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

[Ronnie]

is there any chance that we don't know the winner by January 6th?

Ya, if they are within 20 votes of each other or something.  Don't see it.

[Sam Spade]

I've not really been following this all that closely... who's favoured to win now [qm].

Unless you know the content of each and every challenged ballot, we have no clue.

[King]

Too bad we can't just have a runoff here like in Georgia.

[Mr. Morden]

Coleman has just (narrowly) moved ahead of Franken again on Intrade.  I guess the Intraders were expecting Franken to be making up more ground in the recount than he has to date.

[Sam Spade]

Coleman has just (narrowly) moved ahead of Franken again on Intrade.  I guess the Intraders were expecting Franken to be making up more ground in the recount than he has to date.

Anyone betting on this one on Intrade should be doing so for amusement purposes only.

[Sam Spade]

Updated per SOS and per Star Tribune, where SOS not covered.  Lead Coleman +136 in Strib, +126 in SOS

39 counties are in 100% according to Strib, whereas SOS says only 36 counties (and two have no results), but I see no reason to doubt Strib here.  Exceptions are 1 precinct in Beltrami, all of Swift and Wantowan.

17 counties are partially in.  Kittson shows no results on SOS, but is almost full on Strib.  Hennepin, Nicollet and Polk are given more results on Strib than on SOS.  On these counties, do not trust the numbers in parentheses for accurate results of what "has been" counted.

31 counties have not reported results yet.  13 of them say they should have or should have had results by today or tomorrow.

Without determining what the Strib numbers are from Hennepin (and where they come from), I can tell you that the present results in on the SOS skew strongly Coleman in Hennepin, skew strongly Franken in Ramsey and basically what's left of St. Louis is Duluth proper, which oddly enough, didn't vote much different than the rural areas here.

I may, given my own personal time, try and analyze the precincts to determine whether the challenged ballot is likely to be 1) a ballot counted for a candidate and challenged or 2) an overvote or blank vote challenged, but more than that I cannot say.

Considering 42% according to SOS is in today, with 51% of precincts (46% according to Strib, 55% of precincts), unless the guys decide to take a day off, we should be somewhere near 60% tomorrow.

All for now...

[Meeker]

New ballots!

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/

Does anyone know if we'll be able to find out which of the challenged ballots were counted? I really want to know what ends up happening to Lizard People

[© tweed]

New ballots!

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/

Does anyone know if we'll be able to find out which of the challenged ballots were counted? I really want to know what ends up happening to Lizard People

Bachmen!

[Meeker]

If they count Lizard People then they need to count Bachmen. Fair is fair.

Curious that two people would write-in Michelle Bachmann but not fill in the bubble

[GMantis]

New ballots!

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/

Does anyone know if we'll be able to find out which of the challenged ballots were counted? I really want to know what ends up happening to Lizard People

Ballot #1: Reject - it's obviously a signature.
Ballot #2: Franken - a pencil mark is still a valid mark
Ballot #3: Coleman - no other oval has been marked
Ballot #4: Reject - it's an overvote

[Fritz]

This law about signatures on the ballot is really silly.  I think the law itself could be challenged as unfair or unconstitutional.  I mean, if the voter intent is clear, why should a signature invalidate it?  If the ballots were not hand-recounted, how would anyone even know?  And finally, how are the voters supposed to know?  I voted in Minnesota, and I saw no signs advising about this law.  I say count every ballot if the intent is clear, only ballots with unclear intent should be challenged.  The end result of a re-count should be that more votes end up being counted, not less.

[Fritz]

Day 2 ballots:

1. Coleman
2. Franken
3. Coleman
4. Coleman

Day 1 ballots:

1. Franken
2. accept
3. reject (depending on how the remainder of the ballot was marked)
4. Franken
5. Franken
6. Franken
7. Coleman
8. Franken
9. Barkely
10. Barkely
11. reject

[minionofmidas]

The end result of a re-count should be that more votes end up being counted, not less.

The end result of a recount should be that the original count was correct or very close to correct, and all the errors were human errors without systematic bias.
Something's very wrong with the original counting procedure wherever that's not the case.

The law about signatures makes sense - the idea (an idea already holed behind the waterline by the expansion of postal voting) being that for a ballot to be truly secret and free from outside interference, secrecy must be compulsory.
Which admittedly doesn't make too much sense in the case of this barely readable signature.

