Rusty silver linings

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Today Powerline's Scott Johnson critiques an alternative solution to the Minnesota recount problem. The main points of the post (including the proposed solution) are not as interesting to me as his reiteration of the inconsistent and extra-lawful way the recount has proceeded:



A friend of his who was personally involved in the process noted:



When you change the rules after the game is over, you open the door for cheaters to steal the win.

You are really struggling with this, aren't you? There are multiple layers of rules here.

First, the statute (which they must follow) clearly says that there are only 4 reasons a ballot may be legally rejected. Absent any of those 4 reasons, the ballot MUST be counted. Over 700 ballots (and perhaps as many as 1300) were rejected, but for a reason other than the 4 legal reasons. As a result, they MUST be counted. End of story. Coleman doesn't want to count them (i.e., he wants to steal the election and break the law). Franken wants to count them (i.e. uphold the law).

The next layer then deals with the PROCESS for counting the improperly rejected ballots. Sure, the process may evolve. It is a defect in MN law that they do not clearly establish the process. But MN law DOES clearly mandate that SOME process must be followed (because the ballots MUST be counted). MN law also doesn't make clear who determines the process (there seems to be overlapping jurisdiction or even no jurisdiction at times). And yet, the ballots must be counted to comply with law. So, a process is improvised, and ballots are counted. If no process was improvised, THEN the law would be broken and the election would be stolen.

If your concern is stealing the election and breaking the law, then Franken, I am sure, will happily accept your support.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are really struggling with this, aren't you? There are multiple layers of rules here.

First, the statute (which they must follow) clearly says that there are only 4 reasons a ballot may be legally rejected. Absent any of those 4 reasons, the ballot MUST be counted. Over 700 ballots (and perhaps as many as 1300) were rejected, but for a reason other than the 4 legal reasons. As a result, they MUST be counted. End of story. Coleman doesn't want to count them (i.e., he wants to steal the election and break the law). Franken wants to count them (i.e. uphold the law).

The next layer then deals with the PROCESS for counting the improperly rejected ballots. Sure, the process may evolve. It is a defect in MN law that they do not clearly establish the process. But MN law DOES clearly mandate that SOME process must be followed (because the ballots MUST be counted). MN law also doesn't make clear who determines the process (there seems to be overlapping jurisdiction or even no jurisdiction at times). And yet, the ballots must be counted to comply with law. So, a process is improvised, and ballots are counted. If no process was improvised, THEN the law would be broken and the election would be stolen.

My post was in reference to the ballots already counted, not to those rejected which are still in dispute and yet to be counted.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If your concern is stealing the election and breaking the law, then Franken, I am sure, will happily accept your support.

Ha! I agree! Franken appears willing to accept any and all support in stealing elections and breaking the law.

----

Just to fuel the fire a little more, here's a brand new addition from John Hinderaker.

Hinderaker's post directly contradicts Cali Coug's statement that Coleman doesn't want improperly rejected ballots counted. He notes instead:

Not surprisingly, the Coleman and Franken campaigns have had difficulty agreeing on which ballots clearly satisfy the statutory standards and should be counted. Further, the Coleman campaign has identified some additional ballots that it thinks should count.

Indeed I remember reading elsewhere that Coleman actually wanted more rejected ballots counted than Franken. It also appears that what actually constitutes an improperly rejected ballot is not clear cut. Cali would have you believe that they are all sitting in a neat pile on someone's desk with a "Please Count Me" sign over them, and Coleman is blocking access to the room.

Hinderaker further notes:

The issue the Coleman campaign is trying to address is an obvious one: with the counties having been directed to identify their own election-day "errors," there is no assurance that they will apply uniform standards. Indeed, it is virtually certain that they will not. The Coleman campaign is trying to add ballots to the mix to achieve uniformity among the counties.

Coleman's best chance?

Coleman has a strong argument that around 130 Franken votes were counted twice. (This is the "original" vs. "duplicate" issue that we wrote about here and elsewhere.)

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

My post was in reference to the ballots already counted, not to those rejected which are still in dispute and yet to be counted.

Ah, so you are wrong twice and not just once. Got it.

Ha! I agree! Franken appears willing to accept any and all support in stealing elections and breaking the law.

I can't help you with reading comprehension, other than to type shorter sentences.

----

Just to fuel the fire a little more, here's a brand new addition from John Hinderaker.

