So over at the StarTribune they have this cool tool that allows you to view 599 contested ballots from both campaigns and decide which candidate you think should get each ballot. I did it and it took me about 2 hours to examine and vote on who I believe should get each and every one of those 599 contested ballots. Just to get an idea of what kind of votes were contested.
Out of all 599 I'd say maybe a 50 or so are truly contestable ballots and the rest are frivolous, really easy to tell who the person voted for or meant to vote for. Anyway, for those of you who are curious I will post my results below and then the photographic proof that the Al Franken recount observers are honest people.
Follow me over the fold.
Ok first a little bit of insight into my basic thinking and guidelines.
First and foremost I believe, as Minnesota law states, that the intent of the voter is the most important thing. I don't care about so called identifying marks or crazy things scribbled in the margins, nor do I care if they wanted "Lizard People" for President or if they over voted for mayor. I care about the SENATE RACE and the voters intent first and foremost. The more ballots counted the better in my view, I see no reason to disenfranchise people who made the "horrible mistake" of signing their ballot or scribbling a star on it.
That said the first thing I would like to address is over votes and how I went about determining voter intent. Sometimes its not always easy to discern and the ballot has to be rejected as an over vote because there is truly no way to determine intent.
The biggest problem was the fact that a lot of folks seem to think they're allowed to vote for multiple people! I wish they had instant runoff voting in Minnesota (that would have solved this thing on Election day) but they don't and someone should explain that to these people because there were ALOT of clear over votes. And in most cases they over voted for every race down the entire ballot.
Another common problem was the use of an X. If you put a big X on Candidate A's bubble and then fill in Candidate B's bubble all the way who did they intend to vote for? Worst still if they filled in both bubbles but also have an X on Candidate A's bubble then who did they intend to vote for? Does the X mean they dislike a candidate and made a mistake or is it signifying Candidate A is the one they wanted?
There is no way to tell.
On a lot of ballots, candidates bubbles were simply checked or X'ed instead of filled in signifying intent. But on an equal number of ballots, the candidate bubbles were marked with an X and words "NO" or "Mistake" appeared right next to it. So I guess what I'm saying is an X can mean anything which makes determining intent very complicated and results in a lot of over votes.
Yet another common problem is people who only mark one bubble but have BOTH X'd it AND filled it in! These ballots are challenged as under votes. The thinking is that the voter realized they made a mistake, crossed it out and then didn't vote for anybody. But I almost always saw these as the voter marking it with an X, realizing their mistake and then filling in the bubble they way they were supposed too. Unfortunately there is no way to know which came first the bubble or the X? Nor what the X is supposed to signify. But since there is only one candidate marked I always took that as voter intent.
Other standards I used were as followed.
If two bubbles were marked. One completely filled in and one simply scribbled the vote went to the completely filled in bubble.
If multiple bubbles were marked or intent was otherwise hard to establish but one of the candidates names appeared in the write in section, that candidate got the vote.
If any candidate was circled or checked (both positive symbols) that to me signified intent and they got the vote.
If two bubbles were marked and one of the candidates name was scribbled out the other candidate got the vote.
If two or more bubbles were marked and one candidate had the voters signature, initials or the date that signified intent and the candidate got the vote.
One last thing I want to address is the fact that my results have a Margin of Error of about +/- 4 votes. Why? Because four times the website just stopped working, did not show a ballot and I was forced to press the "Skip this ballot" button. Because the site gives you a random 599 out of 5,000+ actual contested ballots I still judged 599 ballots but my random sample was messed up by 4 votes +/-
Anyway be sure to head on over there and give it a try. It's time consuming but pretty fun actually. I wish they had something like this in Florida 2000. I like the idea of looking at these challenged ballots, exposing them to daylight and letting the whole country see exactly what the election officials are dealing with. It really is fun and interesting you should try it.
Here are my results.
Out of 599 contested ballots judged
Norm Coleman 253
Al Franken 246
Over/Under/Other Votes 100
So Franken lost my random sample by 7 votes with a MoE of 4+/- not the result I was hoping for. Certainly it doesn't make it any easier to understand how this mess is going to end up. But I used the most fair and common sense approach I could come up with. I challenged myself to be completely non-partisan and believe me it was difficult there are times when you see an over vote of Coleman and Franken and you're tempted to call it an over vote but there is an arrow, or a check mark next to Colemans name and you know what the voter wanted.
Besides the sheer volume of ballots, being impartial was the hardest part. I am so used to be a partisan, turning that off for the sake of fairness was tough but I did it, and I am actually really proud of my ability to do that when the truth and justice and the integrity of the vote are on the line. If theres ever a big recount in California (thats where I am) I will be standing in line to volunteer now that I know I can do it. Now that I know for sure I can be honest and unbiased.
Speaking of honest an unbiased. Here is my proof that the Franken recount observers are honest people.
Click image to enlarge.
CHALLENGE BY: FRANKEN
CHALLENGE REASON: OUT OF PLACE
INCONSISTENT MARK
So here we have a ballot that to me looks like a clear vote for Al Franken. The voter put a check next to his name. But because they were unsure the Franken observers challenged the ballot themselves for review. It would have been very easy for them to insist this ballot be counted. Obviously the Coleman people didn't challenge it or their name would appear on the ballot as well.
I just think thats pretty damn admirable.