[Timo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

http://johnrlott.blahspot.com/2008/1...-of.html#links

NYT > crackpot blog

[kobi]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

kobi: "too bad" and "they're in office"

sorry a bit too busy while on my soapbox

[besson3c]

too busy...

Just trying to help give less reason for your viewpoints to be dismissed outright by those that disagree with you

[kobi]

Thanks I need it. lol

Wanna go over my personal statements for my law school apps? lol

[besson3c]

If you post your statement to a new thread I'd be happy to weigh in, if that was a serious question

[kobi]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you post your statement to a new thread I'd be happy to weigh in, if that was a serious question

I don't take the LSAT until June, the next app cycle starts in Sept. If I do need help, I'll let you know.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Timo 

NYT > crackpot blog

NYT = crackpot blog

[stupendousman]

More funny business....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html

[ort888]

What we need to do is set some sort of legal precedent for things like this. First an official way to declare an election a "statistical tie" and then a clear cut methodology for then deciding a winner.

[stupendousman]

All they have to do is to be consistent in applying current law. If they do that though, then Franken couldn't win.

It's not much different than it was back when Gore/Bush had this problem - people wanted to change the rules and re-adjust in ways to effect the election after the fact.

[Dakar V]

It's elections like this that make think there's got to be a better way. No matter who wins here, a virtual tie indicates to me that half the people will be screwed.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All they have to do is to be consistent in applying current law. If they do that though, then Franken couldn't win.

It's not much different than it was back when Gore/Bush had this problem - people wanted to change the rules and re-adjust in ways to effect the election after the fact.

Or rather the difference is that this time your guy is on the losing side.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ort888 

or rather the difference is that this time your guy is on the losing side.

qft.

[olePigeon]

I'm probably late to the discussion, but I heard on the news that Franken won by 250 or so votes.

[Chongo]

like I said, it's the Wash. Gov race part II

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Or rather the difference is that this time your guy is on the losing side.

I don't have a "guy" on either side.

Though, as it was then, it's the Democrats who want to change the rules after the election and not be consistent.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

It's elections like this that make think there's got to be a better way. No matter who wins here, a virtual tie indicates to me that half the people will be screwed.

Yes. They should call it even and then have the election decided through feats of strength.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't have a "guy" on either side.

Though, as it was then, it's the Democrats who want to change the rules after the election and not be consistent.

Those wascally democwats...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes. They should call it even and then have the election decided through feats of strength.

In Arizona we have have decided several election that ended in ties by a method outlined in our constitution, a game of chance agreed to by both parties. One house race was decide on on hand of poker. One candidates wife forgot to vote. Last election a school board seat was decided by a roll of dice, they both rolled a 1 on the first throw.

[besson3c]

See, this is why this all boils down to our gut feelings. The very WSJ article that was posted here has already had an attempt at being debunked here:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...heir-fact.html

[ebuddy]

25 precincts in which votes exceeded eligible voters. Franken was behind by more than 250 votes and is now up by over 200 votes. Why? Questionable Franken ballots are copied, but not labeled "duplicate" and were counted twice. Once in favor of a recount would like to stop the process... right about... NOW!!!

Franken is actively stealing the election. To Minnesota; have you lost your friggin' minds?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

See, this is why this all boils down to our gut feelings. The very WSJ article that was posted here has already had an attempt at being debunked here:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...heir-fact.html

I started reading it. It came off more as a partisan critique based on sematic arguments and making excuses for shoddy and inconsistent vote couting than a "debunking" and I stopped reading. I might as well read a press release from Franken himself.

"25 precincts in which votes exceeded eligible voters."

Sure.

[besson3c]

Your sources are partisan too. This is all about what supports what we want to think, and that is my point. There is no way that you actually know whether the 25 precincts in which votes exceeded eligible voters thing is correct and your source is to be trusted, you just want to trust it because it supports a narrative that you wish to subscribe to - hence your gut feeling. It would work exactly the same way if the tables were turned.

[Dork.]

25 precincts? How big is a precinct, and how many precincts are in Minnesota? Is it possible that some of the discrepancies are a result simply of human error, and not of malice?

[Dakar V]

At this point a coin flip seems more fair.

[Chongo]

Have both Coleman and Little pony up the money for a special election. The ballot should have a picture of each with a box to mark an X, all ballots hand counted, no machines involved.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your sources are partisan too. This is all about what supports what we want to think, and that is my point. There is no way that you actually know whether the 25 precincts in which votes exceeded eligible voters thing is correct and your source is to be trusted, you just want to trust it because it supports a narrative that you wish to subscribe to - hence your gut feeling. It would work exactly the same way if the tables were turned.

