Skip to main content

This series has focused on election fraud myths among progressives; other people have ably addressed counter-myths such as the ACORN Marauders. But this week, John R. Lott Jr. launched a new myth about the Senate election in Minnesota that calls for a smackdown.

Lott has an interesting track record, but let's focus on the present. In a Monday opinion piece for Fox News, Lott commented:

Virtually all of Franken’s new votes came from just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in one precinct.... The Minneapolis Star Tribune attributed these types of mistakes to "exhausted county officials," and that indeed might be true, but the sizes of the errors in these three precincts are surprisingly large.... To many, it just seems like too much of a coincidence that Minnesota's one tight race just happens to be the race with the most "corrected" votes by far.

Lott knows how to evaluate whether these corrections are plausible. He just didn't bother. Let's be serious.

Everyone agrees that Norm Coleman's lead over Al Franken has narrowed markedly: from 725 votes just after the election, to 206 votes right now. Most of this narrowing owes to changes in three precincts:

  • In "Two Harbors W1" precinct in Lake County, Franken was initially credited with 27 votes, later corrected to 273, for a gain of 246 votes.
  • In Partridge Township in Pine County, similarly, Franken's initial reported vote count of 29 was later amended to 129.
  • In Mountain Iron P1 in Saint Louis County, Franken's vote count was increased from 406 to 506; a county official explained that the result was initially transcribed incorrectly over the telephone. (To muddy the waters, the date stamp of the vote tape was off by two days, spurring allegations of possible tampering.) Obama's count in this precinct was also amended from 469 to 569.

Now, it doesn't take much quantitative analysis to guess that the original counts in Two Harbors and Partridge were wrong, based on the two-digit totals alone. But let's look at the results in these three precinct in the context of other statewide returns. To do this, I have downloaded the precinct-level results for the presidential and Senate races (the home page for these downloads is here), calculated vote shares for Obama and Franken, and removed precincts with 20 or fewer presidential votes to reduce the "noise" in the scatterplots. The purple line in each plot is a loess best-fit line (using the R defaults for loess.smooth(), for any wonks out there) as a visualization aid. Obama generally outperformed Franken -- no surprise given that third-party candidate Dean Barkley drew about 15% of votes in the Senate race.

So, my first plot depicts the original and amended Franken vote shares (and the Obama vote share, which didn't change) for Two Harbors W1:
Two Harbors
Sure enough, it seems very unlikely that Franken got 27 votes in this precinct where Obama got 336! The amended result puts the precinct right in trend.

Next, Partridge Township:
Partridge
Although the 100-vote change here is less than half the size of the change in Two Harbors, qualitatively the result is similar. The unamended result makes very little sense; the amended result makes a lot of sense.

Mountain Iron P1 is a slightly harder case:
Mountain Iron
(This is a corrected plot: originally I did not realize that Franken's and Obama's vote counts both had changed.) Either result is plausible on its face. The current result reporting for St. Louis County shows 891 registered voters in Mountain Iron P1 at 7 AM on election day, plus 139 who registered during the day, and 832 total voters in the precinct. If 832 was the original turnout figure from Mountain Iron P1, then the amended totals of 827 presidential votes and 825 Senate votes make far more sense than the original totals. Assuming for the sake of argument that the original turnout figure was missing or incorrect, a turnout of 832 represents a rate of 80.8% (832 / 1030), on par with results from other precincts in the county. For instance, Mountain Iron P2 started the day with 971 registered voters, had 198 register on election day, and had 924 total voters, for a turnout of 79.0%. In 2008, Franken's amended vote share in Mountain Iron P1 was about 4.5 points higher than his share in P2 (61.3% versus 56.8%), while his original vote share was slightly smaller. In 2006, Amy Klobuchar drew 80.1% of the vote in P1 and 72.9% in P2. All in all, the amended results make more sense than the original ones.

Conclusion

Lott left himself with plausible deniability. He never even termed the corrections suspicious, only "surprisingly large." He didn't explicitly place himself among (or against) the "many" who find all these "'corrected'" votes "just... too much of a coincidence." He left the substantive judgments to his readers' imaginations. Two days later, an online Wall Street Journal editorial ventured:

You'd think Democrats would be content with last week's electoral rout. But judging from the odd doings in Minnesota, some in their party wouldn't mind adding to their jackpot by stealing a Senate seat for left-wing joker Al Franken....

