Minnesota Recount: The myth of the “undervote”
posted at 12:30 pm on November 13, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Al Franken’s campaign now says that they intend on winning the election by pursuing the “undervote”:
An Associated Press analysis of votes in the tight, still-to-be decided race for a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota shows that most ballots lacking a recorded choice in the election were cast in counties won by Democrat Barack Obama.
The finding could have implications for Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken, who are headed for a recount separated by the thinnest of margins — a couple of hundred votes, or about 0.01 percent.
About 25,000 ballots statewide carried votes for president but not for the Senate race. Although some voters might have intentionally bypassed the race, others might have mismarked their ballot, or optical scanning machines might have misread them.
We first heard about “undervotes” in the controversy over the election results in Florida in 2000. In that context, it made a little more sense. A significant number of ballots carried votes from down-ticket races but not for the presidential election. This set off an effort to glean supposed voter intent through checking for “pregnant chads”, those punch card selections that didn’t dislodge the paper chip for the correct slot. The operational theory was that the punch-card system somehow cheated the voter out of registering his/her vote, despite the decades of use that punch-card systems had and the clear instructions given to voters to punch all the way through the card and check their ballots when finished.
In this case, it makes no sense at all. First, we use optical-scan systems, not punch-card ballots, which are far simpler to complete. Second, the Senate race was not at the top of the ballot. Obama voters didn’t necessarily support Franken, as the chart below makes clear:
We saw this dynamic all through the election season. Franken consistently ran far behind Obama in Minnesota. Some Obama voters supported Coleman, and some supported Dean Barkley as an alternative. Some apparently decided not to support anyone at all. The notion that a significant difference in support between Obama and Franken amounts to some sort of malfeasance or frustrated voter intent is sheer fantasy.
Voters have a right not to cast votes in a particular race, which is why the optical-scan tabulators do not check for “undervotes”. In fact, “undervotes” do not exist; they’re a myth. When voters choose not to support a candidate, they don’t cast votes for the candidate, and if they don’t vote at all in a race, that’s intentional. If they intended to vote in a race, they had ample opportunity to do so. We Minnesotans spent a fortune on a balloting system that captures voter intent in the best manner possible, and the recount effort must not involve the wholesale second-guessing of that clear statement.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
If Franken trailed by 12 points, according to polls, how come he only lost by a couple of hundred votes? Were the MN polls that screwy?
lorien1973 on November 13, 2008 at 12:35 PM
None of the above was not a choice. If I did not chose a candidate, they should not be allowed to steal my vote.
infidel on November 13, 2008 at 12:36 PM
If ever there was a face that wanted to be punched, its the one in your heading.
Syd B. on November 13, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Franken’s support trailed Obama’s by 12 points. Franken and Coleman were in the margin of error against each other.
Ed Morrissey on November 13, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Ed’s response is an example of conservative class and propriety when dealing with thuggery.
Instead, conservatives should be shouting “f’k no!” and making a rank stink in court.
mylegsareswollen on November 13, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Maybe the ballots should have a “Non of the Above” choice. That would take care of the dreaded “Undervote”.
PappaMac on November 13, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Other than being really mad, if this “election” swings to Franken, what are you Minnesotans doing about this? I mean, this is starting to look like Mugabe’s election.
beatcanvas on November 13, 2008 at 12:38 PM
If they count any of these “undervotes”, then the entire election has to be thrown out. Having election officials deciding that no vote for Senate, but an Obama vote for President, really means a Franken vote truly is a Frankenvote. It’s the concoction of a mad scientist stitching together pieces of dead tissue in an attempt to bring back to life a dead candidacy.
The Monster on November 13, 2008 at 12:39 PM
The vote will be stolen…….now is Georgia next?
grapeknutz on November 13, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Beware the Undervote. I bet there are dems filling in the empty undervote sections of ballots like crazy these last couple of days…oops, did I say that outloud?