C'mon besson. Seriously brother. Will you stick to the party line no matter what? You say it's simply partisan source against partisan source, but in light of simple facts you'll default to the (D)?

Post-election breakdown;
- Coleman led Franken Wednesday morning by 725 votes
- Wednesday night that lead had shrunk to 477 votes
- Thursday night that lead was down to 336 votes
- Friday, it was down to 239 votes
- Sunday night that lead had gone down to 221

Total change over 4 days of 504 votes. Now... a recount in which Franken is found to be over 220 votes in the lead? So... tack on another 400+ votes? How can more votes be recounted than were cast in the first place besson?

C'mon man you know this thing's fixed.

[stumblinmike]

Franken rules!!!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

C'mon besson. Seriously brother. Will you stick to the party line no matter what? You say it's simply partisan source against partisan source, but in light of simple facts you'll default to the (D)?

Post-election breakdown;
- Coleman led Franken Wednesday morning by 725 votes
- Wednesday night that lead had shrunk to 477 votes
- Thursday night that lead was down to 336 votes
- Friday, it was down to 239 votes
- Sunday night that lead had gone down to 221

Total change over 4 days of 504 votes. Now... a recount in which Franken is found to be over 220 votes in the lead? So... tack on another 400+ votes? How can more votes be recounted than were cast in the first place besson?

C'mon man you know this thing's fixed.

We shall see... I don't default to D, I default to trust this process and its built in checks and balances (including Republicans who work for the state) more than the conflicting information I see on the internet. I welcome the court case, Coleman has the right to do this, but if the outcome of that case matches what is being reported now I will have a hard time accepting the notion that there was a coordinated effort to steal this election starting from the bottom and going all the way up to three judges.

[besson3c]

For the record, I don't know if I accept the narrative of the movie/documentary "Recount" either and what happened in Florida in 2000 to work against Gore.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

C'mon man you know this thing's fixed.

Gore actually had negative votes in some counties. That occurs when someone is tampering with the voting machine.

Having different totals for total votes counted is a margin of error given how many votes were cast.

[hyteckit]

I see.

The committee in charge of the recount has a liberal bias.

The media has a liberal bias.

Facts have a liberal bias.

Americans have a liberal bias.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

C'mon man you know this thing's fixed.

If it's fixed, that says way more about the American electoral system than it says about the Democrats and it says that *any* American election could have been fixed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Gore actually had negative votes in some counties. That occurs when someone is tampering with the voting machine.

Having different totals for total votes counted is a margin of error given how many votes were cast.

True. It should be suspect however when mathematically, each and every vote comprising that margin of error went to one candidate in an election otherwise split right down the middle.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

C'mon besson. Seriously brother. Will you stick to the party line no matter what? You say it's simply partisan source against partisan source, but in light of simple facts you'll default to the (D)?

Post-election breakdown;
- Coleman led Franken Wednesday morning by 725 votes
- Wednesday night that lead had shrunk to 477 votes
- Thursday night that lead was down to 336 votes
- Friday, it was down to 239 votes
- Sunday night that lead had gone down to 221

Total change over 4 days of 504 votes. Now... a recount in which Franken is found to be over 220 votes in the lead? So... tack on another 400+ votes? How can more votes be recounted than were cast in the first place besson?

C'mon man you know this thing's fixed.

What the heck are you talking about?

The Franken lead came from 900 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots that election officials didn't begin to count until January 3, 2009. Is fivethirtyeight.com not up to your holier-than-thou "non-partisan" standards?

[turtle777]

Well, as much as I dislike this whole farce, it seems like a clown comedian is the right choice to represent the Democrats these days

And if the majority of the Minnesotans agree: even better - they now got the fitting representative.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If it's fixed, that says way more about the American electoral system than it says about the Democrats and it says that *any* American election could have been fixed.

I should qualify that I used the word "fixed" loosely to express my frustration with exactly what you suggest; a flaw in the American electoral system. I'm also flummoxed at the willingness of some to overlook the obvious contingent upon preference. My issue is not with "Democrats" or "Republicans" in that I don't believe there was a concerted effort by Democrats to skew the election.