According to conservative statistician John Lott, Mr. Franken's gains so far are 2.5 times the corrections made for Barack Obama in the state, and nearly three times the gains for Democrats across Minnesota Congressional races. Mr. Lott notes that Mr. Franken's "new" votes equal more than all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the Presidential, Congressional and statehouse races combined (482 votes).

Objectively, it would be far more suspicious if Obama as well as Franken had gained votes in all these precincts, because in that case, there would be many more votes cast in the presidential race than in the Senate race. (Obama did gain votes in Mountain Iron P1. If the current turnout figure is unchanged, then this change corrects a ridiculously high undervote figure for the presidential as well as the Senate race.)  But "conservative statistician John Lott" doesn't seem to have noticed. To many, that may just seem like too much of a coincidence.

Originally posted to HudsonValleyMark on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I've always thought (19+ / 0-)

    that people should do due diligence before insinuating that election officials are crooked. "Trust but verify," absolutely; "hit and run," not so much.

    •  What the question is . . . (0+ / 0-)

      Objectively, it would be far more suspicious if Obama as well as Franken had gained votes in these three precincts.

      Yet, this did happen in one of the three precincts that you point to, where both Obama and Franken gained exactly 100 votes in the recount.  In any case, the question isn't that mistakes can be made nor that there can't be plausible explanations for each one, but the statistical odds that you can have such large systematic errors in just one race.  The 519 net pro-Franken corrections were greater than the total changes for all precincts in the state for the presidential race, all congressional races and all state House races combined.  

      •  However ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vernonbc

        If the majority of undercounts were in Franken's column, then the net corrections should be greater than the total changes for the rest, especially as participation drops off exponentially as you move down to congressional and state House races.

        I personally have no clue who my state House member is, nor do I care. I do know who my President and Senators are.

        We're all Husseins now.

        by edg on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:31:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  so the first report was a pres. undervote of 105? (0+ / 0-)

        I stand corrected, but I don't see how this helps the case. (I've revised the diary on the more cautious assumption that Mountain Iron P1 also revised its turnout figures, or didn't report them at all.)

        If you would care to reckon "the statistical odds that you can have such large systematic errors in just one race," I guess there would be some basis for discussion. I thought we were talking about three large errors, all in the same race. I now realize that we're talking about at least four large errors, one of which is not in the same race. So?

      •  Obviously, Franken's gain of 560 net votes is (0+ / 0-)

        surprising, but what of it?

        Is Gov. Pawlenty allowing the vote-count to be rigged?
        That doesn't seem likely.

        Coleman and the Republicans have no shortage of lawyers working on their behalf.

        Al Franken is hardly a person who controls anything or has power in Minnesota.

        It's irresponsible to suggest that the election is being stolen, absent any evidence.

        (By the way, I felt the same about a lot of Democratic attacks on Fla. and Ind.)

        Show me that river...

        by luckyoldsun on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:07:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  excellent work (7+ / 0-)

    Your analysis thoroughly puts the lie to Lott and his dubious track record and history of bad statistical analysis (I guess that's what makes him "conservative statistician").  

    Let's hope someone in the MSM picks up on what you've done to get the word out on this smear job.

  •  Hey (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lashe, SciVo, Enchanted Lib, alswearingen

    A great analysis.  And more proof that the wingnutters are trying to work the refs before the recount.

    •  That is what I'm seeing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lashe, SciVo

      This is a concerted effort to get the most favorable rulings during the recount, by those in the know.  They have inspired an angry chorus of outrage in this state.  I find Coleman's campaign particularly despicable in this case.  Coleman is trying to portray himself as the unquestioned winner despite a lead of less than one vote per 20 precincts.  It is also a continuation of the election campaign, in which Coleman took no prisoners until he had completely sullied Franken's reputation, then "went positive" while the Nationa Republican campaign continued to hammer Franken.

      What is sad is the relativism that comes out.  "They both were negative".  That may be true, but Franken stayed pretty much on Coleman's record and his fund raising, while Coleman and the NRSCC attacked Franken's character, supported by out of context quotes from Franken's writing, from beginning to end.  

