12/18/2008

Minnesota Canvassing Board's mischief?

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE STAR TRIBUNE SEEMS TO BE CHANGING THE PAGES THAT THESE LINKS GO TO. I WILL TRY TO KEEP THEM UPDATED, BUT THERE ARE TOO MANY EXAMPLES HERE FOR ME TO ENSURE THAT THE LINKS REMAIN ACCURATE.

Below is only a sample of some of the questionable calls made by the Minnesota Canvassing Board. These examples are culled from just first 99 cases, more from that group could have been included. There are a few calls in favor of Coleman that are also difficult to explain (possibly to make it harder to show bias), but at a rough glance what I have looked through so far seems to show a systematic bias by the board in favor of Franken. I am in the process of trying to go through these decisions more scientifically.

Here is an example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is clearly for no one.

Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one.

Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is clearly for Franken. Question: If an "X" through the vote means no when it is for Coleman (see above two examples), why does this "X" mean yes for Franken?

Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one. Apparently, an "X" when it comes to a Coleman ballot doesn't mean no in some cases.

Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one.

Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one. This vote is disqualified because the voter used the wrong ballot, but there are a couple things to note. I haven't found any similar cases for Franken, and it would be useful to have some discussion of how the voter got the wrong ballot.

Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one. Same as previous case.


On the other hand, there are some calls that could arguably go either way that they made in Coleman's direction. Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for Coleman.


Another example is here, where the decision was made in favor of Coleman.


Still overall I think that there are many more questionable decisions that go in Franken's favor than the reverse.

After consulting with the Democrat Attorney General, at first Ritchie rejects Franken’s desire to count rejected Absentee Ballots relying on the Attorney General’s opinion that such ballots are not a subject of a recount but rather for the courts to decide in an election contest. The Attorney General’s office opinion is here.

UPDATE: A couple of the examples that I originally had here were removed. They involved whether voters had made an identifying mark on their ballots. These are not always obvious to me (e.g., is the note "TO" an identifying mark?). In any case, the point distracted from the other real questions here.

Labels:

16 Comments:

Blogger joelr said...

I wish I knew more about the specifics. In one case that you show, I know why they should have disqualified a vote that was clearly for Coleman: the voter signed his name, and the law is specific that that's a disqualified (it's to prevent people from selling their votes; the signature or distinctive mark allows somebody to prove that he voted for who he said he did).

Now, I think that's a stupid law, but I can't fault the authorities for obeying it.

Similarly, at least some perfectly legitimate ballots were rejected because they were duplicates -- they couldn't be fed into the scanning machines, so the election officials re-created them and marked the original to prevent the same vote from being cast twice -- where there was no corresponding original ballot linked, so that the accuracy could be checked.

I'm not dismissing the notion that there's some deliberate mischief afoot in an attempt to throw a close election to Franken; at this point, I'm undecided.

12/18/2008 6:03 PM  
Blogger Dave Dial said...

This page is a total lie. Every minute of the board's decisions are on tape and they have been absolutely fair.

You should be ashamed of yourself for passing along this total bs.

12/19/2008 11:56 AM  
Blogger luckyoldsun said...

I think John Lott is full of it.
My guess is that those ballots that Lott shows were CHALLENGED by Franken and somehow Lott succeeded in convincing himself that the board AWARDED those votes to Franken.

It's simply impossible that anyone would have awarded those votes to Franken. I don't even believe that the Franken campaign would have argued that those were votes for Franken. (They probably argued that they were defective votes--for no-one.)

12/19/2008 6:11 PM  
Blogger Jonnyboy88 said...

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2008/12/19/5441/recount_how_lott_misleads

12/19/2008 9:17 PM  
Blogger Duke Powell said...

This Minnesota resident, conservative, and former member of the legislature has watched most of the canvassing board activities. I have seen no evidence of fraud. This has been a transparent process. The examples you cite were decided following state law.

12/20/2008 8:19 AM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Dear Mr. Powell:

Thanks for the note. OK, take the first example. It says "No Dup" for the reason for the challenge. I look at the vote and it looks clearly like a vote for Coleman. How does the phrase "No Dup" change that to a vote for Franken? Any help on this would be tremendously appreciated. Thank you.

12/20/2008 5:58 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Dear Jonnyboy88:

The same question for Mr. Powell applies to you also. I would also appreciate some concrete help on any of the other examples. Thank you.

12/20/2008 5:59 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

As a fair and balanced Minnesotan I feel sickened when I watch Al Franken rob the senate seat.

This election shouldn't even be debatable, why would anyone EVER vote for Al Franken????

Of course the re-counting committees were 99% obama-loving liberals who would just love the opportunity to elect one more liberal.

a feeling of nervousness grew inside of me every day when SOMEHOW Franken gains more and more votes, where are they coming from?

then i come on here and see outright coleman votes tossed out because.... why?

things like this make me want to packup and leave america, ive tried to love it as long as I can but when it is this corrupt its hard to take it.

12/20/2008 9:33 PM  
Blogger J_dogg82 said...

If only the author of this page would include the reason that these ballots were rejected rather than manufacturing a conspiracy huh? These ballots were rejected because the voters signed them and thusly state law requires that they be rejected. Why do you think that he only provides snippets of the ballots?

12/21/2008 2:56 AM  
Blogger J_dogg82 said...

If only the author of this page would include the reason that these ballots were rejected rather than manufacturing a conspiracy huh? These ballots were rejected because the voters signed them and thusly state law requires that they be rejected. Why do you think that he only provides snippets of the ballots?

12/21/2008 2:58 AM  
Blogger Dave Dial said...

Mike-Goodbye and good riddance.

The fact is that every minute of the canvassing boards decisions are on tape and John Lott(and you) are liars. The process has been absolutely fair.

Both Coleman and Franken have had votes rejected because voters signed the ballots. That's Minnesota law.

The ballots that Lott puts up here and his descriptions are lies. Period. And they have been exposed as lies through the media.

So I say pack your bags and GTFO.

12/21/2008 8:56 AM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Dear J_dogg82:

Please specifically point to which ballots that your claim applies to. Thank you.

12/21/2008 9:41 AM  
Blogger nut4jc said...

My grandparents were key Independent Republican activists in a predominantly blue (dfL) state. Perhaps for this recount alone I can be thankful that neither has survived to this day. Their hearts would be crushed by grief and frustration at this shameless misappropriation of political muscle by the Franken campaign. To pursue such a shameless course in the full light of day brings our confidence in free fair elections down to the mire of Machiavelian manipulation.
Truly, they have no shame.
Paul in Wisconsin

12/27/2008 9:43 PM  
Blogger William Wallace said...

Mr. Lott,

Considering I helped you sort out the star/trinbune's shifting sequencing, and have not been critical of you, can you explain why you delete my comments?

Unbelievable.

12/27/2008 10:04 PM  
Blogger Sam A. said...

People who votes on those ballots are idiots and shouldn't be allowed to vote again until they can pass a basic literacy tests.

... and folks say there's a problem with voting on computers?

Good grief.

12/29/2008 3:29 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

I feel your pain. I live in Washington State and voted for Rossi in both 2004 and 2008. At least I can be sure that my vote counted in 2008 (not that it mattered all too much).

The good news is that in light of this, your state will probably institute some election reforms. That's what we did after the '04 fiasco. It seems to have legitimately helped. I just hate to see another candidate like Coleman gregoired the way Rossi was.

Good luck! We're rooting for ya!

1/07/2009 3:29 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home