How the recount works

On Jason Lewis' radio show on Thursday, a woman involved in the recount in Hopkins, MN reported that they were 86 votes short. They had 86 votes short of what had been counted on election night. Fortunately, the votes were eventually found: they were apparently in a back stairwell. Apparently, similar stories have occurred in other precincts.

When I get all the data it will be interesting to see what are the odds that the places that found votes for Franken in the "typo" corrections are also the places that found votes in the recount. The Duluth News Tribune reports this:

Most Minnesota counties reported little change from their election-night tallies. But in the St. Louis County precincts counted Wednesday, Franken gained 28 votes over those counted earlier. Officials said Franken gained 40 votes, while Coleman gained 12.

The 28-vote Franken gain, expected by the Coleman campaign, was due mostly to an older type of voting machine used on the Iron Range that does not always read faint lines.

The St. Louis County vote swing appeared to be the biggest change on the first day of the recount. . . .



Blogger ICONIC FREEDOM said...

This is so pathetic.

In this day and age of advanced organizational skill sets, it is absurd that this type of neglect and incompetence is so pervasive. I am constantly amazed at the inability for management to create structures and protocols that are simple, easy to follow, while keeping things ordered and efficient.

It once again points to empirical evidence that government is the worst at managing anything.

11/21/2008 10:23 AM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

scooteraz is correct. Management is the usual cause of the demise of most things, and not those who deal with the real world on a daily basis. A disconnect, based upon personal greed.

The auto industry is a fine example here.

As to the recount, it is a simple matter of who controls, or manages the recount. Hence scooteraz's observations.

Management, is not out to protect the company or the political party, per se, but only worry about their own personal future. To that end, they achieve, or attempt to acheive their own personal goals at the expense of the common good of all.

Sometimes this follows the path of protection of the group that supports said manager, and vice versa. Bill Clinton comes to mind here.

Human nature, at times, can be fickle, but it does exhibit certain patterns over, and over again.

11/22/2008 11:10 AM  
Blogger clark said...

If you do calculate the odds, Lott, please show your work and your assumptions. It's tiresome having to correct you.

11/22/2008 8:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home