      As I have said before, Coleman certainly bloodied Franken's reputation during the election.  The subject was changed very early to Franken's "character issues" and it did resonate.  Even if he wins, Franken will be villified by a considerable portion of the populace.

      Borrowing from a somewhat controversial news organization, I don't think those characterizations were fair or balanced.  

      While I wasn't all that convinced that an amateur should take over in the US Senate, Coleman's incessant smearing of Franken ended up getting me to vote for Al instead of the third party candidate.    

  •  Good job (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lashe, SciVo

    Nothing like solid data to make a point.

    •  The point: conservative media's disrespectfulness (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lashe, Enchanted Lib

      It's incredibly disrespectful to so frequently, even casually try to deceive the public like that. They clearly just don't give a damn about honesty so long as they win...which is why they've lost the moderates, and even many self-described conservatives, who actually care about character.

      I want to live in a civilization.

      by SciVo on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:40:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The power of statistics in the wrong hands... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlanF, HudsonValleyMark, Lashe, SciVo

    poisons our culture, expecially when it's mixed in with slights of language like

    it just seems like too much of a coincidence that Minnesota's one tight race just happens to be the race with the most "corrected" votes by far.

    . 99% of people who may question such a coincidence after reading that line will probably have nagging doubts about the results. But the truth is so obvious, nobody thinks about it: It's not a coincidence. Unless a race is tight, votes are either not corrected, or are corrected officially without any fanfare.

  •  As someone who's done data entry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HudsonValleyMark, mniowan

    and tech writing, the other common factor in all of these precincts is either a missing digit, or a single incorrect digit off by one key.

    Things that are plainly transcription errors or typos.

    That's one of the reasons Coleman's attacks have pissed me off more that usual.


    Those who say it cannot be done
    should not interrupt the person doing it.

    by Lashe on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:05:45 AM PST

    •  one caveat there (0+ / 0-)

      If one knew absolutely nothing about the facts, then one would have to do some work before deciding whether the discrepancies were transcription or typing errors (an obvious hypothesis) or instances of fraud intended to look like such errors.

      But it doesn't take much work at all. I see no excuse for the attacks.

      •  Given that the errors occurred (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HudsonValleyMark, mniowan

        at very late hours of the night, after many of the people doing the work had been up and working for the better part of 15-24 hours, I think the typo/transcription error hypothesis is solid.

        Many/most of the elections officials in Minnesota would have been on duty prior to the 7am poll opening. Polls closed at 8pm, and counting began. Precincts took their votes and totals to the central locations, and the totals were recorded with those of other precincts. Preliminary results were phoned in to the Sec. of State's office. More counting may have been done if there were any questions.

        If a county is lucky, they might be done by 10-11pm. If they're waiting for the many precincts to make it in (particularly in the geographically larger counties where the precinct representatives have to drive farther), or if there are any questions or recognized discrepancies, it can be midnight, 2, 3, 4, 5am before they finish.

        Long enough days that these kinds of errors are not only possible, they are likely.


        Those who say it cannot be done
        should not interrupt the person doing it.

        by Lashe on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:37:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  absolutely, errors are likely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lashe

          The conceit was that it was surprising that the large errors all favored Franken. I don't know whether that is surprising (facially, not very), but it's nice to be able to bring some evidence to bear.

          These folks work very hard, and it's really a shame when people give them trouble for fixing their mistakes.

          •  Minnesota Law (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HudsonValleyMark, Lashe, vernonbc

            Minnesota Law calls for a two week period between the election and the meeting of the State Canvas Board for precisely this reason.  Not only do we require that the vote totals of all precincts be audited by the county auditor (checking for math errors among other things) but we also audit a random group of precincts by doing a hand count of their ballots and comparing it with the scanner count before county returns are sent to the State Canvas Board.  We know Scanners are within .5% accurate, but we also know clear but mismarked ballots are not read by the scanners at times.  We assume, based on all past recounts and audits, that about 2 ballots per thousand will contain some or all undervotes, because of mis marking. (check marks instead of blackening the oval for instance.)  Since our law is based on "clear intent of the voter" as standard, in a hand recount those mismarked ballots count.  An election is not a test of ability to fill in ovals, it is a choice of political leadership and representation. And by the way, that 2 per thousand undervote estimate is based on all elections since 1990 when we adopted our modernized paper ballot and scanner in the Precinct system.  We recount a few contests every election given our threshold trigger law -- it is required that any contest with less than .5% margin be recounted by hand.  