Hinderaker's post directly contradicts Cali Coug's statement that Coleman doesn't want improperly rejected ballots counted. He notes instead:

Ha! Yeah, nice effort. Coleman identified (using criteria even his campaign hasn't explained) 587 absentee ballots that should have been counted but weren't. Not a single one of those 587 ballots was identified by any of the counties (during the recount process) as being improperly rejected, as opposed to the 1,346 absentee ballots that the counties DID (upon review in the recount) identify as possibly improperly rejected. And where do all of Coleman's new 587 ballots come from? Heavily Republican counties. What a shocker. What Coleman does not want to do is count 544 other ballots that WERE identified by counties as being inappopriately rejected. So what differentiates the 544 ballots that were identified as improperly rejected from the 587 ballots he wants to count that weren't identified in the recount as improperly rejected? He won't say, or even attempt to.

Franken has said he wants to count all of the 1,346 absentee ballots that were identified by the counties as improperly rejected. Coleman doesn't want to. Funny thing is, nobody knows who those people voted for (the ballots remain sealed until it is determined if they should be counted).

Indeed I remember reading elsewhere that Coleman actually wanted more rejected ballots counted than Franken. It also appears that what actually constitutes an improperly rejected ballot is not clear cut. Cali would have you believe that they are all sitting in a neat pile on someone's desk with a "Please Count Me" sign over them, and Coleman is blocking access to the room.

Hinderaker further notes:



Coleman's best chance?

The absentee ballots are pretty clear-cut, for the most part. There are 4 reasons a ballot may be rejected. If a ballot was rejected for another reason, the ballot should be counted (except that he wants to steal the election and thinks rejecting some ballots may help). I don't have a clue why Coleman has such a problem with 544 of the ballots that were identified as being improperly rejected. This isn't quantum physics. Either the ballot is legal or it isn't.

Coleman will lose, and he should. Because more people voted for the other guy. Tex and his ilk will have to find a different election to steal.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ah, so you are wrong twice and not just once. Got it.

You just weren't paying attention.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I can't help you with reading comprehension, other than to type shorter sentences.

Your plea to support Franken's cheating was priceless.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ha! Yeah, nice effort.

The reason why the "fifth pile" of rejected absentee ballots was even created was because it isn't clear cut, thus undercutting your entire argument.

You also keep repeating "identified by the counties" as if that should be authoritatively the last word. But again, this is the very problem (as amply explained by Hinderaker): there is no uniform standard for identifying which ballots fall in that category. What actually deserves to be in that pile is in question.

Naturally, the ballots Coleman wants considers come from districts that favor him, which Johnson clearly explained in his post (and which I previously quoted). Here it is again:

The issue the Coleman campaign is trying to address is an obvious one: with the counties having been directed to identify their own election-day "errors," there is no assurance that they will apply uniform standards. Indeed, it is virtually certain that they will not. The Coleman campaign is trying to add ballots to the mix to achieve uniformity among the counties.

This is at least in part because the counties who have self-identified 5th pile ballots are disproportionately from heavily Democrat counties. I quote Hinderaker again:

Thus, giving the counties discretion to count whatever additional ballots they deem appropriate amounts to giving the Democratic Party a license to steal the election.

And that's what we are seeing happen.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You just weren't paying attention.

Could be. It is certainly possible you were always wrong twice, instead of just recently becoming wrong twice. I should defer to you on the point, but history has shown you aren't right very often, so we will just leave this one unresolved and move on.

Your plea to support Franken's cheating was priceless.

It is almost as if you went to school to learn to be dumber. I don't know how you could so excel at it otherwise.

The reason why the "fifth pile" of rejected absentee ballots was even created was because it isn't clear cut, thus undercutting your entire argument.

You also keep repeating "identified by the counties" as if that should be authoritatively the last word. But again, this is the very problem (as amply explained by Hinderaker): there is no uniform standard for identifying which ballots fall in that category. What actually deserves to be in that pile is in question.

No, what the counties say shouldn't be the final word on the issue. I highlighted the point primarily because you were the one who was concerned that the "rules" are shifting, ignorant of the fact that you are advocating a shifting of the rules yourself by pushing for Coleman's identified ballots to be counted. What is clear (or ought to be) is that Coleman's approach is totally indefinsible. Rather than attempt to define a uniform standard for reviewing absentee ballots (which Franken's campaign fought for), Coleman instead has decided to cherry-pick absentee ballots from counties that are heavily Republican. Now Coleman is stuck with the odd circumstance of opposing absentee ballots which were identified by counties as "legal," while supporting the counting of ballots which weren't identified as "legal," without giving any explanation as to how the two groups differ (other than county of origination).