[Sam Spade]

Day #2:

1) Coleman - I'm curious what interpretation of the "identifying mark" provision has been, but doesn't it need to identify something first?  To me it looks more like a scribble, which doesn't identify anything.
2) Franken - weak argument
3) Coleman - weak argument
4) Coleman - exact same situation as the Lizard People.  Henceforth...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Day #2:

1) Coleman - I'm curious what interpretation of the "identifying mark" provision has been, but doesn't it need to identify something first?  To me it looks more like a scribble, which doesn't identify anything.

$500 to the first person who can actually wind up "identifying" that one.

For anyone playing along at home, my calls:

1. Coleman.
2. Franken.  I do concur that there is some suspicion—though not enough to nullify.
3. Reject.  I would surmise the voter wanted to nullify their Coleman vote.  (I realize I'm in the minority here.)
4. Coleman, assuming the Lizard People vote is counted for Franken.

[Meeker]

1. Reject. I think the law is fairly clear.
2. Franken. Changing writing utensils isn't grounds for fraud.
3. Reject. Voter had originally voted for Coleman but then changed their minds upon further thought. It's a pretty clear "X".
4. Coleman (but must be in line with Lizard People decision).

[MaxQue]

Ballot #1: Reject. It is an identifing mark
Ballot #2: Franken. They shouldn't care about the kind of thing used.
Ballot #3: Reject. A ''X'' over the oval is oblivous and others votes don't have this.
Ballot #4: Coleman. The Bachmen or Badmen oval is not filled.

[Verily]

1. Reject. Definitely a signature, therefore an identifying mark.
2. Franken
3. Coleman
4. Coleman


STrib now has Coleman ahead by 130 votes. Franken challenged a ton of ballots today, too, now with 901 challenges to only 416 for Coleman.

http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/msenco.html

[Rococo4]

130

[Sam Spade]

STrib now has Coleman ahead by 130 votes. Franken challenged a ton of ballots today, too, now with 901 challenges to only 416 for Coleman.

http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/msenco.html

Some Franken person in Renville County challenged 476 ballots, which is probably every blank vote or overvote (only 6000 votes).  Kind of a lol moment.

[GMantis]

Yesterday's ballots
1. Franken - this is just a smudge
2. Coleman - see above
3. Franken - the intent is obvious
4. Franken - again, intent counts
5. Reject - for the same reason as "Bachmen" - intent is not clear
6. Franken - the intent is clear
7. Reject - both ovals are similar in size
8. Franken - this is just a smudge
9. Barkley - the intent is clear
10. Barkley - this is just a smudge
11. Reject - intent is unclear

[Sam Spade]

As a reminder, these are the counties we can possibly expect results from today, including those already being counted.

Aitkin
Benton
Carlton
Kanabec
Lac Qui Parle
Martin
Meeker
Mille Lacs
Wadena

Counties - Recount Not Started

Becker (Nov. 24)

Blue Earth (Nov. 24)

Brown (Nov. 24)

Dodge (Dec. 1)

Goodhue (Nov. 24)

Jackson (Nov. 24)

Koochiching (Nov. 24)

Lake of the Woods (Nov. 24)

Le Sueur (Dec. 1)

Mower (Nov. 24)

Rock (Dec. 3)

Scott (Dec. 3)

Sherburne (Nov. 25)

Stevens (Nov. 26)

Todd (Nov. 25)

Wilkin (Nov. 22)

Winona (Dec. 3)

Wright (Dec. 3)

[Sam Spade]

STrib now has Coleman ahead by 130 votes. Franken challenged a ton of ballots today, too, now with 901 challenges to only 416 for Coleman.

http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/msenco.html

Some Franken person in Renville County challenged 476 ballots, which is probably every blank vote or overvote (only 6000 votes).  Kind of a lol moment.

As I expected, the 476 ballot challenge was a misprint.  Only two were challenged.

[Sam Spade]

Presently at 131.  An urban precinct removed one vote for Franken and added one challenge for him (probably about the vote).  Challenges are presently at 416 for Coleman, 430 for Franken.

[Brittain33]

The Frankenfolks are claiming that they have Coleman's lead under 100. See TPM.