Franken Camp's Claim: We're Ahead -- If They Find Those Missing Ballots!!!
In a briefing with reporters just now, the Franken campaign essentially confirmed what many of us have suspected: That if those 133 ballots there were reported to be missing yesterday in Minneapolis are not recovered, Al Franken will lose the paper-thin lead that the campaign claimed he had yesterday.
Franken's lead recount lawyer Marc Elias said that under the campaign's methodology -- which is not unreasonable, but has some necessary caveats -- they believe Franken is ahead by 10 votes as the first stage of the recount winds down.
The big catch, however, is that the campaign is not including the loss from those missing ballots in their tally for now, while election officials keep the recount in that precinct officially open in order to figure out what is going on. If that apparent loss is not undone, Al would suddenly be down by 36 votes under the campaign's counting method.
An initial theory floating around yesterday was that some ballots might have been double-counted on Election Night, creating the illusion that extra votes were missing this time around. But the local officials themselves have since ruled it out, because of the number of people who actually signed in on the voter rolls. So it looks like there are votes that were properly counted on Election Night, but are missing right now.
Elias called for a comprehensive search for these ballots, and for officials to question every last person who worked at that precinct or who handled the ballots at any given time, and to look anywhere they may have been stored: "This is 133 votes, and they ought to move Heaven and Earth to find them."
I see, all of those "clerical" adjustments in the first few days are an acceptable part of this, but a mistake in counting ballots (that goes against him) is a gross miscarriage of justice.
December 4, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This wasn't a 'mistake in 'counting' as it states. The number of people who signed in to vote was the correct number on election night equal to the votes but now they cannot produce the correct number of ballots to equal the number of people that voted.
December 4, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
When an error is found and corrected, that's not only acceptable, but desirable. Losing ballots is not. It really isn't that difficult...unless, of course, you're being deliberately obtuse. Nah, it can't be as simple as that, can it?
December 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Occam's razor...
December 5, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop: you know better than that. This is about the process, and not the outcome. Or, it certainly should be.
It matters not who prevails as a result of the hand recount. What matters is that the process is sound, and all of the votes which may reasonably be discerned are counted. No matter whom the were cast for.
In all cases, one must look to law, to precedent and to legislative intent to make a reasonable determination as to the final count. If one believes the process is flawed, then administrative, legislative or judicial remedies should be pursued to correct existing procedures and prevent any such future events. Existing law determines the outcome of the votes already cast, no matter whom the victor might be.
December 4, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the "SFC" knows better than that. he's not here after truth, resolution, or fact, he's after doubt and annoyance in equal measure.
It's what he does. It's about all he does. Cause trouble, contribute nothing.
December 4, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you illiterate, dyslexic or what?
There was no mistake in counting votes; the readily apparent problem here is lost ballots belonging to the 133 people who for all intents and purposes showed up at the Minneapolis precinct in question on Election Day, signed in, received their ballots, filled them out and cast them. The optical scanners recorded the votes, but the corresponding ballots are now missing.
It's rather amazing that most everyone seems to get that but you, isn't it? Since your opinion is what currently passes on this post for Republican thought, it's but a small wonder how your party managed to phuque things up so royally in this country. You guys couldn't find your own asses in broad daylight with both hands, a full-length mirror and videotaped directions.
December 4, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the problem. The original ballots went through the machines and Coleman was ahead by 215. The Minnesota law provides that with a margin so slim, all the ballots are hand recounted. It appears that these 133 ballots were not hand recounted. So do you accept the machine scan for these ballots while rejecting it for the millions of others? This is not an easy question and there is no obvious answer. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that only ballots subjected to the hand recount should count (and I'm a Franken supporter). Let's hope they find the ballots or that the 46 vote margin reflected by the machine count isn't dispostive of the election
December 4, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Notice Wally's cowardly silence when confronted with plain facts. It is astounding that 1. he can not figure out the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion", and 2. that, as a result, he seems to enjoy and actually be proud to flaunt his ignorance on the subject. How typical. What a reflection of an inability to apply critical thinking too.
December 4, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it makes some sense in MN and MN is really all that counts. Still, Franken's incessant spin counts are way past the point of annoying the hell out of me.