Franken pushed for uniform standards and didn't get it. So he supports the counting of all absentee ballots which were identified by the counties (which is quite reasonable, particularly since it doesn't inherently favor any county as all have the opportunity and the obligation to identify legal ballots that were wrongly rejected).

This is at least in part because the counties who have self-identified 5th pile ballots are disproportionately from heavily Democrat counties. I quote Hinderaker again:

And that's what we are seeing happen.

What's your beef here? That Democratic counties found ballots that were wrongly rejected? It seems that is precisely what their duty is. Or is your beef that Republican counties neglected to do their duty (assuming they neglected to do their duty- it is possible they didn't have any wrongfully rejected absentee ballots). The number of ballots in Minnesota who went for Obama are almost identical to the number who went for McCain. It isn't as if all MN counties are Democrat (in fact, I believe there were 4 more Republican counties than Democratic, if my quick count on the Secretary of State's page was correct). All counties were told to identify wrongly rejected absentee ballots. Several did just that. Many of those that did were in Democratic areas. What's the problem, other than it hurts your guy's chances to steal the election?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is almost as if you went to school to learn to be dumber.

No, I didn't attend law school. You could use a class in manners, though.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, what the counties say shouldn't be the final word on the issue. I highlighted the point primarily because you were the one who was concerned that the "rules" are shifting, ignorant of the fact that you are advocating a shifting of the rules yourself by pushing for Coleman's identified ballots to be counted. What is clear (or ought to be) is that Coleman's approach is totally indefinsible. Rather than attempt to define a uniform standard for reviewing absentee ballots (which Franken's campaign fought for), Coleman instead has decided to cherry-pick absentee ballots from counties that are heavily Republican. Now Coleman is stuck with the odd circumstance of opposing absentee ballots which were identified by counties as "legal," while supporting the counting of ballots which weren't identified as "legal," without giving any explanation as to how the two groups differ (other than county of origination).

Franken pushed for uniform standards and didn't get it. So he supports the counting of all absentee ballots which were identified by the counties (which is quite reasonable, particularly since it doesn't inherently favor any county as all have the opportunity and the obligation to identify legal ballots that were wrongly rejected).

That's Franken's story, yes. Coleman tells a different tale.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What's your beef here? That Democratic counties found ballots that were wrongly rejected? It seems that is precisely what their duty is. Or is your beef that Republican counties neglected to do their duty (assuming they neglected to do their duty- it is possible they didn't have any wrongfully rejected absentee ballots). The number of ballots in Minnesota who went for Obama are almost identical to the number who went for McCain. It isn't as if all MN counties are Democrat (in fact, I believe there were 4 more Republican counties than Democratic, if my quick count on the Secretary of State's page was correct). All counties were told to identify wrongly rejected absentee ballots. Several did just that. Many of those that did were in Democratic areas. What's the problem, other than it hurts your guy's chances to steal the election?

My beef is that the decisions are not made uniformly, which introduces opportunities for fraud, such as the following anecdote provided in my link above (which you undoubtedly did not read):

On Friday, Minnesota's Canvassing Board surprised nearly everyone by seemingly buying into Ritchie's procedure--Ritchie is the Chairman of the Board--and recommending to the counties that they sort their rejected absentee ballots into the five piles first suggested by Ritchie.

So what is wrong with that? The problem is that every county is free to make its own decision as to what ballots should go into the fifth pile, or, for that matter, whether to engage in the exercise at all. The kind of issue that can arise was best explained by a caller to our radio show on Saturday. She is a Coleman volunteer who participated in the process when it was carried out, in response to Ritchie's request, in St. Louis Park, Al Franken's home town and part of Hennepin County.

One of the statutory requirements is that an absentee ballot must be signed. Thus, on election day, any unsigned absentee ballots were rejected. But her jurisdiction--I'm not sure whether it was Hennepin County or a smaller unit, but I assume the county--decided that if the unsigned ballot had been signed by an election judge, then the fact that it was unsigned wasn't really the voter's fault, since the election judge should have caught the error and told the voter to sign the ballot. Thus, ballots that fell into that category were put into the "fifth pile."

