DISQUS

ChrisWWW · 11 months ago

However what I find most interesting is the voter reaction I’ve been able to glean from the media. Most voters do not seem particularly thrilled with the outcome

I guess "most voters" shouldn't have voted for Franken then.

GeorgeSorwell · 11 months ago

From what I have read of past recounts in states with machines like Minnesota, the swing is usually 100 or so, at the most.

I have never heard of this. What's your source?

Jcavhs · 11 months ago

I take it you haven't been following the recount at all closely. I live in MN so it's been something I've followed. And I ended up very impressed at it. The Canvanssing Board was very bi-partisan and most decisions were unanimous. The whole process was very transparent, up to the point where you could look at contested ballots.

Yes, the swing in votes was a lot but most of that came from wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. Those ballots were identified by the counties and agreed to by both campaigns. Nor is it a mistake that most favored Franken. The Obama campaign pushed early and absentee voting which would favor any Democratic candidate. Democratic candidates this year were also more likely to be new or lapsed voters who are more likely to make a mistake on a ballot which a recount would catch but not a machine.

There is really no evidence of misconduct or that this result isn't accurate. And most people I've talked to are fairly happy with the result. Coleman was never overly popular and I think a lot of people are happy to see him go.

elrod · 11 months ago

Actually, the core of Franken's argument was that he was the successor to Wellstone. Franken argued forcefully that Coleman and the national GOP unfairly mocked Wellstone's funeral and turned it into something it wasn't. That event convinced Franken to run as the real successor to Wellstone (not Mondale, who stood in and got beaten by Coleman).

Also, the movement of recount ballots was so one-sided because whole sets of absentee ballots from Democratic strongholds were improperly rejected. It wasn't just scattered ballots around the state that just so happened to end up in Franken's favor.

kritt11 · 11 months ago

Al Franken could never fill Paul Wellstone's shoes. NEITHER the loudmouth Franken or the corrupt and nasty Coleman deserve Wellstone's seat.

Isn't there a better candidate in Minnesota than either of these boobs???

kritt11 · 11 months ago

Jcavhs-

I have heard that Minnesota is a model of fairness and bipartisanship-- and believe there was no misconduct. Just wish a different Democrat had won.

roro80 · 11 months ago

That site where you can look at all the contested ballots was a great time-suck, totally fascinating. It did seem very much to favor Franken after going through quite a few of them, likely for the same reasons you suggested, Jcavhs. From an outsider point-of-view, not knowing how the ballots came to be on the "contested" list, it just looked like Coleman's side had contested many more ballots where the voter intent was obviously toward Franken, whereas Franken's camp only contested those ballots where there was serious doubt. Your explanations seem just as plausable, and perhaps I was just being cynical.

surakmn · 11 months ago

The swing was closer to 400 votes, and out of nearly 3 million cast it's a trivial number. Simply demographics - machines aren't allowed to make judgment calls and there are cases where voter intent is clear but the ballot isn't machine readable. The recount sorts those out. The only controversy here stems from Coleman's failed attempts to change the rules midstream - attempts which were slapped down by a conservative leaning canvassing board, and a conservative leaning supreme court.

Yes, Franken isn't exactly a prize, neither was Wellstone. But this is a state that has a history of electing colorful figures, after all. Given the strong third party presence in Minnesota it's impossible to know who is really the stronger candidate in a head to head match.