I'd rather listen to continuous loops of Deep Thoughts
December 4, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if the ballots can't be found, what do you do? Rely on the initial count, which would favor Franken, or find that since they weren't subject to a recount as required by state law, don't count them at all (giving Coleman a big windfall). Tough legal question and likely no precedents to rely on. Might depend on the exact wording of the Minnesota recount statute.
December 4, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also kind of depends on the tabulation technology. Some optical scan systems have a tape that records the results of each vote. If they have that, they at least have a backup of sorts. Which could be an aid or a complicating hindrance, now that I think about it.
December 4, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never put much stock in the possibility the Senate could actually vote not to accept the winner designated by the Election Commission, but this could be enough of a wrinkle to prompt just such a move. If they were to not count those 133 ballots and declare Coleman the winner by a smaller margin than what Franken received in those 133 votes, that could provide just the reasoning they need to vote to seat Franken instead of Coleman. It seems that every election produces some close-call drama, but this one's a doozy.
December 4, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How in hell do you lose 133 ballots?
December 4, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy. Just watch, and learn.
December 4, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might involve having a Quimby mole somewhere in the works. I would put nothing past that slimeball at this point.
December 4, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of interesting that a few days ago when those 171 ballots were found in Ramsey county and the ballot count and voter sign-in didn't initially match, Coleman was all over it.
Now??
**crickets**
December 4, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Quimby mole"? Do you mean Philby (or Mayor Quimby from the Simpsons)?
December 4, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assumed he meant Quimby, from the Simpsons. I also assumed that his comment made no sense.
December 4, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible to ask everyone who voted in that particular precinct to come back and try again, and to keep it open until everyone who hasn't died in the meantime has voted?
If not, I think the original tally, prior to the theft of the ballots, should stand.
Of course, there's a whole class of lawyers who specialize in jury tampering, who could easily transfer their skill set to this problem in the case of a limited re vote.
Let's hope it doesn't come to this.
December 4, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if a revote has ever been done, but I doubt it. How do you know people aren't going to change their vote from the original?
If they don't find those ballots, I don't see any solution that will not be immediately challenged by one side or the other if those votes prove decisive. It would certainly go to court, and possibly be resolved by the Senate.
December 4, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's not going to happen. I've never heard of a revote and I see all types of legal and practical challenges to it. As far as the original tally being kept, it was done by machine and the whole point of the recount was to manually count every ballot. If you were just going to rely on the machine count, then Coleman won that tally on election day. I'm sure Coleman and Franken's lawyers are combing the law books as we speak to see if this has occurred before
December 4, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Franken gets close and ballots go missing. The GOP is just a bunch of cheats who only know how to steal close elections.
December 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not true. They know how to steal some that aren't so close, too.
December 4, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, the ballots that are missing are from a heavily Democratic country and the top election officials there as well as in the state are Democrats. Why is there any reason to believe that a Republican operative stole these ballots? Assuming they are not found, isn't the rational explanation that one or more underpaid precinct workers screwed up (as is not uncommon in both governmental and private work).
December 4, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is silliness on the part of Franken. The press has never reported him as ahead. As of today Coleman leads by over 300 votes. Since the official recount, Franken has never been ahead. Only his camp claims they are but for some reason the AP, the New York Times and the Minn. Tribune aren't buying this.
December 4, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not too sharp, are we?
There is a difference between what has been tabulated in the recount so far, and the number of votes we can expect for either candidate based on the election night count.
December 5, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the court will need to contact the missing voters, making sure they are not being tampered with by Coleman's people and ask how they voted.
December 4, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thee isn't going to be any attempt to contact the missing voters and ask them how they voted. Assuming the ballots arent found, a court will decide to either accept the original machine count or reject all the ballots because they werent' subjected to the required manual recount.
December 4, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What am I missing? The MN Sec of State website shows Franken ahead....
December 4, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman's "people" sure seem like the desperate type... considering how Coleman got the job in the first place, it's always set my tin-foil hat a tingling whenever that particularly senate seat is discussed.
Makes one wonder just what is going on under the covers, that they would be willing to go this far to assure Coleman's victory.
And even if he wins, isn't Coleman facing some serious legal impediments to his future in the Senate, due to the Texas mess he's embroiled in, through his wife's insurance company?
Seriously, just WHO does Coleman represent on the sly, and why do they so desperately want him to retain his seat?
Who is Coleman connected to, behind the scenes? Anyone got any idea?
December 5, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink