I guess Barney Frank will have a new pal.
I guess Barney Frank will have a new pal.
A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths.
"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48
Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
(Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
(Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
(Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)
Note that the cited WSJ article is not a news story but an unsigned opinion piece. It ignores many inconvenient facts such as the exclusion of several hundred absentee ballots by the Coleman campaign that precincts had determined were excluded inappropriately. It also ignores the facts concerning the "additional" absentee ballots that Coleman wanted to have counted that, as far as anyone could determine were identified based on the party registration of the individuals casting the ballots and with complete disregard for the rules. The Coleman campaign has the legal right to continue the contest in court. It's unhappy with that option since it actually requires the presentation of evidence. In the 2000 election, Gore made the choice to halt his legal challenges to the election in the interests of harmony. Personally, I felt he should have continued to fight even if that delayed the inauguration and that the decision of the court to halt the election when it was undecided because of the electoral college schedule was an abortion of democracy and law. Better to get it right. I feel the same with Coleman. He should continue to fight as long as he is willing to present facts. When all that is left are his complaints that he lost, it's time to shut up and go home. Due process is defined by how decisions are made not what decisions are made.
I was merely presenting one side of the issue.
What is the nature of www.fivethirtyeight.com?
Jeff, as I recall, Bush V. Gore found that there was insignificant time left prior to the Electoral College, a milestone that the Florida statute said that had to be accomodated.... the theoretical "safe haven." Gore missed one of the milestones (contest or challenge...not sure which) in Florida. Whereas, he could have taken action sooner, he elected to wait and the 2 weeks (?) spent waiting was the time needed to complete a full recount. Gore argued that they should only recount certain counties. The Supremes said, "No. They all should be re-counted or stop counting." They then remanded the case to the Florida Supremes.
I've had several strokes since that time so my memory is iffy. However, I ran the Legal Forum on Compuserve at the time and we had rather lengthy and clinical discussions on the whole affair. Shall I get you the decision?
Last edited by Eric Johnson; 01-06-2009 at 11:55 PM.
I thought the purpose of the re-count was to confirm the votes actually cast....the canvassing board approved 133 votes in minneapolis that they can't find.... huh....
that DOES Assume no mistakes were made.....
But in the Maplewood MN district....they found ballots in voting machines days after everything was the election was over--- And I believe there was a district in Northern MN where the Judges went home the night of the election without counting the ballots.
So on one hand WE are supposed to believe election judges don't make mistakes & on the other believe that even if there a minor glitch it's no big deal????
From what I could tell that website is done by some guy who is really into polling and political data. He has a FAQ page. In this case he seems to take a look at the supposed facts from the WSJ and directly takes most of them apart. If he is wrong let's see the data. WSJ never provided any specifics.
The Star Tribune which endorsed Coleman had a good editorial today commending the recount and also today, Coleman commended the recounting efforts and the process used so far but noted the double counting and the remaining rejected absentee ballot situation which was out of the hands of the canvassing board.
The next step in the process is court but as the fivethirtyeight site post today suggests, it will be awfully hard for Coleman to make up the current difference since, if some double counting occurred, it occurred for both candidates and since the rejected absentee ballots have already been reviewed and rejected by local election officials at least twice it would be unlikely that the courts would accept them and even if they did, Franken has pulled ahead because of absentee ballots that had been rejected in error.
Another few weeks and this should all be done.
How much was the outcome influenced by the election being a 3-way race? IOW, if it had been only a 2-way election, would the 3rd parties candidate's votes been split just as evenly or would they have gone largely one way or the other.