In what world does Stuart Smalley win?
portlandon on November 13, 2008 at 12:39 PM
As an election judge in Hennepin County, I personally had to initial all of the absentee ballots in our precinct BEFORE they were fed into the scanner. Glancing at them as they went by, I was surprised at the number of them that voted for Obama for President, but Norm Coleman for Senate and Erik Paulson for Congress. To me, it doesn’t seem that the undervote argument is valid. Franken can’t be allowed to get away with this. I sure hope Norm has some good lawyers!!!
thirdtart on November 13, 2008 at 12:40 PM
This country needs to go back to the basics. Paper ballots, in-person voting, proof of voting rights, clear laws regarding what constitutes a “vote”.
If your state has an initiative process start working on this right now for next year’s ballot. Don’t leave it up to the elected officials; it will never get done.
Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com
bryanmyrick on November 13, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Exactly. It’s why we continue to lose on pretty much everything.
Gregor on November 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM
MINNESOTANS MUST SCREAM LOUDER AT THIS INJUSTICE !!!! TOO MANY VOTING RULES HAVE BEEN DISCARDED !! FIGHT THIS THEIF !!
birdhurd on November 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Al Franken’s amazing come from behind victory,one “lost vote”at a time.
Hopeychange in action!
jellybelly on November 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM
She’s not saying, but my mother could very well be one of the US Senate “undervotes.” She voted for Obama because she didn’t like McCain’s support of the Iraq war. Yet she voted for Michele Bachmann, because “Bachmann cares about children.” And in the US Senate Race, she didn’t like any of the ones running, including Barkley.
RBMN on November 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM
How Fsrking Convenient.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Damn right it is a myth. I have deliberately skipped votes many times and I resent being told it was a mistake.
Blake on November 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM
We conservatives here are mad as hell and we have guns… lots of them ;)
beththebaker on November 13, 2008 at 12:45 PM
whoops… THIEF !!
birdhurd on November 13, 2008 at 12:45 PM
thirftart
I was a judge in Eagan, MN… we did the same thing as you…. protocol all the way. There is no such thing as an under vote… democraps can invent words, though… they’re good at it.
MNDavenotPC on November 13, 2008 at 12:46 PM
thirdtart, I meant to type… sorry
MNDavenotPC on November 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Looks like Coleman will be just another Republican learning about the effects of ignoring voter fraud the hard way.
Done That on November 13, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Isn’t it … amusing… that if you take this argument to its logical endpoint… they are saying that many Democrats are not SMART enough to figure out HOW to vote?
Romeo13 on November 13, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I’m so glad i didn’t buy ‘Stuart Smalley Saves His Family’. I haven’t been able to look at him without hurling for 5 years now…The happy idiot act didn’t work when he became certifiable because of BDS. It’s W’s fault, doncha know.
Christine on November 13, 2008 at 12:52 PM
What?
The optical scanners just happened to pick out the Senate race to ignore?
Where is SkyNet when you need it?
Limerick on November 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM
It’ll be the new diet craze! Hurling to Senator Stuart Smiley!
beththebaker on November 13, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Even the Star Tribune endorsed Coleman. Plenty of other reasons why Democrats would have voted for Obama and Coleman or Obama and no one for the Senate.
danking70 on November 13, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Offline until January.
And the logical endpoint of THAT… if people aren’t smart enough to figure out how to vote, how long until they decide they need to vote FOR us?
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 13, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Recount the vote until the Democrat wins.
Then you can stop.
The only way we can win is if it isn’t close.