Was this decision right or wrong? Wrong, one would think, because the law says that in order to count, absentee ballots must be signed by the voter.

Beyond that, the fundamental point is that there is no standard to guide the counties as they create (or don't create) "fifth piles." Some counties will say that unsigned ballots should be counted--contrary to the statute--as long as they were signed by an election judge. Others won't. Numerous other, similar issues will arise. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out that the most partisan counties will take the most liberal approach and put as many ballots as possible into the fifth pile. Those counties are, without exception, controlled by the Democratic Party: Hennepin, Ramsey and St. Louis. They are also the state's biggest counties.

If a uniform standard is set that all parties agree upon and enforce, and Franken wins, more power to him.

BTW, you are fond of insisting that Franken is in the lead, but no vote count has been certified and there's a good chance some of those votes were double counted.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, I didn't attend law school.

Ah, that's adorable. Did Tex School teach you that one? It seems that Tex School had one good lesson, as that was mildly amusing.

That's Franken's story, yes. Coleman tells a different tale.

Yes, but Coleman's tale is much taller.

My beef is that the decisions are not made uniformly, which introduces opportunities for fraud. If a uniform standard is set that all parties agree upon and enforce, and Franken wins, more power to him.

BTW, you are fond of insisting that Franken is in the lead, but no vote count has been certified and there's a good chance some of those votes were double counted.

Your beef is that decisions are not made uniformly, which leads you to support Coleman's efforts to identify ballots in a non-uniform manner that should be counted? Do you even try to make your arguments square with your logic, or do you just open your mouth and see what comes out?

As for the "double counted" vote issue, it was already rejected by the supreme court. Here is a great article as to why.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/...eres-beef.html

As for your complaint that I keep saying that Franken is in the lead when no vote count has been certified, well... that is why I say "in the lead." If the count had been certified, I would say "won." And thus we see the dark side of Tex School. +1 for amusing joke, -3 for awful logic (I kept it to a total of fewer than 5 so you could use fingers to count, but use a calculator as fallback).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Your beef is that decisions are not made uniformly, which leads you to support Coleman's efforts to identify ballots in a non-uniform manner that should be counted?

As I understand it, Coleman's first preference is to have uniformity. This other proposal is a stop-gap effort aimed at stopping the Democrats from taking advantage of the lack of a standard, using their superior numbers to shoehorn their candidate in.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As for the "double counted" vote issue, it was already rejected by the supreme court.

The Minnesota supreme court has not ruled on that issue yet.

Maybe you should read your own links a little more carefully. Reading mine would help you too.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As for your complaint that I keep saying that Franken is in the lead when no vote count has been certified, well... that is why I say "in the lead." If the count had been certified, I would say "won." And thus we see the dark side of Tex School. +1 for amusing joke, -3 for awful logic (I kept it to a total of fewer than 5 so you could use fingers to count, but use a calculator as fallback).

One lesson you apparently have yet to learn is manners.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

As I understand it, Coleman's first preference is to have uniformity. This other proposal is a stop-gap effort aimed at stopping the Democrats from taking advantage of the lack of a standard, using their superior numbers to shoehorn their candidate in.

Nope.

The Minnesota supreme court has not ruled on that issue yet.

Maybe you should read your own links a little more carefully. Reading mine would help you too.

You do realize that the link I gave you was written before the decision, and that a statement in that link which says the court hadn't decided yet doesn't remain accurate forever, right?

It was rejected. At least insofar as certification of election results goes. Coleman's request for an injunction was denied. The counting will finish, and the results will be certified. Coleman is free to file a lawsuit at that point (good luck to him in that endeavor).

One lesson you apparently have yet to learn is manners.

So I am stuck with a character flaw and you are stuck with a biological defect. Seems like I got the better end of that stick.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You do realize that the link I gave you was written before the decision, and that a statement in that link which says the court hadn't decided yet doesn't remain accurate forever, right?

It was rejected. At least insofar as certification of election results goes. Coleman's request for an injunction was denied. The counting will finish, and the results will be certified. Coleman is free to file a lawsuit at that point (good luck to him in that endeavor).

Which is what the Supreme Court, in effect, suggested he do.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So I am stuck with a character flaw and you are stuck with a biological defect. Seems like I got the better end of that stick.

Perhaps you did, but you really ought to consider dialing down the jackass act.