DFL petty poobah – a former DFL state legislator, in fact – on a state politics discussion forum:
As Minnesotans, we can be proud of our election system.
Take 100 random Minnesotans off the street.
Ask them “To the best of your knowledge, how did the canvassing board and the secretary of state arrive at the conclusion that Norm Colemn’s 200-odd vote margin of victory on election night is now a 200-odd vote Franken lead?”
Take the correct answers, and express them as a percentage.
That’s how proud we can be.
Any bets?
Hint: I, who follow this stuff as a political junkie, have no idea.
The % would be very high because the answer is simple and has been widely publicized.
Election officials recounted by hand with representatives from both campaigns watching and objecting if they thought necessary. All significant objections were resolved unanimously by a five member panel that included Two Republican Supreme Court Justices.
“Hint: I, who follow this stuff as a political junkie, have no idea.”
So you say. My guess, if we gave you the right incentive, you could come up with the answer.
One of the fundamental laws of the universe is at play, Mitch. What goes around comes around. And no, whining about the result won’t change it.
100 random Minnesotans, Rick. Not Minnesotans who need to add DFL to their names. In that scenario the percentage responding “I don’t know” would be very high.
We need run-off elections.
Mitch, it’s a simple answer, but I’ll still try to go slowly.
The canvassing board opened the votes…….
…..and counted them.
…..and counted them.
sometimes twice….
…and sometimes not at all.
MoN, if Coleman presents evidence of “double counting” to the court, and the court finds that isn’t true, I wonder if that will satisfy you. More likely, there’s no way this recount can end in a Franken win without conservatives crying “fraud.”
By the way, I would welcome a runoff after Coleman’s behavior in this recount.
…and counted some districts according to one standard,and some according to another.
Rick, your invincible obtuseness is neither unexpected nor explicable.
Jeff – certainly you can’t be unaware of the schizophrenic melange of “standards” used.
if we gave you the right incentive,
Being shipped off to a camp near Ely if I don’t acquiesce?
“MoN, if Coleman presents evidence of “double counting” to the court, and the court finds that isn’t true, I wonder if that will satisfy you. ”
Yes it will. Same with the absentee ballots that Coleman is questioning.
How can anybody claim victory or defeat until these questions are answered?
“…and counted some districts according to one standard,and some according to another.”
Suddenly someone has more than “no idea” how the Canvassing Board arrived at its decision. Just as I suspected.
Your objection is not that people do not know what the CB did, your objection is that they do not share your evaluation of their work.
Just becaquse there are more votes than voters is no reason to be suspicious.
Just as I suspected.
You don’t even know what you’re talking about, do you?
Your autopilot is set on “condescend first, ask questions later?”
How does one doubt double counting when the number of votes counted exceeds the number of ballots cast? How does one doubt that there is a problem with the vote count when the Sec.State is apparently too dumb (or willfully complicit) to tell precinct workers that he’s not going to accept such a result?
Let’s be serious here. How do you get more votes than ballots issued without double-counting or fabricating votes? Anybody got an answer?
“Rick”?
What Kerm and Bubba said.
Do you have a plausible explanation for this?
Where “approved by your DFL masters” <> “plausible” in and of itself.
“What goes around comes around. ”
So if the Dems fail to steal an election in 2000 karma demands that they be allowed to steal an election in 2009?
It’s called clown logic.
Kermit:
“Just becaquse there are more votes than voters is no reason to be suspicious. ”
Well I will grant you Maplewood P6 may have more ballots cast than voters they can document. As many as 4 of them. Sounds like grounds for a revote to me. Nowhere else are there more voters than votes.
Mitch:
“You don’t even know what you’re talking about, do you?”
Maybe not, but I have a hard time seeing it. What exactly am I wrong about? You said you had “no idea” how the CB could change a Coleman lead to a Franken lead. Later you said they did this by counting ballots according to different standards in different places. Seems like a very well developed idea about how the CB reached its result to me. Am I wrong?
Bike Bubba:
“How do you get more votes than ballots issued without double-counting or fabricating votes?”
See letter from Joe Mansky pages 125-127 in Coleman complaint here
http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Other/2008%20Elections/Notice_of_Contest.pdf
The answer is that the number of voters and votes reported election night were wrong because election judges did not operate the election machines correctly.
Bike Bubba:
“How do you get more votes than ballots issued without double-counting or fabricating votes?
P.S. you are confusing two separate issues. In none of the precincts were the Coleman campaign alleges “double-counting” were there more ballots cast than voters. The two precincts Mplwd 6 and St. Paul 3-9 they do not allege double-counting. If their allegation were true, someone manufactured ballots after the election and put them in the machines.
Yes Rick, that’s just where the ACORN cracked a bit.
Kermit:
If you think an ACORN operative stuffed the ballot box in Maplewood P6, I suggest you file a complaint pronto. Do you think the election judges were part of the conspiracy? All of them or just some of them? How did they get the ballots?