Rhinoboy on November 13, 2008 at 1:01 PM
The term undervote simply means somebody who did not mark a preference on a ballot for any candidate. As opposed to an “overvote” where some schmuck votes for two or more when they are only supposed to vote for one. Not voting for a measure is an allowable preference. The idea that Franken wants to assume that all blanks for that office belong to him because Obama won MN is a joke. As two previous commenters pointed out and as state house and congressional district data bear out, there was a tremendous amount of ticket splitting in MN this time, in almost all possible permutations. One reason for this is the MN ballot. There is no way to vote a straight ticket without physically marking each race. (No “mark here to vote a straight ticket”). Secondly, the ballot is quite large (it barely fit in the voting cubicle I had to work in) and depending on whether you follow the columns down or vote the offices across and then down, you will be cutting across state, federal, local and non-partisan questions and offices. More than any other place I’ve voted, you really had to consider each office and it’s candidates before you marked it. Which is as it should be, really. Angry Al would just have preferred it if people were thinking about Obama (and puppies) instead, and voting for him.
MargaretMN on November 13, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I had better not hear that Franken is looking to disqualify military ballots (see also FL 2000, WA 2004). I will go ballistic. I am not over here in Iraq to have some no-talent assclown of a “comedian” get my ballot thrown out on what would no doubt be a trivial technicality just so he can
get intoscam his way into office and make life more miserable for me and my comrades.Red Cloud on November 13, 2008 at 1:06 PM
A recount due to begin Nov. 19 will use manual inspection to detect such ballots.
I’m not really sure what the point of this post is. It’s a fact that there are about 25,000 “undervotes” or ballots that cast votes for the presidential election, but not the senatorial election. About 18,000 of those ballots came in districts won by Obama. This would seemingly favor Obama is many of these ballots had votes cast in the senatorial election, but were misread by the machine.
Undervotes are not a myth. The stats on them seemingly favor Frankin.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 1:08 PM
You’re illiterate, right? That’s the only possible explanation for this. Didn’t you read where it was explained how undervotes simply cannot exist in Minnesota?
Not everyone who voted for Obama in Minnesota necessarily voted for Franken. To assume otherwise is extremely dangerous. We don’t have some kind of closed list party system.
Red Cloud on November 13, 2008 at 1:11 PM
This would seemingly favor Obama if many of these ballots had votes cast in the senatorial election, but were misread by the machine.
Fixed.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Thank you for your service… bless you!
beththebaker on November 13, 2008 at 1:12 PM
You’re illiterate, right?
No, I’m just not an idiot and take the non-expert opinion of a blind partisan as the gospel truth.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Tom,
As Margaret and others have pointed out, you have to physically vote for each candidate on a Minnesota ballot. There were quite likely a lot of people who went in to vote for Obama and once they did that, didn’t bother with the down-ballot races. And the other thing that Margaret says is definitely true — people ticket-split in Minnesota all the time. Amy Klobuchar won the Senate race here in ‘06 overwhelmingly, but Tim Pawlenty won the governor’s race. If there were a direct correlation between Klobuchar votes and preference for Democrats generally, Mike Hatch would be our governor. He is not.
Mr. D on November 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM
There votes for Franken are coming from the Twilight Zone.
Travis1 on November 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM
He trailed because of a third party candidate who got more than ten percent of the vote.
eaglewingz08 on November 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM
And those are votes THAT DIDN’T GET VOTED AND THEREFORE SHOULDN’T BE COUNTED
SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS ON A POGOSTICK
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM
It’s a simple matter, though. If the machine can’t read a vote for a race, it spits it back out. It doesn’t force you to vote in every race.
Thus, if there are “undervotes,” they are corrected before the voter even leaves the polling place. This isn’t difficult to understand unless you’re a grinning moron who thinks his own fame (or reasonable facsimile of it) is qualification for United States Senate.
He just wants to assume that anyone who voted for Obama and did not vote in the Senate race supported him but forgot to vote for him. Wrong answer.
Red Cloud on November 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Nevertheless…thank you sir, for your service!
jwehman on November 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Undervotes are purely speculative, not statistical. If a voter chooses not to vote for anyone for a certain office, he leaves it blank. To assume or speculate that he “intended” to vote for a certain person based on his other votes for other people on the ballot is simply guessing.
It’s guessing that this was an oversight by the voter rather than intentional, and there is no evidence of an oversight.
