• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

minnesota election

D

daniel49

Diamond Member
Text

If Someone could please explain to me how this could be a vote for Frankenstien?
I don't care what side of the aisle your on, this kind of shennanigans should outrage you.
 
They're challanging it because there's no duplicate ballot, i.e every time someone sends one in there's a duplicate put out. Colemen is doing the same as well.
 
Originally posted by: Tab
They're challanging it because there's no duplicate ballot, i.e every time someone sends one in there's a duplicate put out. Colemen is doing the same as well.
Click to expand...

It says the canvassing board ruled it a vote for Franken

It also says at least two ballot challenge voters did not vote to give that vote to Coleman.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Tab
They're challanging it because there's no duplicate ballot, i.e every time someone sends one in there's a duplicate put out. Colemen is doing the same as well.
Click to expand...

It says the canvassing board ruled it a vote for Franken

It also says at least two ballot challenge voters did not vote to give that vote to Coleman.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that? I see the Frankin camp Challenged it?
 
Coleman and Franken each challenged hundreds of ballots that would obviously get rejected. It turned into a big pissing contest to see who could challenge the most. If Franken announced he challenged 100 more ballots, the next day Coleman challenged 110 etc. This is just speculation on my part, but I think it had something to do with not letting the other guy get a huge potential lead, because then there might be calls for you to drop out. Coleman and Franken removed several hundred of their challenges once the challenges actually started getting reviewed.
 
Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tab

They're challanging it because there's no duplicate ballot, i.e every time someone sends one in there's a duplicate put out. Colemen is doing the same as well.
Click to expand...

It says the canvassing board ruled it a vote for Franken

It also says at least two ballot challenge voters did not vote to give that vote to Coleman.
Click to expand...

Where did you see that? All I found was that they ruled in favor of Franken's challenge, which may mean they just disqualifed the ballot because, as Tab notes, there was no required duplicate ballot.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tab

They're challanging it because there's no duplicate ballot, i.e every time someone sends one in there's a duplicate put out. Colemen is doing the same as well.
Click to expand...

It says the canvassing board ruled it a vote for Franken

It also says at least two ballot challenge voters did not vote to give that vote to Coleman.
Click to expand...

Where did you see that? All I found was that they ruled in favor of Franken's challenge, which may mean they just disqualifed the ballot because, as Tab notes, there was no required duplicate ballot.
Click to expand...

Where would the duplicate ballot come from?

This whole thing smells.
 
Daniel49 is right; this was considered a vote for Franken.

It's all in the box in the middle of the page. You see the little 'x' in the blue box at the intersection of "Canvassing Board" and "Franken"? That means the canvassing board awarded the vote to Franken. So, clearly, since there was no duplicate ballot the bubble next to Coleman meant "Franken". :roll:

This was challenged by Franken due to the extra line and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to Coleman.
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to Coleman.

See a pattern? There isn't one. Ballots marked almost identically are arbitrarily awarded with no rhyme or reason.

This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".

See a pattern? Yup, if it's marked for Coleman in a questionable fashion it's not decipherable but if it's marked for Franken in the EXACT SAME questionable fashion it's clearly for Franken.

Seriously, this is a valid vote?

I went through all 468 ballots and here's what I learned:
1. People voting for Franken were much more likely to get confused and initially vote for the guy who stands for the OPPOSITE of what they want.
2. The people 'deciphering' these votes just make a whole bunch of shit up.
3. The average vote was challenged because the voter was a douche and can't do something as simple as fill in a bubble correctly.
 
Originally posted by: sactoking
Daniel49 is right; this was considered a vote for Franken.

It's all in the box in the middle of the page. You see the little 'x' in the blue box at the intersection of "Canvassing Board" and "Franken"? That means the canvassing board awarded the vote to Franken. So, clearly, since there was no duplicate ballot the bubble next to Coleman meant "Franken". :roll:

This was challenged by Franken due to the extra line and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
http://senaterecount.startribu...te=2008-12-16&index=28">This</a> was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to Coleman.
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to Coleman.

