is an appointment, but is that enough to draw the distinction?

[muon2]

Will Cornyn or someone plan to draw a distinction between the seating of Franken compared to Burris in the Senate? Both will arrive with official credentials from their state and both with a legal cloud surrounding the credentials for that seat. It's true that one is an election and one is an appointment, but is that enough to draw the distinction?

While it is a coincidence that there are these two cases at the same time, they actually are fairly different. Only extreme Republican hacks would think that there was something wrong in provisionally seating the man who got the most votes in the Minnesota election. The Illinois situation has more complicated legal and ethical issues.

I agree that there are substantially different ethics between the IL Gov and the MN Canvassing Board, but that is exactly what the Powell case says is irrelevant to Senate seating. If Coleman files a court challenge, both Franken and Burris will have equally deficient certification credentials to present to the Senate.

[muon2]

Will Cornyn or someone plan to draw a distinction between the seating of Franken compared to Burris in the Senate? Both will arrive with official credentials from their state and both with a legal cloud surrounding the credentials for that seat. It's true that one is an election and one is an appointment, but is that enough to draw the distinction?

While it is a coincidence that there are these two cases at the same time, they actually are fairly different. Only extreme Republican hacks would think that there was something wrong in provisionally seating the man who got the most votes in the Minnesota election. The Illinois situation has more complicated legal and ethical issues.

I agree that there are substantially different ethics between the IL Gov and the MN Canvassing Board, but that is exactly what the Powell case says is irrelevant to Senate seating. If Coleman files a court challenge, both Franken and Burris will have equally deficient certification credentials to present to the Senate.

The Senate should provisionally seat the obvious winner while the frivolous challenges are being dealt with. Coleman wanted to steal the election like Bush did in 2000, but he lost fair and square.

And how is Burris' appointment any less obvious?

[muon2]

And how is Burris' appointment any less obvious?

Are you arguing that Burris should be Senator?

Immediately after Blagojevich's arrest there was bipartisan agreement to hold a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat. A special election required legislation and a bill was drafted, ready for filing, by the end of the week after the arrest. The intent was to pass the bill on the Monday and Tuesday one week after the arrest.

The draft of that bill included language anticipating that Blago would an appointment before the bill became law. That language would relegate the appointment to "temporary" status, such that the appointment would only be valid until the special election winner was certified. The leaders of the legislature believed that an appointment by Blago would be valid, or that language would not have been part of the bill.

I echo the legal reasoning of the legislature. I see an absence of any allegation that this particular appointment involved an unlawful act.  The appropriate action is to accept the appointment however unpalatable, and move forward with a special election that would obviate further need of an appointment to fill the seat.

[muon2]

And how is Burris' appointment any less obvious?

Are you arguing that Burris should be Senator?

Immediately after Blagojevich's arrest there was bipartisan agreement to hold a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat. A special election required legislation and a bill was drafted, ready for filing, by the end of the week after the arrest. The intent was to pass the bill on the Monday and Tuesday one week after the arrest.

The draft of that bill included language anticipating that Blago would an appointment before the bill became law. That language would relegate the appointment to "temporary" status, such that the appointment would only be valid until the special election winner was certified. The leaders of the legislature believed that an appointment by Blago would be valid, or that language would not have been part of the bill.

I echo the legal reasoning of the legislature. I see an absence of any allegation that this particular appointment involved an unlawful act.  The appropriate action is to accept the appointment however unpalatable, and move forward with a special election that would obviate further need of an appointment to fill the seat.

Could - just in theory; no reason why the Ill. state Reps should agree to it - that language be passed as a law in its own right, so that Burris' terms ends when Blago's successor names a new replacement Senator (ie just give Governors the right to change appointed Senators' at will?)

That's an interesting idea. I don't know whether the reading of the 17th amendment allows for more than one appointment prior to an election. "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."