Even if it was an oversight, there are no chances for the voter to change his mind once he’s turned in his ballot. If he changes it while he’s holding it, and needs to remark it, they will take the first ballot, put it in the “spoiled” pile and give him a fresh ballot. The spoiled ballot is not counted.
Once the ballot is read by the scanner, and in the box, it’s final.
Wethal on November 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM
The motto of the Dems, “If you can’t win an election, STEAL IT”….!
DL13 on November 13, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Reminds me a lot of the ol’ “voter intent” baloney they tried in Florida in the 2000 election….
JetBoy on November 13, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Seems to me this is proof that Dems were hoist by their own petard. They did a great job of driving a lot of ignorant first time voters to the polls for Obama. Those voters were given instructions on how to vote for Obama. A whole mess of them probably did not vote for anyone else on the ballot because they had never heard of them and probably don’t even know what a U.S. Senator is.
rockmom on November 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM
And if whoever wins the ‘top of the ticket’ determined the rest of the races, we’d have Senator Mark Kennedy, not Klobuchar!
thirdtart on November 13, 2008 at 1:28 PM
You are so funny, your young mom must be proud! ;)
beththebaker on November 13, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Maybe his voters had PTPS (post-traumatic pencil syndrome) and once they voted Obama they couldn’t go on.
batterup on November 13, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Grue in the Attic on November 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM
I’ll do this slowly, Grue, so there’s a chance you’ll understand.
There’s a chance that some people did vote for senator, but the machine did not read their mark. If it is clear on the ballot that a vote was cast for Coleman or Franken, but was not read by the machine, then the “undervote” will be counted.
It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I’ll say it once again: MINNESOTA FIND YOURSELF ANOTHER COUNTRY. GET THE HELL OUT OF OURS.
Percy_Peabody on November 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Once the ballot is read by the scanner, and in the box, it’s final.
Not true. If the scanner misread a ballot that shows a clear intent to vote for Coleman or Frankin, it will be counted in the manual recount.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Get over yourself. You know those aren’t the ones we’re talking about.
This ENTIRE thread has been about the ballots with “Obama” marked in the President slot and NOTHING marked in the Senator slot. Stop changing the subject, Moonbat.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 13, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I one worked for a state assemblyman in California. He lost his reelection in 1990 by 644 votes, out of over 140,000 cast. I watched the absentees getting counted. I was amazed at how many people voted for Governor and Congress but not for state assembly. When all the votes were counted, there were over 3000 ballots in which no vote was recorded in the assembly race. If all the voters who voted Republican in the other races had voted for my boss, he would have won. It sucked, but we accepted it. We would never have even thought of challenging the election on that basis.
Sometimes people do not vote in races where they feel they do not know enough about the candidates or simply do not like the choices. (In our case, we figured that my boss was a pretty liberal Republican and a lot of conservatives just didn’t vote.) It is hardly a stretch to assume that 25,000 voters in Minnesota either were ignorant and went to vote only for Obama, or were unhappy with all of the choices in the Senate race and did not vote at all. I would think a lot of loyal but discerning Democrats had a lot of problems with Al Franken as their Senator, but would never have voted for a non-Democrat. Why is this so difficult to believe?
Franken was the worst candidate the DFL could have come up with. They need to grow up and realize that they blew this election, and they would have stomped Coleman with any other reasonable candidate.
rockmom on November 13, 2008 at 1:36 PM
This ENTIRE thread has been about the ballots with “Obama” marked in the President slot and NOTHING marked in the Senator slot. Stop changing the subject, Moonbat.
The actual ballots have not been looked at yet. The undervotes have been calculated by the machines.
NO ONE is saying that if someone voted for Obama, but didn’t mark the ballot for senator that it should be counted for Obama. At least I haven’t seen anyone say that. Read the story that Ed links to. It simply states that much more of the undervotes came from districts that Obama won.
