All posts in the topic star tribune ballot challenge (Short link)
Summary
- There are 10 posts — by 7 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Marc Asch at Dec 02 20:03 UTC
Anyone else trying this?
after 100 ballots i have it
45 coleman
39 franken
16 tossed
it is completely clear on 98 percent of these what the intent was. So
much that I cannot understand why they would be challenged.
One ballot had every circle filled in for every race and it was
challenged. What is there to challenge?
John Harris
mpls, mn
I did the first 100 too.
Coleman 42
Franken 35
Tossed 23
I am amazed at how many people cannot follow simple instructions - the poll
workers are very clear that you fill in the dots. There were a lot of x's,
check marks or slashes.
I don't understand why so many people don't vote in all their elections. I can
understand maybe skipping school board if you don't have kids or non-contested
races but there were quite a few where the Presidential race or senatorial race
were completely blank.
It seems to me that these overvotes or incorrectly marked votes (the x's,
checks or slashes) should have been caught by the machines. I've had it
rejected when I didn't fill the circle COMPLETELY.
Many of the challenges were totally petty. Stating there was an identifying
mark when there was a scratch or pen mark on the ballot to me is just weird.
These things happen.
I did 105 ballots and got Coleman 33, Franken 43, Other/No-one 29. I also
discovered that it was frequently necessary to look at the entire ballot to
decide whether a particular mark represented an intention to vote for a
candidate or was merely an inadvertent scratch.
Charlie Swope
St. Paul
This is pure insanity. You either mark that damn thing
correctly or forget it. I hate it when you have attorneys
or wanna be attorneys making these kinds of decisions.
It's corruption on parade and the gang with the most money
wins. That would be the Libs despite the predominate big
lie that the money is with the Pubs. We are entering the
final stage of democracy and as we weaken these kinds of
idiotic battles will be immaterial.
Lee Surma
Maple Grove
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:39:01 -0800 (PST)
Lee wrote: > This is pure insanity. You either mark that damn thing > correctly or forget it. The insanity is purely yours. Read the statue, here is the link https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=204C.22 It is clear and concise on how ballots are to be counted. There are 15 subdivisions that would seem to give pretty clear guidance to the canvasing board. To make ridiculous statements about corruption in a process that is so open and transparent. Give us a break Lee, stop the whine. I am not sorry your candidate for President lost but he has taken it with considerably more grace and character than you have. Each ballot has been reviewed by election officials. Each campaign has made challenges as it saw fit. We can see the actual challenged ballots on the Strib site and the Secretary of State's. The five people making the decision are respected and sound public servants. This is not Florida, it is not Ohio, it is Minnesota and when we set our minds to it we do things exceptionally well. We decided long ago to do elections well and we do.
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Marc Asch <marc@asch.org> wrote:
> I am not sorry your candidate for President lost but he has taken it with
> considerably more grace and character than you have.
Not sure what anything Lee had to say has anything to do with who won
the presidential election.
after 200 ballots
86 coleman
85 franken
29 tossed
John Harris
mpls
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Marc Asch
> <marc@asch.org> wrote:
> > I am not sorry your candidate for President lost but
> he has taken it with
> > considerably more grace and character than you have.
>
> Not sure what anything Lee had to say has anything to do
> with who won
> the presidential election.
Not sure that it'd matter if he did,under the circumstances. Asch is one of
those guys that's been calling President Bush "selected" for the past eight
years.
"Considerably more grace", indeed.
Mitch Berg
The Midway
I am listening to MPR gnawing on the recount process this morning, trying to
believe that I have heard all I need to hear except the final outcome. But
there is this question: Is there not a clear conflict between the principle
that every vote will be counted if the voter's intent can be reasonably
ascertained, and the other principle that any mark on the ballot which makes it
unique will disqualify that ballot. I've been wondering about this ever since
Mitch Berg's revelation about his cat. The principle about intent has been
announced and referred to over and over, but as far as I know is not in the
law. The principle about unique marks, I am told, is in law, but I don't know
where. Is there a real conflict here, or is my ignorance of the law causing
me to invent one that doesn't exist?
The principle that a voter's intent, if ascertainable, will be given effect IS
in the law. It's at sec. 204C.22, subd. 1. and reads as follows:
"Ballot valid if intent determinable. A
ballot shall not be rejected for a technical error that does not make
it impossible to determine the voter's intent. In determining intent
the principles contained in this section apply."
The provision about unique marks is found at sec. 204C.22, subd. 13 and
pertains to attempts by the voter to identify his/her ballot. Given this
context, I see no conflict between the two provisions. A unique mark that is
not made in an attempt to identify the ballot would not be impacted by the
unique mark provision.
An argument might be made that Mitch Berg's write in of his cat's name might
fall within the unique mark provision since he's obviously attempting to
identify his ballot. So, Mitch's ballot should be thrown out.
One other thing. The law says quite clearly that a voter should indicate
his/her choice by writing an "X" next to it. Interesting since many votes
didn't get counted precisely because this is the method the voter chose.
Dave Hutcheson wrote: > The principle about intent has been announced and referred to over and over, but as far as I know is not in the law. The principle about unique marks, I am told, is in law, but I don't know where. Is there a real conflict here, or is my ignorance of the law causing me to invent one that doesn't exist? > > 204C.22 Determining Voeter's Intent https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=204C.22 see subd 1, for the directive, subd 2-12, 14 and 15 for standards. Subd 13 is identifying ballot. This was posted 11/29/08, you must have missed it.