I would expect a margin of error with any human construct, but the margin of variance has more than doubled since election morning and mathematically every vote going towards one specific candidate. I'm glad Coleman is going to continue challenging this. While it should not be construed as an indictment against a party, it is most definitely a reflection of the American electoral system and needs to be fixed.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I would expect a margin of error with any human construct, but the margin of variance has more than doubled since election morning and mathematically every vote going towards one specific candidate.

Again, that's because 900 of the absentee ballots weren't counted in the first place. They were wrongfully rejected. Now the second time I've alerted you to this, the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots weren't even begun to be counted until January 3rd. And absentee ballots in general skewed heavily towards Obama this cycle, blowing past previous estimates by a large percentage in many areas. It's not hard to see Franken riding that wave. So instead of pontificating these blowhard-esque sentiments about post-partisanship, why don't you stick to the facts.

[hyteckit]

Most of the additional votes for Franken in the last few days of the recount came from the absentee ballots that were never counted.

Franken gains 176 more votes than Coleman just from those absentee ballots that both parties agree to.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, as much as I dislike this whole farce, it seems like a clown comedian is the right choice to represent the Democrats these days

About as much as bad actors representing Republicans.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

About as much as bad actors representing Republicans.

Do you mean Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Do you mean Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Ronald Regan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson ...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, as much as I dislike this whole farce, it seems like a clown comedian is the right choice to represent the Democrats these days

And if the majority of the Minnesotans agree: even better - they now got the fitting representative.

-t

Thanks, this really added to this thread!

Reminds me of many CNN/YouTube comments - all biting knee jerk emotional stuff, little that can actually be responded to in a meaningful way that spawns a healthy discussion.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I should qualify that I used the word "fixed" loosely to express my frustration with exactly what you suggest; a flaw in the American electoral system. I'm also flummoxed at the willingness of some to overlook the obvious contingent upon preference. My issue is not with "Democrats" or "Republicans" in that I don't believe there was a concerted effort by Democrats to skew the election.

I would expect a margin of error with any human construct, but the margin of variance has more than doubled since election morning and mathematically every vote going towards one specific candidate. I'm glad Coleman is going to continue challenging this. While it should not be construed as an indictment against a party, it is most definitely a reflection of the American electoral system and needs to be fixed.

I think this is fair. We do need to improve our voting system. This has been said after past elections too.

I also agree with you. In general, I'm not one to go for conspiracy theories based on what appears to be truthiness, that was sort of what I was trying to express earlier.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Most of the additional votes for Franken in the last few days of the recount came from the absentee ballots that were never counted.

Franken gains 176 more votes than Coleman just from those absentee ballots that both parties agree to.

176 out of the almost 1,000 new votes "found" for Franken since election day when Franken was down 725 votes. This using a system (as described by the WSJ) using standards rigged to give Franken votes where in the same circumstance Coleman would not get them.

Pull my other leg.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

176 out of the almost 1,000 new votes "found" for Franken since election day when Franken was down 725 votes. This using a system (as described by the WSJ) using standards rigged to give Franken votes where in the same circumstance Coleman would not get them.

Pull my other leg.

This includes several precincts where there a more ballots counted than registered voters, one where ballots where knowingly counted twice and the tally was allowed to stand.

[hyteckit]

Before the recount, Coleman has a 215 vote lead over Franken. I don't know where you get the 725 votes down.

176 gain for Franken just by including the absentee ballots that weren't included in the original count. Both sides agree to count those absentee ballots.

[hyteckit]

Before Recount:
Coleman leads: +215

Recount
Day 1: Coleman +172
Day 2: Coleman +143

[hyteckit]

Ignoring the recount and challenged ballots.

Coleman leads: +215 on Election night

11/7: +100 for Franken for tally error in Pine County. Official enter 24 votes for Franken on Election night instead of 124
Absentee Ballots: +176 for Franken. Both parties agree to include those absentee ballots after the election night count.

Net gain for Franken: +276

So without any recount or challenged ballots, Franken f*cking wins.

[hyteckit]

Election Night: Coleman +215 over Franken

During recount:

Nov 6 Wednesday morning:

Coleman +725 over Franken.
A +510 swing for Coleman from Election Night.
Conservatives chant I believe, I believe. A 500+ point swing for Coleman in a day is totally believable.


Jan 5:

Franken leads by +225.
+440 point swing for Franken from Election night.
Conservatives chant Fraud, Fraud. A 440 point swing during the whole recount process is unbelievable, so it must be fraud.