            All Minnesota Ballots are initially counted in the Precinct on scanners, including all absentee ballots which are counted along with on site ballots. There are no provisional ballots due to same day registration at the polls.  The scanners have a tape, it is run, and called into County election Headquarters, which then reports it to the Sec of State. This is the unofficial Preliminary vote you accessed Election Night. The numbers are then entered on the talley sheet by the Judges, and only then are ballots sealed, removed with the talley to the County Election Board along with the precinct scanners which are locked down.  The audit of all precinct returns -- talley sheet, scanner tape, voter sign in count, etc., all begins the next day under the auspices of the county auditor and staff. It is all in State Statutes, and every county must do it the same way. I can't remember an election where there are no corrections in the days after the election.  (I've managed about 20 State Legislative Campaigns, and worked on Wellstone's 1990 Campaign, so I've been witness to lots of changes in the days following elections and before the State Canvas Board meets.)  Virtually all errors are math or copying errors.  (That is why we by law give County Auditors, not election officials, the Audit responsibility.)

            On Wednesday we will begin the hand recount after the Canvas Board meets and observes that under state law, it is manditory.  We also need to recount three legislative races, and I believe two bond issues, as the margin is sufficently small to fall under our law.  

            It is important to understand that a Recount is not an audit that adds or subtracts a few votes as the audit phase did, it is a whole new count.  We start over at zero with the more accurate hand count method.  Yes, it will be interesting to compare as we go along which precincts pick up or lose votes -- but officially it makes no difference.  I would also suggest knowing something about a precinct will be necessary if you want to speculate as to why a difference.  For instance, yes, I expect change in my own precinct.  Close to the U we probably had 5-700 first time student voters out of 2700 ballots.  Other precincts have many new citizens from Somalia, Bosnia and Hmong from SE Asia.  You need to know which ones have such characteristics. One of your Lake County precincts, is, I believe just off an American Indian Reservation that had a significant increase in voter interest and registration this year.  Pure statistics won't catch these particular population differences and their skill with filling in oval bubbles.

            Most Minnesotans who are following this closely appreciate those who give a little recognition to our Election Board workers, and the people who run our polls on election day.  They and we are fortunate to have a State Election Law that is almost totally in State Statutes, and not in court rulings or one off opinions by an official.  It is the State Law which is very detailed, that stands between us and the Anarchy that was generated in 2000 in Florida -- it is the Law which allows us to treat Public Relations and talking points Scripts for what they are worth, (zero).  We like clean elections that at the end of a long day we can say are clean and fair no matter the outcome.      

            •  I have one question about this (0+ / 0-)

              I'm not clear on what your 2-per-thousand estimate applies to. Are you saying that's the likely rate of difference between the original machine count and what a hand count can identify as voter intent? (Some undervotes are deliberate, and some undervotes that may not be deliberate don't leave an unambiguous voter intent.)

              It'll be very interesting to watch the recount results come in!

              •  That Rate and other matters about Minnesota (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                HudsonValleyMark, vernonbc

                The Director of the Ramsey County Board of Elections is responsible for the research -- Ramsey County is St. Paul and a few burbs.  

                What he examined was all recounts in Minnesota -- any election, between 1990 when we adopted the new modernized system state-wide, and two years ago, and this was his finding -- for every 1000 ballots in any recount, you should anticipate an average of 2 recovered votes per thousand ballots. His sample is all recounts -- some are very small, a school district or city council seat, for instance, others are a whole congressional district or legislative districts. We did a statewide recount this fall of 400 thousand primary ballots for Supreme Court. Most of these would be races that appeared to be less than .5% margin of difference between winner and loser, as virtually all of our recounts are mandated by the State Statutes.  It is very expensive to get a recount that falls outside the mandated margin, and both parties really advise against it unless there is a crediable claim of some sort of fraud, which is very difficult here.  You have to pay the bond for an unmandated recount up front.  (our law covers everything!!!) For the Franken/Coleman race to be outside the mandate for a recount, the margin would need to be about 16,000 votes.  