I think you’re the one who needs to figure out what this thread is about.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Not if the ballot is completely blank for a certain candidate. If there was some kind of mark, it could be evidence of voter intent.
What Franken wants is the ballots with completely blank spaces next to his name to be assumed to be for Franken, because the Obama blank was filled in.
Either candidate could argue a mark in a box showed voter intent, but Franken is trying to claim there is intent from a completely blank box next to his name. Those are the undervotes he wants.
Wethal on November 13, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I just said that, don’t bother. He won’t listen.
It’s amusing that he came into this thread flailing about “blind partisans” and then so boldly moves to prove himself a card-carrying member of that very group.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM
What Franken wants is the ballots with completely blank spaces next to his name to be assumed to be for Franken, because the Obama blank was filled in.
Show me where Frankin or his campaign has suggested this.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Tom’s new name is Tom Smalley.
Kevin in Washington State on November 13, 2008 at 1:51 PM
I turned on Air America for the first time in my life this morning just to see what they do. They were talking about overwhelming evidence of voter fraud and voter intimidation by Republicans in 2000 and 2004, and that we shouldn’t complain about Franken gaining more votes.
I knew it would be bad, but they’re just insane.
Grafted on November 13, 2008 at 1:54 PM
As Tom says, this is not what anyone has said should happen. If you think they have, please point to where. It certainly doesn’t say this in the article mentioned in this post.
What is true is that people are speculating that some percentage of those who voted for Obama but not for the Senate race may have indeed voted for the Senate race, and are more likely to have voted for Franken. This speculation does not mean that they want to count votes without any evidence other than an Obama vote.
tneloms on November 13, 2008 at 1:55 PM
And gosh darnit, people like him!
JetBoy on November 13, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Ed, here is a study from 2000 that gives a 1.8% unrecorded vote rate for optical scan machines at a central location, and 0.9% on the precinct level: http://www.apsanet.org/~elections/archives/kimball.html. How can you claim that undervotes don’t exist?
tneloms on November 13, 2008 at 1:58 PM
The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election. The people who count the votes decide everything.
- Joseph Stalin
The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election. The people who count votes that don’t exist decide everything.
- Al Franken
MB4 on November 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM
That’s exactly what his speculation means.
Otherwise, why even bring it up?
Tinian on November 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM
If I do not know enough about the candidates to make an informed vote, I either vote the Party line or don’t vote at all. To assume my intention is otherwise is therefore an error – and Tom_Shiply an MYTH. You can’t make something out of nothing! It’s like the Big Bang Theory in reverse. First there was nothing and then it exploded!
Mr_Magoo on November 13, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Tinian on November 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM
They are speculating that there’s a clear mark for either Coleman or Fraken on the ballot but the machine failed to read it… exactly what I posted before.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 2:02 PM
LMAO
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 13, 2008 at 2:03 PM
For the same reason that anyone speculates about anything. The same reason that pollsters run polls, and people are interested in reading them.
Regardless, even if you believe that Franken *wants* to count votes when evidence other than an Obama vote exists, he certainly doesn’t have the power to do this. The rules for counting votes are clear (and don’t allow for anything like this) and those who control the recount are evenly split among partisan lines, as Ed has noted.
tneloms on November 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Technology never changes in eight years’ time, does it?
Red Cloud on November 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM
That is an interesting concept. I once though about buying a lotto ticket and I might have won if I had bought a ticket, therefor I should get the prize money.
MB4 on November 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Wonder what the “undervote” was for those who voted for McCain and not for senate?
fbcmusicman on November 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Grue,
Did you find where Franken or anyone says that ballots for Obama with no mark on the senate race should vote for Franken?
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I hope the Republicans have sharp-eyed poll watchers at EVERY recount site, especially in the Dem-leaning precincts and/or counties. During a recount, if ballots are found with a vote for Obama for President and no vote for Senate, Republicans should be carefully watching to check that Democrat operatives don’t fill in blank Senate ballots for Franken before counting them.