Rick, you are wrong. View this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
25 precincts have more votes cast than ballots issued. Explain how this could have happened without some funny business going on.
I agree that DFL poll workers have trouble with operating voting equipment. For that reason, poll workers in troubled precincts need to be told not to come back next time around. However, the key issue here isn’t being too dumb to operate a voting machine, but rather following basic procedures to ensure no overvotes.
And it’s the Secretary of State’s job to tell precincts that if they’ve got more votes than voters recorded, they need to send the ballot boxes and voter logs to St. Paul for analysis instead of simply certifying the results.
If you’ve got another explanation, let’s have it, but I simply cannot see how you can have more votes than voters without some funny business that OUGHT TO BE CORRECTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE BEFORE CERTIFYING ELECTION RESULTS.
Hey, Angryclown has an idea! Why don’t you simply shut your wingnut pieholes, Bike Bubba and all you other sore-loser crybabies!
Um, because the Minnesota Secretary of State appears to have certified an election result based on nonexistent votes?
The question is why Democrats aren’t raising Hell over this one, not why Republicans are. It doesn’t make Democrats look very good, after all, to elect a cokehead from New York based on Chicago style balloting. Youl would think they’d want to put the kibosh on that kind of thing, no?
Bike Bubba:
The accusation in the WSJ article is:
“But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote.”
THE WSJ is either lying or deeply confused. If you examine the Coleman complaint page 109 they list 22 (not 25) precincts in which they allege ballots were double counted. In none of those precincts does the Coleman campaign allege there were “more ballots than voters who signed in to vote”. In fact, the Franken campaign argues that because there are not more votes than voters signed in there is no proof that ballots were double counted. Turn to page 118 and you will find the two precincts (Mplwd P6 and St. Paul 3-9 in which the Coleman campaign raises the possibility of more ballots case that voters who sign in.
“If you’ve got another explanation” I already cited the explanation. Read the Mansky letter. If you think he is wrong or lying, file a complaint. Poll workers made mistakes that caused the number of voters and votes to be incorrectly reported on election night. After correcting the numbers, St. Paul 3-9 does not have more ballots cast than voters who signed in and Mapplewood P6 has 4 more ballots than voters they can document. The most obvious explanation is that 4 people managed to vote without sighing in. Simple human error.
Well, those are the breaks, aren’t they Bike Butthead? You’re calling for election reform eight years too late. As a result, you are being laughed at. Try to retain some dignity and stop whining cause the ball didn’t bounce your way. Don’t worry, there’ll be other elections for you to steal.
angryclown:
As much as I would like to, we can not claim this as a victory for tough-minded whatever it takes Democrats. Credit where credit is due, the goo-goos managed to win one for the team.
Actually, AC, if you want to talk about 2000, I believe that the issue was (then as now) that the Democrats were acting as if following the law were optional. Just like Washington a few years back, too; it’s the donkeys working hard to steal elections, not the pachyderms.
And election reform? Nah. Just audit the voter rolls of each precinct every so often, figure out who is registered at a nonexistent address (and who registered them), and if you find precincts with over 1% of the vote changing, you tell the poll workers not to come back next time. If it happens twice or three times in a row, you look higher up on the “food chain” to see why that precinct is having so many problems.
Of course, the guy you voted for says that would dangerously imperil the graveyard vote. So be it.
If you think an ACORN operative
Rick, why the singular? Think plural.
Kermit:
“Think plural”
All the more reason to put up or shut up. How exactly did Acorn operatives cast 4 illegal ballots in Mplwd P6.
To paraphrase wingnut role-model Douglas Niedermeyer, Bubba, you are worthless and weak. You’re embarrassing yourself with all the alibis and whining.
Bike Bubba:
When caught having no idea what you are talking about, I understand your desire to change the subject. You should, however, avoid a subject about which your are totally ignorant.
“audit the voter rolls of each precinct every so often, figure out who is registered at a nonexistent address”
This is done already. When a voter registers or changes their address, a proof of registration is mailed to the address. If it comes back (as it would if the address was non-existent), the voter is flagged and challenged at polls. Feel free to call Ramsey Co. Elections at 651-266-2171 to confirm.
Sorry Rick. They kicked me out of the seminar.
Kermit:
That is OK, I appreciate your confession of utter ignorance.
Projection, Rick. It doesn’t just happen in theaters.
“Projection”: wingnut for “I know you are but what am I?”
Ever think of expressing yourself in something other than wingnut-approved cliches Kerm?
To complain that the laws are not being obeyed makes me a whiner? So be it, I guess.
Ever think of expressing yourself in something other than defending lame-ass ad hominem or even lamer chain-yanking, Clownie?
Bike Bubba:
“To complain that the laws are not being obeyed makes me a whiner?”