                People may wonder why Minnesota has such detailed Statute law regarding an election recount -- well I refer everyone to the recount in 1962-63 in the race for Governor between Elmer Anderson and Karl Rolvaag.  It took us five months, but we eventually found out who really won, by 125 or so votes, with eventually only 17 ballots where no one could understand the intent of the voter.

                Election night, Anderson was ahead by slightly less than 100 votes.  We then had at least five different voting systems, as it was county option, some were lever machines, some punch cards, some each race on a different color of paper ballot, some long paper ballot -- all a little different.  Clearly the difference of less than 100 called for a recount, but State Law was contradictory on when and how to recount, so they spent six weeks in courts -- State and Federal -- making argument.  In the end the US Supreme's backed up the 8th Circuit Appeals Court, and it got chucked back to State District Court and they had to invent a recount system.  Governor's terms end January 1, so a nice civil agreement was reached to leave Anderson in the formal office on the first floor of the Capitol, and put Rolvaag in a new suite in the Basement.  So -- we had two governors for a couple of months.  We were still counting.  (I suppose I should add that I voted in this 1962 race just out of college, and I think I voted for Rolvaag -- not sure, but the person I wanted to vote for was the guy running for State Senate, Arnold Rose, who was one of the co-authors of Gunner Myrdal's famous early 1940's study, "The Negro in America" who was a professor who was then being called a Commie for his research, and I wanted to vote FOR him.  He Won. On Obama's win night, I thought a bit on Arnold Rose, and a number of other lesser politicians I've known who took hard votes on the matter of Race.)

                Finally in mid March Rolvaag was ahead by about 125 in the recount, with 17 ballots no one could make hide nor hair of -- and Anderson gave a concession speech and moved out, and Rolvaag moved upstairs.  

                The upshot was a profound belief among Minnesotans of all political stripes that we needed a recount law that could not be played with by either the courts or partisan election officials, so after due consideration, in 1965 the Legislature wrote the most detailed recount law they could manage, and over the years anything that looks like a point of potential conflict gets considered, and incorporated into Statute law.  

                The modernization of our whole elections system was managed by Joan Growe, Secretary of State for 24 years, ending in 1998.  She was bothered by the difference in error rate among different ballot designs and counting systems, so she proposed to the legislature in 1987 a full overhaul, and that involved a special legislative commission that met weekly for hearings and research between terms and developed the proposal for a complete revamp -- and once that was adopted, the recount law got some revision to deal with our new system.  (I should add that in retirement, Joan Growe works for Carter and Mondale consulting on election systems, and observing elections.  She is responsible for South Africa's election system as well as the one in Romania.) -- (I had the delight of taking one of Yeltsin's men in to see her to get the full demonstration of how a really honest and auditable and fair system really works.) Last week she was on Minnesota Public Radio for an hour during the Midday program, (archived on the site) and the one starred point I would take away was her description of testifying before the Ohio Legislature on the question of registration at the polls on election day. (We have been doing it since 1974 with absolutely no fraud), Apparently the committee chair told her the people of Ohio were too corrupt to have such a system.  Too bad the people of Ohio didn't learn what at least one of their elected officials thought of them.  They would rather have thousands of Provisional ballots and throw 2/3rds of them away. Or maybe spend zillions in court making argument.  

                So what constitutes a countable undervote?  well we have lots of examples in the state statute.  If you make an X or a check mark by a candidate, but one that does not sufficently blacken the oval, it counts.  If you circle the name of one candidate, that counts.  If you make an X or check after the candidate's name, but not in the oval, that counts. This is voter intent.  If you scratch out all the people you don't want and leave the one you do -- that too is voter intent. If you write NO after all the candidates but one, and YES after that one, that counts.  The criteria is pretty simple, an unbiased person looking at a list, and seeing such markings would interpret How?  It ain't rocket science.  But as some say, spitting Tomato Soup at one Candidate's name maybe won't count.  

                The point is people who show up to vote have intents, and it is the responsibility of officials to respect these, even if they might not exactly be conventional or according to the directions.  