If a voter clearly marked a vote for either Coleman or Franken, the machine should have counted it as such. Since Coleman and Franken are nearly tied, there would be an about even probability of the machine missing a Coleman vote as missing a Franken vote, except if Franken voters are more stupid than Coleman voters (for example, marking an X instead of filling in the oval). Given the intellectual capacity of the candidate (Franken), this possibility cannot be excluded.
Here are the current results, according to the CNN website:
President:
Obama 1,573,323
McCain 1,275,400
—————–
Total 2,848,723
Senate:
Coleman 1,211,565
Franken 1,211,359
Barkley 437,389
—————–
Total 2,860,313
Unless there were more than 11,590 votes for minor candidates (neither Obama nor McCain) in the Presidential race, there were more votes cast for Senate than for President–why would there be a huge number of Senate undervotes?
Also, Obama got 361,964 more votes than Franken did, meaning that at least 23% of known Obama voters did NOT vote for Franken. Since McCain got 64,041 more votes than Coleman, unless there were large numbers of ticket-splitters (Obama voters for Coleman or McCain voters for Franken), most of the Obama voters that Franken did not win have already been counted…for Barkley.
Steve Z on November 13, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Of course it does. That doesn’t mean that the rate has gone down to 0% though, which is what Ed is claiming. Do you have any evidence that the technology has indeed improved, and that there is a corresponding drop in the error rate?
Also, some types of errors may not be easily correctable with better technology; examples include an X next to the name rather than inside the oval.
tneloms on November 13, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Ed, here is a study from 2000 that gives a 1.8% unrecorded vote rate for optical scan machines at a central location, and 0.9% on the precinct level: http://www.apsanet.org/~elections/archives/kimball.html. How can you claim that undervotes don’t exist?
tneloms on November 13, 2008 at 1:58 PM
As I mentioned above, in a roughly tied race, there would be about an equal probability of a machine missing a Coleman vote as missing a Franken vote, which should add an equal number of votes to both candidates without changing the winner. Statistically, this would be true unless Franken voters had a higher tendency to mis-mark their ballots than Coleman voters.
Is the lesson here that stupid voters always win recounts?
Steve Z on November 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Shipley, you are a assclown.
An undervote, it the context of this thread, is not the simple misreading of the ballot by the machine. That would be called a “misread ballot”. An undervote is when no candidate is selected.
We conservatives want all legal ballots counted. You don’t get that concept because the psychosis you liberals operate under makes you think that your candidates are preordained to win and therefore a FAKE vote IS still ACCURATE enough for you.
This meme is very familiar to us. We see it in every area of life that is dominated by liberals.
csdeven on November 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM
As I mentioned above, in a roughly tied race, there would be about an equal probability of a machine missing a Coleman vote as missing a Franken vote, which should add an equal number of votes to both candidates without changing the winner.
This is why the news that 18,000 “undervotes” are from areas that Obama won while 6,000 are from areas McCain won is news.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Shipley, you are a assclown.
An undervote, it the context of this thread, is not the simple misreading of the ballot by the machine. That would be called a “misread ballot”. An undervote is when no candidate is selected.
csdeven on November 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Um… I’ve never said anything different.
I’m not really sure what the point of this post is. It’s a fact that there are about 25,000 “undervotes” or ballots that cast votes for the presidential election, but not the senatorial election. About 18,000 of those ballots came in districts won by Obama. This would seemingly favor Obama if many of these ballots had votes cast in the senatorial election, but were misread by the machine.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Even if there’s a 50% chance of each vote going either way, that doesn’t mean they will end up splitting exactly evenly. If you flip a coin 100 times, you won’t necessarily get 50 heads.
In fact, what you get is drawn from the binomial distribution. You can use this distribution to figure out what the chances are of getting 60+ heads (or 206+ extra votes for Franken) when you flip a coin 100 times (or count thousands of new votes).
