For example, on the left is a pretty clear vote for Coleman, but the voter may have left an identifying mark (blacked out) which is invalid by Minnesota law. Franken is challenging.
Lawyers must be running this, cause they are cheerfully arguing both sides on separate ballot. For example, Franken is arguing against the ballot on the left, while arguing for the ballot in the right. (Coleman's side isn't any better from what I can see)
If this gets really tight, do we really want somebody who voted for "Lizard People" for President to determine whether or not the Democrats obtain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?
Some voters who flippantly voted are now showing regret.
dailykos has a good analysis of a few of the "suspicious" vote changes, showing that at least two of the three "oops, we mis-transcribed" corrections are very reasonable, and the third one is reasonable.
A Dartmouth Study suggests that undervotes will favor Franken.
Surely there will be tons of suits and ranting over a few hundred votes here and there and the "intent" of some undercount ballot. But nobody will mention that a huge 15% of the voters chose an independent, Dean Barkley. Shouldn't we wonder about their intent? How would their votes have gone with no Barkley? This is an argument for some sort of "instant-runoff" system. In Oregon, the independent got 5%, and the winner only 49%, another candidate for an instant runoff. Especially since the independent very probably took more votes from the loser than the winner. Or at least a normal runoff as is happening in Georgia.
No comments:
Post a Comment