                When we modernized our system in the late 1980's and adopted the paper ballot, darken the oval, scanner in the precinct with overvote monitor turned on system, we did it after some 20 weeks of meetings by a Legislative Commission that investigated everything, including some of the computer systems that were not really invented yet.  One of the Legislators who chaired one of the committees that would ultimately sponsor the reform bill had to go with her Husband to Europe in the midst of the hearings, so I sat in and took notes for her.  In the process I learned more detail than I ever wanted to know about election processes -- but after Florida, it was all relevant knowledge.  

                One of our best witnesses was a Psychology Professor from the U of Minnesota, his department and thus the U and thus the State owns the MMPI, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.  Over the years -- since the early 30's, they have administered that thing to millions of people, in maybe 50 languages, and they experimented with every means of registering a choice known to man.  Dials, punch buttons, card sorts, card punches, answer sheets with parallel lines, bubbles, arrows and darts, computers, you name it, they have tried it and normed it.  Turns out the best way -- the most universal way to register a choice is to tick off a list on paper with pencil or pen.  Yes, the blind need an accomodation, and we offer a speaking computer with headphones that prints out a ballot in every precinct.  Otherwise, ticking off a list is the most universal method ever invented by man, and the MMPI folk have the statistics to prove it.  That testimony is probably why we have the system we do -- moreover so much of the rest of the testimony was from high priced firms that wanted to sell us something expensive with no validation or background, but we already knew the MMPI, and we already owned the scoreing system.  50 years of our own University's research was accepted across the boards.  No politics to it. So yea, our Ballot looks a little like an answer sheet for the MMPI.  But good lord, we had 50 years of detailed experimentation with norming on how to construct an answer sheet for questions such as, "I prefer a bath to a shower."  (five choices between strongly agree or strongly disagree.) We did all this work before Election Systems became sexy after 2000, and that made for focused but pretty pragmatic decision making. Anyhow, among other things, we don't really pay election vendors. We totally own our own well validated system.  

                So yes, the next step is the hand recount, and I can assure you it will be about as interesting as observing a pot luck supper in a Lutheran Church Basement. I hope all those high charged Washington Election Lawyers are prepared for life in the outer regions of Minnesota, when deer season is nearly over, and it isn't time for ice fishing quite yet.    

                 

                •  wow, thanks (0+ / 0-)

                  You've given me a lot to chew on.

                  The thing about that recovery rate is, it looks like the audit counted something over 100,000 votes, and the hand counts there added a net 30 or so votes last I saw. So I'm wondering whether the recovery rate is likely to be smaller in this case, or whether the audit used different rules, or what.

            •  Thanks for the detailed description (0+ / 0-)

              My honey and I have been saying that we're so grateful to live in Minnesota, where the voting laws and regulations are so sensible, detailed, and clear-cut.

              EVERYBODY's vote counts here. Not all states are so lucky.

              Hey Florida: watch, and learn.


              Those who say it cannot be done
              should not interrupt the person doing it.

              by Lashe on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:49:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Which means that MN sensibly makes it (0+ / 0-)

              nigh impossible to get away w/ election fraud, not that it won't ever be attempted.  It is a pleasure to see good oversight in action.

  •  How does proof that the amended count (0+ / 0-)

    makes sense provide "evidence" that the initial errors were inadvertant?  I mean, they may or may not have been, but unless you can provide some logical connection, your entire premise is bogus.  As was your previous "debunking" of the "Connally anomaly" in which you misrepresented Spoonamore's allegation.  

    Is there a pattern here?  Maybe I should draw a graph.

    •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

      The word "evidence" doesn't appear in the diary, nor does the word "inadvertent."

      So, if you want to hypothesize that someone tried to steal 246 votes from Franken but got caught, go ahead. (Other avenues are available to you as well.)

      ...but unless you can provide some logical connection, your entire premise is bogus.

      If you'll respond to something I actually wrote, I might at least be able to tell what you are saying.

      As was your previous "debunking" of the "Connally anomaly" in which you misrepresented Spoonamore's allegation.

      Ditto.

      Is there a pattern here?

      There seems to be, yes. Am I supposed to research your criticisms to try to guess what they are?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site