MN-Sen: You Be the Judge

Minnesota Public Radio has some great images of contested ballots currently being contested in the MN-Sen recount. Here are a few:



Should it count for Al?



So the TV miniseries “V” was actually a documentary?



Franken’s volunteer said the voter was “underlining Al.”

That kind of grade-A bullshit makes me proud.

Anyhow, you can click through the link to register your opinion as to how each of these ballots should be counted (if at all). Pretty fascinating stuff.

54 thoughts on “MN-Sen: You Be the Judge”

  1. not go to the US Supreme Court.  The last thing we need is the Supreme Court to rule on the intentions of voters.  I doubt they would want to get in the middle of this since the disaster that occurred in Florida a few years ago.

    The first ballot is obviously for Franken, the second one appears to be for Franken, and the third one?  I don’t have a clue.  

    If I was a betting man, I’d believe that Franken will win the election.

  2. I just voted on all the ballots and it turns out that I voted with the majority on every single ballot except for the Lizard ballot (which I think should be thrown out). Mostly, the intent of the vote is pretty obvious, I think.

  3. I can hardly wait for the “Marked the Oval for Franken But Wrote in Almighty God” ballots! Sorry, Lord, but you’ve got to understand that the voter’s real intention was for Al! 😉

  4. Reject

    Allow

    Franken

    Franken

    Franken

    Franken

    Reject

    Reject

    Franken

    Barkley

    Barkley

    Reject

    But I could have been persuaded another way on at least three of them. I hope the intimidation is kept to a minimum up there – it is more important to get the correct result than for our guy to win.

  6. Blah blah Franken Blah Blah Coleman Blah Blah Filling In Bubbles Blah Blah Recounts Blah Blah Lawyers Blah Blah Underlining Instead of Bubbling Blah Blah Blah…

  7. 1. The Arrow: Franken.  It doesn’t look like an arrow, and the other random marks on the ballot show that the voter was likely sloppy.

    2. The Thumbprint: McCain and Palin.  The voter clearly knew what he/she was doing (as shown by the neatly-filled bubble above), and clearly showed his/her intent.

    3. Outside the lines: I’m not sure whether to count this as reject or Franken.  One reasonable possibility seems that the voter thought about voting for Franken but hadn’t decided on it yet, and wanted to come back after fininshing the rest of the ballot–then forgot to come back.  Or it could just have been a mark pointing to the Senate race, since the mark doesn’t even line up that well with Franken’s bubble, and it isn’t even a clear oval or rectangle.  I’m leaning toward reject.

    4. The NO Ballot: Franken.  Assuming these were permanent marking pens (or at least that erasers were not provided), it’s entirely possible to fill in a wrong bubble, and then try to figure out what to do about it.  In this case, the voter chose to fill in (presumably) his/her real choice, and write NO next to the incorrect choice.  Also note that the Coleman bubble is less filled than the Franken bubble.

    5. Lizard People: Lizard People for President and VP, and Al Franken for Senate.  On this (most hilarious) ballot, it’s clear that the voter understood that filling in a bubble is a vote, and the bubble for Lizard People (in the Senate category) is untouched.

    6. The Checkmark: Franken, if the rest of the ballot has similar marks.  But if the rest of the ballot is correctly bubbled-in, but this Senate race has this strange marking, I’d lean toward reject.  I can see someone thinking of marking Franken and forgetting to come back to it later, but that’d likely only be a checkmark, not a checkmark and a circle around the rectangle.  (Sidenote: Here’s another fingerprint.)

    7. The Oops: Coleman.  The darker, fuller mark is on Coleman, and just as I argued for Franken on the NO Ballot, I’m arguing for Coleman on this one.

    8. The Dot: Franken.  Same argument as before about mis-marking: Probably tried to fill the ballot quickly and then suddenly realized that Barkley wasn’t his/her intended choice, and then fully filled in Franken’s bubble.

    9. The Eraser: I really don’t know.  It depends on what those marks are.  If they are eraser marks, and there is a possibility of erasing without completely mangling the paper, such that that red oval is still visible, then I’d argue that this should be a Barkley vote.  On the other hand, if the ink used to mark the Barkley bubble is significantly different from the ink used to mark the rest of the bubbles, then that might be fraud, in which case it might be Franken.  So I can’t really tell; I might lean toward reject.