No. Not knowing the facts of the case or MN election rules, makes you an idiot.
Kermit:
“Ever think of expressing yourself in something other than defending lame-ass ad hominem or even lamer chain-yanking, Clownie?”
I forget, what did you do when challenged about your claim “there are more votes than voters”?
An when challenged to explain how ACORN stuffed 4 extra ballots, what did you do?
A bipartisan election commission says you’re wrong. Time to admit you’re a loser and move on, Bike Butthead.
Sore loser.
Gee Rick. On November 5th we stood here and said that Franken would steal the election with Mark Ritchie’s help. Two months later, Mission Accomplished. Now you want me to put on my Amazing Kreskin hat, go back in time and reveal every way in which the theft was accomplished. Good humor.
Selected, not elected. Senator Frankenfraud.
Hay, AC, the SC that upheld Bush’s position in 2000 was bi-partisan. Time to admit you’re a loser and move on!
“When a voter registers or changes their address, a proof of registration is mailed to the address. If it comes back (as it would if the address was non-existent), the voter is flagged and challenged at polls.”
Rick, Rick, Rick.
This only shows that at one time the address was legitimate. Buildings get torn down, people move. This soesn’t do a damn thing about people keeping a registration that is no longer accurate.
Kermit:
“Now you want me to put on my Amazing Kreskin hat, go back in time and reveal every way in which the theft was accomplished. Good humor.”
No. I want you to list precincts where “there are more votes than voters” and explain why we should not accept Mansky’s explanation of the only two cases where the Coleman campaign alleges this.
Next, in the only agreed upon case of more votes than voters (4 votes in Mplwd P6), I want you to explain how you know ACORN managed to add the 4 votes (as opposed to simple human error).
Those are both very simple easy tasks.
Terry:
“This only shows that at one time the address was legitimate. Buildings get torn down, people move. This soesn’t do a damn thing about people keeping a registration that is no longer accurate”
True, but BB did not raise that issue. There are other mechanisms to address that issue.
Those are both very simple easy tasks.
OK, Sport. Have at it.
RickDFL wrote:
“True, but BB did not raise that issue.”
Wrong again, RickDFL. You wrote(in part quoting Bike Bubba):
‘“audit the voter rolls of each precinct every so often, figure out who is registered at a nonexistent address”
This is done already.’
It is not ‘done already’. As I’ve mentioned home addresses become defunct and non-existent. Sending a letter to an address when a person registers with that address does not guarantee that the address is valid.
RickDFL, you are in the unenviable position of defending a voting system which, by your own lights, produces a miniscule percentage of fraudulent votes while insisting that an election that produced a victory for your candidate by a miniscule percentage (so far) should not be considered fraudulent.
Terry:
Terry whether X is registered at an non-existent address for which there is no corresponding physical location is a different issue from whether X is registered at an existing physical address at which X does not reside. BB raised the first issue. For the most part, you raise the second issue.
I suppose that you are right in one part. If a physical location is destroyed and not replaced, anyone previously registered to vote at that location, might continue on the voting role for a while as registered at a non-existent address. It is a good question for the County. I would bet they catch most of it with a fairly common piece of software. But even if they didn’t check, that could hardly rise to the 1% of registered voters in a precinct BB suggested.
“you are in the unenviable position of defending a voting system which, by your own lights, produces a miniscule percentage of fraudulent votes”
I am unaware of any fraudulent votes. I don’t even see good evidence that fraudulent votes were plausible. The 4 votes in Maplewood P6 might be fraudulent, but they were more likely cast by legitimate voters who simply were not processed correctly.
“while insisting that an election that produced a victory for your candidate by a miniscule percentage (so far) should not be considered fraudulent.”
If you aware of fraudulent votes, feel free to file evidence in the election contest. But it will and should take more than paranoid delusions to undo an election.
Now you want me to put on my Amazing Kreskin hat, go back in time and reveal every way in which the theft was accomplished.
Well, I think Coleman attempted to steal the election. Apparently he failed.
You want me to explain how Coleman attempted to steal the election? I don’t have a Kreskin hat, but I just know he did.
RickDFL
You are in over your head.
Bike Bubba did not say that voter’s addresses should be checked before they are allowed to vote. He said “audit the voter rolls of each precinct every so often, figure out who is registered at a nonexistent addres”
You responded, and I quote,
“This is done already.”
You said that what Bike Bubba wanted — “audit the voter rolls of each precinct every so often, figure out who is registered at a nonexistent addres” Is being done. You amplify this by writing:
” When a voter registers or changes their address, a proof of registration is mailed to the address. If it comes back (as it would if the address was non-existent), the voter is flagged and challenged at polls”
This is clearly not the same as “auditing the voter rolls of each precinct every so often, figure out who is registered at a nonexistent addres”
In your own words, RickDFL, “Not knowing the facts of the case or MN election rules, makes you an idiot. “