See a pattern? There isn't one. Ballots marked almost identically are arbitrarily awarded with no rhyme or reason.

This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".

See a pattern? Yup, if it's marked for Coleman in a questionable fashion it's not decipherable but if it's marked for Franken in the EXACT SAME questionable fashion it's clearly for Franken.

Seriously, this is a valid vote?

I went through all 468 ballots and here's what I learned:
1. People voting for Franken were much more likely to get confused and initially vote for the guy who stands for the OPPOSITE of what they want.
2. The people 'deciphering' these votes just make a whole bunch of shit up.
3. The average vote was challenged because the voter was a douche and can't do something as simple as fill in a bubble correctly.
Click to expand...

Wow, what ever happened to the liberal mantra of "lets just count all the votes?" This is a sham and Frankin proves by these challenges that he is a man of questionable morality. Minnesotans will get the representation they deserve, this is outright voter fraud.
 
Originally posted by: Corn

Wow, what ever happened to the liberal mantra of "lets just count all the votes?" This is a sham and Frankin proves by these challenges that he is a man of questionable morality. Minnesotans will get the representation they deserve, this is outright voter fraud.
Click to expand...


We already knew Franken had suspect morality issues when he paraded his drunk wife's alcoholism for the whole state to see in a series of commercials. And you are right. We get exactly what we deserve in this state.

As for the votes big effing surprise.
 
Looks like we are getting set up for a long court ballot over this types of ballots.

The big questions becomes whether they let the 'winner' take the seat before the court fight is over.
 
Originally posted by: daniel49
not sure if these are part of sactokings but heres some more.
Text
Click to expand...

I am not understand how? In MN they only have to show intent. How are those not showing intent for Coleman?
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
*posts 7 of 2.4 million votes*
*cries about losing election*
*is an internet republican*
Click to expand...

Oh teh ironing since we still have libs whining about 2000...
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a few ballots in a senate battle and thousands of black people being intentionally disenfranchised for political gain.
 
Maybe all voting should be electronic. If they can make it work in India, they should be able to make electronic voting work here as well.

With Binary only 1's and 0's. No chance for fudged voting.
 
Originally posted by: daniel49
Text

If Someone could please explain to me how this could be a vote for Frankenstien?
I don't care what side of the aisle your on, this kind of shennanigans should outrage you.
Click to expand...

FiveThirtyEight.com addresses this specific ballot:

Non-issue

(click the "There's More" link.)

The ballot was counted for COLEMAN, not Franken. The Start Tribune had a typo on their webpage.

The right is desperate to make this re-count questionable.
 
Originally posted by: sactoking
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra line and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
http://senaterecount.startribu...te=2008-12-16&index=28">This</a> was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to Coleman.
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to Coleman.

See a pattern? There isn't one. Ballots marked almost identically are arbitrarily awarded with no rhyme or reason.

This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".

See a pattern? Yup, if it's marked for Coleman in a questionable fashion it's not decipherable but if it's marked for Franken in the EXACT SAME questionable fashion it's clearly for Franken.

Seriously, this is a valid vote?

I went through all 468 ballots and here's what I learned:
1. People voting for Franken were much more likely to get confused and initially vote for the guy who stands for the OPPOSITE of what they want.
2. The people 'deciphering' these votes just make a whole bunch of shit up.
3. The average vote was challenged because the voter was a douche and can't do something as simple as fill in a bubble correctly.
Click to expand...

...Yeah, that's total BS no matter which party you stand for. WTF is wrong with the canvassing board? Either throw out votes which are "X-d out", or count them. This is like that obvious MIS-interpretation of the Minnesota law where if you write-in a candidate, you don't have to also fill in the oval for the write-in...instead, they interpret this to mean that if you write-in a candidate AND fill in an oval for another candidate, it's an overvote and doesn't count.

