2.9 million ballots, a lead of 215 vo...

2.9 million ballots, a lead of 215 votes - let's start all over

There are 20 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Nov 17, 2008, titled 2.9 million ballots, a lead of 215 votes - let's start all over. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Today, it returns to zero. Minnesota's canvassing board, made up of four judges and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, is scheduled to officially move the 2.9 million votes in the U.S. Senate race between ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

Ugh

Minneapolis, MN

#1 Nov 17, 2008
I'm an Election Judge in Ramsey County and it boggles my mind someone "believed the signature on his application and his ballot did not match."
Who is checking that and why?
Mr D

Maple Grove, MN

#2 Nov 18, 2008
The rejected absentee ballots should be looked at by the canvassing board to verify their legal authenticity and intent. The fact that a 'election official' can make a subjective call on a signature to negate a vote is undemocratic and wrong! EVERY vote that is legally cast should count!
north

Gatzke, MN

#3 Nov 18, 2008
dont anyone ask for a id to prove who they are before they vote they asked me
Tom

United States

#4 Nov 18, 2008
Obama has his crew in Minnesota--this recount is a joke and the Dems will make it work to their favor.
Repubs need to get some gutz
Look out

Saint Paul, MN

#5 Nov 18, 2008
If the ballot is not marked as directed it should be thrown out. A check mark or an X are not the acceptable form of voting and should not be counted. Expecting soemone to determine a voter's intent is ridiculous!
MMP

Plymouth, MN

#7 Nov 18, 2008
Can't have it both ways Mr. Elias. Cases get dismissed all the time on 'technicalities'. It's a little thing called the rule of law and the Constitution.

According to Franken attorney Marc Elias, who is Washington-based, the absentee ballot law requires "substantial" compliance with the requirements for absentee ballots and "mere technicalities" should not allow ballots to be rejected.
thissucks

Clearwater, MN

#8 Nov 18, 2008
It's only 9 votes but who's right? Strib says 206, PP says 215.

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#9 Nov 18, 2008
I only hope Mr. Coleman sees that being more interested in becoming one of the "DC Elite" does not pay. People are so angry at his job performance, literally half his district would rather have a foul-mouthed, dull-witted, unknown comedian than more of Mr. Coleman's efforts.

Regardless of the outcome, Mr. Coleman, please, whatever your job might be, do THAT. I am sure you are praying for another chance. Don't blow it again.

PS. I would REALLY like to see some investigation on the Haliburon no-bid contracts and this bogus 08 bailout.
Mr D

Saint Paul, MN

#10 Nov 18, 2008
Look out wrote:
If the ballot is not marked as directed it should be thrown out. A check mark or an X are not the acceptable form of voting and should not be counted. Expecting soemone to determine a voter's intent is ridiculous!
I suppose you also want to throw out the ballots were the circle wasn't COMPLETELY FILLED?
Their is NO DIFFERENCE between a ballot that was checked, circled or filled partially. The INTENT of the voter is what counts not, the ability to satisfy a voting MACHINE!
Wheelchair Charley

Garfield, MN

#11 Nov 18, 2008
Ugh wrote:
I'm an Election Judge in Ramsey County and it boggles my mind someone "believed the signature on his application and his ballot did not match."
Who is checking that and why?
Are you doing due diligence in your duties as an election judge if you don't verify a person is who they purport to be?

“The Lord of Sound Logic.”

Since: Nov 08

Fargo, ND

#12 Nov 18, 2008
Look out wrote:
If the ballot is not marked as directed it should be thrown out. A check mark or an X are not the acceptable form of voting and should not be counted. Expecting soemone to determine a voter's intent is ridiculous!
You are entitled to that opinion, of course. The fact is that a check mark or an X are acceptable...according to the laws of the state of MN as signed by Gov Pawlenty, and sworn to uphold by the MN Sec'y of State and duty bound by all election judges and officials. It's a felony to NOT accept them.
Our election officials are supposed to determine the voter's intent if they can. That's also the law.

“The Lord of Sound Logic.”

Since: Nov 08

Fargo, ND

#13 Nov 18, 2008
MN STATUTE 204C.22 DETERMINING VOTER’S INTENT. Subdivision 1. 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.