    10. The Confusion: Barkley.  Same argument as before about mis-marking.

    11. The Underline: Either Coleman or reject.  No, I can’t believe that that is an underline.  However, I also can’t tell what the voter’s intent is, though I think it’s Coleman, because the voter might have filled Franken and then tried to cross it out and fill Coleman.

  8. Another one is questionable, in my opinion, and I would want to know about relevant case law. The other nine show clear intent for Franken, Coleman or Barkley.

    The Lizard People ballot should count. That person both wrote Lizard People and filled in the oval for the presidential ballot line. The person appears to have started to vote for Lizard People for Senate, then decided to vote for Franken instead. That’s why the oval is not filled in next to Lizard People for senate. If the oval had not been filled in next to Lizard People for president, I think you could more persuasively argue that this is an overvote, but this voter clearly understands that you need to fill in the oval.

  10. latest i’ve hard is that the current deficit is 115 votes, which means that Franken has picked up 100 votes since the recount began!

    also no one will beable to challenge the canvassing board successfully and this will not go to the supreme court.  as you all remember in 2000, the supreme court voted to stop the recount.  the recount is happening in an orderly way and no one is messing with it.

  11. 1) Accept for Franken.

    2) Accept for McCain and voter forced to invest in soap.

    3) Reject.

    4) Accept for Franken.

    5) Reject.  Voter gets fed to lizard people for being such a complete moron.

    6) Accept for Franken.

    7) Reject. Close call but too ambiguous.

    8) Accept.

    9) Accept for Charles, cough I mean Dean Barkley.

    10) Accept for Dean Barkley.

    11) Accept for Norm Coleman.

  12. is that people are that stupid that they can’t simply fill in a bubble.  There are directions right?  Why dont they have a sample ballot in each voting booth (with made up names and parties) to show how you fill one out.

    (I recognize language barriers, which I wont delve into that topic as I’m not sure how I feel about it.)

  14. The voters have spoken! They want a real compromise choice. But not any David Eick-induced, no, they don’t want Dean Barkley.

    They want LIZARD PEOPLE! ALL HAIL OUR REPTILIAN OVERORDS!

  15. “Franken’s volunteer said the voter was “underlining Al.”

    That kind of grade-A bullshit makes me proud.”

    You have got to be kidding I hope. It shouldnt make you proud, but ashamed of someone trying to steal a vote. Not cool.

  16. The Autograph: While I was introduced to this ballot through the title “The Autograph”, upon looking further at it I can’t say I can reasonably distinguish that from a scribble.  (My high school Latin teacher signed his name even more like a scribble, for that matter.)  Therefore, I’d count this for Coleman.

    The Pencil: Franken.  The pencil mark is valid, especially since the rest of the ballot was filled in pencil–not just the vote for Senator in pencil and everything else up and down in pen.

    The X Factor: I’d call this one for Coleman.  However, see note 1 below.

    The Bachmen: I’d call this one for Coleman.  I presume the person was likely confused at the lack of Michelle Bachmann after seeing or hearing Bachmann advertisements.  Note that the ballot is from MN-04, represented by Betty McCollum.  Since MN-06 borders MN-04, seeing advertising from the wrong district is totally reasonable (CT-01 got 02, 04, and 05 advertising).  However, there’s clearly a vote for Coleman.  See note 2 below for discussion on the write-in issue.

    1. What I’m just wondering about is, though, if a person incorrectly fills a ballot and is aware of it, can he/she get a new blank ballot to work with?  And would a voter be aware of that?

    2. I’ve heard that Minnesota law says that a ballot should be counted if it shows voter intent, yet I’ve also heard that a ballot is invalid if there is an overvote and that writing in a write-in candidate counts as a vote for the write-in candidate even if the bubble isn’t filled.  Still, I feel that the case for voter intent should supersede these other laws, and thus I count both this “Bach men” ballot and the now-infamous “Lizard People” ballot.

    As for entertainment…I present to you…the Bach men Cheetahmen.

Comments are closed.