To address your second point, yes it’s probably true that stupid voters have a better chance of winning recounts. This is because stupid voters were less likely to have their vote counted in the first place. There is nothing wrong with this and that’s the way things should be, unless you think that stupid voters don’t deserve to have their vote counted.
tneloms on November 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM
This is your comment……
It isn’t an “undervote” at that point. It is a “misread ballot” and it would be counted as a misread ballot and not as an undervote.
Franken wants the undervotes. Just like in 2000 the lying sack of $hit liberals want a non-vote to be divined as a vote in their favor.
Words mean things.
csdeven on November 13, 2008 at 2:54 PM
csdeven on November 13, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Boy, OK, you win. If a large enough percentage of undervotes turn out to be misread ballots, it will be favorable for Franken considering 18,000 of the 25,000 undervotes (as read by the machines) were cast in areas that Obama won. Happy?
And I’ll ask you, since Grue and that other dude haven’t been able to back up their claim:
Show me where Franken says that ballots that cast a vote for Obama but show no vote in the senate race (no mark, nothing to be misread by a machine — completely blank in the senate field) should count for Franken.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Al ‘Gore-lite’ Franken is another bitter clinger…clinging to fantasy scenarios which win him the election:
Al? Al! Listen to me-some Arizona ranchers at a bar heard your name mentioned at the next table during a football game…
will you allow their Franken votes to be disqualified?
Al? You really should check those Aussie college roommates in Perth who accidentally clicked on your site while Googling “Frankenstein” for Halloweeen…what about them? Does their intent to vote for you mean nothing?
Doug on November 13, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I think Franken means the votes he just found under his couch cushions.
Jim Treacher on November 13, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I have decided to be optimistic and think that Coleman will win when the tabulations are finished and Franken won’t be able to steal the election. Why? Because of the democrats efforts to try and steal the Bush election in 2000.
There was such a stink about the Florida vote. Even though the correct result was decided, the liberals still claim the election was stolen. Because of their lack of acceptance of that outcome, there has been heightened scrutiny on election fraud, real or perceived.
The democrats got away with it in the 2004 Washington governor race when mysterious ballots kept showing up and they were all for Christine Gregoire. Once they had just enough votes to edge out Dino Rossi, the well of “newly discovered” ballots dried up and Gregoire declared the winner.
I trust that democratic ravings and tactics are well enough known that they are not going to get away with it in Minnesota. Hey, one can Hope for some Change.
Mallard T. Drake on November 13, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I was in Camp Udairi Kuwait waiting to further deploy our aircraft into theater. Al Frankin appeared as part of a USO show to do “comedy”. His entire routine was derogatory towards the administration and belittled the actual effort and strategies of the war; to the point where he was booed. That wasn’t enough. He donned a trash can lid on his chest and then asked who in the audience was National Guard. He said that this was their body armor and the active duties guys were getting the real stuff. It was obvious he was there to sow dissent between active and guard units and demoralize the soldiers who were less than a week from moving forward to actual combat situations in Iraq. Don’t even consider the years at Air America calling the military every name in the book. That this assclown POS is even in the running makes me think the country hasn’t just gone into an election cycle with the attitude of “throw the bums out”; but half of them have completely turned their back on their military.
Thanks Minnesota!
hawkdriver on November 13, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Wrong. They are speculating on undervotes. From the article:
That’s the lede. Where the writer makes the main point. It emphasizes the undervote. Next:
Again, a reference to the undervote. Next:
The ballots that showed a presidential vote but no Senate vote are called the “undervote.” Statewide, more than 18,000 of those ballots came from counties won by Obama. About 6,100 were in counties won by Republican John McCain.
Some areas of the state would appear to favor Coleman in a recount based on the dropoff, but most of those were smaller counties where the undervote was in the dozens. The largest of those pro-McCain counties was Anoka, in the suburban Twin Cities, where 1,189 ballots didn’t choose a Senate candidate.