Don't like the law? Call and write Gov Pawlenty to complain that he signed the darned thing.
MMP

Plymouth, MN

#14 Nov 18, 2008
Mr D wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you also want to throw out the ballots were the circle wasn't COMPLETELY FILLED?
Their is NO DIFFERENCE between a ballot that was checked, circled or filled partially. The INTENT of the voter is what counts not, the ability to satisfy a voting MACHINE!
What color is the sky in your world? The INTENT is what counts???? You just can NOT escape the fact that there must be specific, clear, easy to understand criteria to determine whether a ballot passes muster for inclusion/exclusion. Let's test your logic. The voter 'completes' his/her ballot across party lines, but choses not to vote for the Senate race. What was their INTENT now that you have the ballot in front of you?

“The Lord of Sound Logic.”

Since: Nov 08

Fargo, ND

#15 Nov 18, 2008
MMP wrote:
<quoted text>What color is the sky in your world? The INTENT is what counts???? You just can NOT escape the fact that there must be specific, clear, easy to understand criteria to determine whether a ballot passes muster for inclusion/exclusion. Let's test your logic. The voter 'completes' his/her ballot across party lines, but choses not to vote for the Senate race. What was their INTENT now that you have the ballot in front of you?
Easy, their intent was to not vote for anyone in the Senate race...no one gets a vote.
Why are you making this harder than what it really is? If you (election judges)can determine the intent, you must do so. If you can't, let it go...
BTW, thanks again for the 'headline'.
MMP

Plymouth, MN

#17 Nov 18, 2008
hudaful wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy, their intent was to not vote for anyone in the Senate race...no one gets a vote.
Why are you making this harder than what it really is? If you (election judges)can determine the intent, you must do so. If you can't, let it go...
BTW, thanks again for the 'headline'.
Was I asking you?

“The Lord of Sound Logic.”

Since: Nov 08

Fargo, ND

#18 Nov 18, 2008
MMP wrote:
<quoted text>Was I asking you?
I thought you were asking for information, because it's obvious that you really don't know shiat.
Of course, many are proud of their ignorance...

“The Lord of Sound Logic.”

Since: Nov 08

Fargo, ND

#19 Nov 18, 2008
MMP wrote:
<quoted text>Was I asking you?
BTW, and I am asking you, are you the poster fka Jeff, or fka Large Carbon Footprint? Your ability to argue on and on even when your premise is false leads me to believe so.
Mr D

Saint Paul, MN

#21 Nov 18, 2008
Thanks for filling in the blanks while I make a living for my family.

Unfortunately for MMP, he has the whole day to twiddle his thumbs and try to persuade the masses that Minnesota election laws are not fair and balanced like the source he uses for his news!
Rad Rethuglican

Saint Paul, MN

#22 Nov 18, 2008
Tom wrote:
Obama has his crew in Minnesota--this recount is a joke and the Dems will make it work to their favor.
Repubs need to get some gutz
And what would getting some "gutz" entail? Would it be like Florida in 2000 where a gang of hired Republican goons were videotaped screaming in the hallway and pounding on the door outside where they were doing the 7 county recount?

Maybe you should get a gang together and go over the the SOS's office with torches and pitchforks, maybe even some guns. Now that would be "gutzy." Let me know when you're going to do that and I'll be there to stop you, sans weapons.

“The Lord of Sound Logic.”

Since: Nov 08

Fargo, ND

#23 Nov 18, 2008
Mr D wrote:
Thanks for filling in the blanks while I make a living for my family.
Unfortunately for MMP, he has the whole day to twiddle his thumbs and try to persuade the masses that Minnesota election laws are not fair and balanced like the source he uses for his news!
Ha!
I bet his momma always told him how level headed he was.
I bet she never explained it was because he drools out of both corners of his mouth equally.
I just can't believe everyone's getting worked into a froth on this. The state did a nice job of trying to take the 'emotions' out of recount situations, and now the guy in the lead (Coleman) and his party are the ones whining the most about it.
Wonders never cease.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Thief River Falls Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dead man's Trail (Mar '06) Feb '16 Trish00 20
News Avenue of the arts (Jun '15) Jul '15 Wailing Wall ar K... 3
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Minnesota ... (Oct '10) Jun '15 Richard Vickerman 17
what a new think (Feb '15) Feb '15 dimond74 1
News Minnesota utilites commission advances expansio... (Sep '14) Sep '14 Sylvia 1
Concerning a citzien in thief river falls Reggi... (Sep '14) Sep '14 Donald l hall 1
Debate: Election Poll, June 2012 - Thief River Falls, MN (Jun '12) Jun '14 rocky hall 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Thief River Falls Mortgages