It seems like the only people who are fair and even-handed are the people who have no say in the matter. Maybe we should just use internet polls instead of the canvassing board, since they seem to be less partisan.:roll:

The obvious lesson to take away from this is not to get cutesy AT ALL when voting, as (amazingly enough) your vote actually does count sometimes, and that you are casting an actual vote for the other guy if you do ANYTHING out of the ordinary.

Originally posted by: shira
The right is desperate to make this re-count questionable.
Click to expand...

The ballots posted by sactoking ARE questionable, and I'm not a Republican.
 
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: daniel49
Text

If Someone could please explain to me how this could be a vote for Frankenstien?
I don't care what side of the aisle your on, this kind of shennanigans should outrage you.
Click to expand...

FiveThirtyEight.com addresses this specific ballot:

Non-issue

(click the "There's More" link.)

The ballot was counted for COLEMAN, not Franken. The Start Tribune had a typo on their webpage.

The right is desperate to make this re-count questionable.
Click to expand...

We have to make sure the elections actually count - Because when democrats get to decide who fills seats it usually turns into who can pay the most for it.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: daniel49
not sure if these are part of sactokings but heres some more.
Text
Click to expand...

I am not understand how? In MN they only have to show intent. How are those not showing intent for Coleman?
Click to expand...


I'm puzzled too. A lot of the votes for either candidate show clear intent. When I was a vote counter during the 80s in Canada, we would have definitely allowed that.

For example 😕

http://www.imagebam.com/image/96b43f21651746
http://www.imagebam.com/image/e85e7421651747
 
Originally posted by: villageidiot111
Coleman and Franken each challenged hundreds of ballots that would obviously get rejected. It turned into a big pissing contest to see who could challenge the most. If Franken announced he challenged 100 more ballots, the next day Coleman challenged 110 etc. This is just speculation on my part, but I think it had something to do with not letting the other guy get a huge potential lead, because then there might be calls for you to drop out. Coleman and Franken removed several hundred of their challenges once the challenges actually started getting reviewed.
Click to expand...

Um, they removed THOUSANDS if their challenges (about 3000 from each camp). I think in the case of Franken's camp, the challenges to all but 155 of the challenged ballots were withdrawn.
 
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: sactoking
Daniel49 is right; this was considered a vote for Franken.

It's all in the box in the middle of the page. You see the little 'x' in the blue box at the intersection of "Canvassing Board" and "Franken"? That means the canvassing board awarded the vote to Franken. So, clearly, since there was no duplicate ballot the bubble next to Coleman meant "Franken". :roll:

This was challenged by Franken due to the extra line and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
http://senaterecount.startribu...te=2008-12-16&index=28">This</a> was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to Coleman.
This was challenged by Franken due to the extra lines and awarded to Coleman.

See a pattern? There isn't one. Ballots marked almost identically are arbitrarily awarded with no rhyme or reason.

This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to Franken.
This was challenged by Coleman due to the extra lines and awarded to "Other/No one".

See a pattern? Yup, if it's marked for Coleman in a questionable fashion it's not decipherable but if it's marked for Franken in the EXACT SAME questionable fashion it's clearly for Franken.

Seriously, this is a valid vote?

I went through all 468 ballots and here's what I learned:
1. People voting for Franken were much more likely to get confused and initially vote for the guy who stands for the OPPOSITE of what they want.
2. The people 'deciphering' these votes just make a whole bunch of shit up.
3. The average vote was challenged because the voter was a douche and can't do something as simple as fill in a bubble correctly.
Click to expand...

Wow, what ever happened to the liberal mantra of "lets just count all the votes?" This is a sham and Frankin proves by these challenges that he is a man of questionable morality. Minnesotans will get the representation they deserve, this is outright voter fraud.
Click to expand...

Why are you on Franken's case? BOTH the Coleman and Franken camps challenged ballots with similar characteristics, and in similar numbers. The election board and the judiciary made the final decisions. So why is this a reflection on Franken's character? Are you saying that if Franken challenges a vote with an x through the filled-in circle that proves Franken is engaging in election fraud, while if Coleman does the same thing he's above-board?

At least TRY to hide your obvious bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top