The majority of the article is about the undervote, klown. Pull your head out of your a$$ and read the headline:!
Most Minn. Senate ‘undervotes’ are from Obama turf
And there are no references (as you claims) to “a clear mark for either Coleman or Fraken [sic]“. The word mark comes up three times in the article, once as a name. The other two references are:
and
The article is basically saying “Hey — LOOK!!! counting the undervotes from Obama turf as votes for Franken if legit. We can even interpret stray marks on the ballots as Franken votes!
Sheesh! When stray marks can be called votes you’ve got vote fraud.
Tinian on November 13, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Tinian on November 13, 2008 at 3:41 PM
It’s amazing how HotAir can produce such a steady stream of idiots.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Wow. You know what else? Franken had pictures of himself on USO tours in his ads as evidence of how he cared for the troops.
And here I thought I couldn’t have less respect for someone and then I hear this. Wow.
Thank you for your service, hawkdriver.
Mr. D on November 13, 2008 at 3:56 PM
All Franken’s people need to do is get their hands on the ‘undervote’ ballots and add a mark for Franken. It almost worked in Florida 2000. Franken is closing in on the votes he needs to win. Just a few hundred more to go.
Democrats have been calling Democrat voters stupid, incompetent, and illiterate since the 2000 election. This year they added racist for any Democrats who voted for McCain. Do actual Democrat voters pay any attention to what the Democrat leadership thinks of them?
jerseyman on November 13, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Tinian on November 13, 2008 at 3:41 PMIt’s amazing how HotAir can produce such a steady stream of idiots.
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 3:47 PM
The liberal splainer’s back.
hawkdriver on November 13, 2008 at 4:26 PM
It’s an honor to do it for real Americans.
hawkdriver on November 13, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Meanwhile AG Mukasey ponders tomorrow’s big decision. Will it be blueberry syrup on tomorrow’s waffles or maple syrup again?
viking01 on November 13, 2008 at 4:31 PM
At the risk of being flamed, I think I’m on Tom_Shipley’s side in his argument. Anyone who has ever taken an SAT test knows how much it was stressed to completely fill in a circle to make sure the choice was read by the optical scanner. Tom’s contention is that there is some percentage of these thousands of votes that may have incomplete markings for the idiot (sorry, it just disgusts me to think that he may be a Senator for 6 years). The fact that a good percentage of them are in DFL majority locations tips the scales in his favor to have incomplete markings be counted. That is more what the article was about than the contention that undervotes don’t exist.
This is a very unfortunate reality and as someone stated before, I can totally envision someone marking undervotes in the idiot’s favor. After all, if they can produce a 1000 votes from a warehouse in King County, Washington to get Gregori elected or “find” 30-some absentee ballots in the trunk of a car, what’s to say the DFL’ers won’t just mark a few hundred ballots with no markings. I’ve resigned myself to this “assclown,” as one of our service members so appropriately called him, increasing the Dem’s majority, although I’ve contributed to Sen. Coleman’s recount fund.
RedinPDRM on November 13, 2008 at 4:33 PM
RedinPDRM on November 13, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Thank you. It’s not very hard to understand.
There will be a hand recount. In hand recounts, it’s possible that markings not picked up by the machine will be clear enough to be counted for either Franken or Colemen. The fact that 18,000 of the 25,000 undervotes are from areas Obama won seems to favor Franken (especially since only a couple hundred votes separate the candidate).
Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Why is it that:
1) Dem ballots have a disportionate number of undervotes compared to Republican ballots?
2) Dem ballots seem to end up in the car trunks of poll workers more often than Republican ballots?
3) Dem voters have a harder time filling in the ballots correctly compared to Republican voters and thus have to have their votes “interpreted”?
4) Dem votes are always misreported on election night and then corrected upwards if the race is a close one?
5) Dems precincts always seem to come in later than Republican precincts, especially when the race is a close one?
Why do I think that there is a single answer to each of these questions?
PackerBronco on November 13, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »