Re: Vote for Lizard People in MN?

From: <dr-jekyll_at_att_dot_net>
Date: Tue Nov 25 2008 - 07:09:25 CST

There also appears to be an "X" over the vote for Franken. I imagine Minnesota has a law regarding determining voter intent.

This is also a good time to think outside the box. We shouldn't direct our attention only at the ballot count and related equipment. We should be looking at all aspects of elections. The Targeted Audit Recount is designed to audit all aspects of an election. That's why it includes an optional mailing to all voters who voted to see if they exist.

The Heritage Foundation produced a report this past July 10th regarding voter registrations and voting by non-citizens who are registered by accident (and some non-accidents) because of The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Motor Voter). One of our federal courts used voter registration lists to call prospective jurors and found 3% of 30,000 prospective jurors called couldn't serve on juries because they weren't citizens.

In a close election like this, the threat of retail fraud may be bigger than the threat of wholesale fraud.

Nor yet, O Freedom! close thy lids 
in slumber for thine enemy never 
sleeps. -- The Antiquity of 
Freedom By William Cullen Bryant
-------------- Original message from "Alan Dechert" <>: -------------- 
One person I showed this to, said, "well, obviously the voter didn't really care."  Maybe so, but once the ballot is cast, there are plenty of people that care about it.  If it's counted, it will count as much as any other vote.  
A US Senator may be chosen -- Franken or Coleman -- depending on how ballots like this are processed.  Brent said that on MSNBC yesterday, they said this vote was thrown out.  I'm not so sure.  The voter filled in the bubble for Al Franken, and wrote Lizard People in the write-in space.  However, the bubble in the write-in space was not filled in (note that in the contest before, the voter did fill in the bubble as well as writing in "Lizard People").  
Obviously, there are several things wrong with this picture that could be avoided with better voting technology.
Indecision, Thumb Prints and Lizard People in the Minnesota Recount
Brad Haynes reports on Senate races.
If someone has filled in the bubble next to Al Franken’s name for U.S. Senator, can we be sure that the voter intended to vote for Franken? What if that voter has also supplied a name in the space provided for a write-in candidate? What if that name is “Lizard People”?
These are the tough questions confronting elections officials in Minnesota as they hunker down for a manual recount of the 2.9 million ballots cast in the Senate race. After one day of recounting, covering 18% of ballots cast, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman’s lead has shrunk from 215 votes to 174. The Franken campaign also won a key legal challenge, forcing counties to turn over the names of absentee voters whose ballots were rejected. That may open up many more ballots to dispute, as the campaigns can now identify and argue for the inclusion of ballots that were unlawfully rejected. 
Meanwhile, thousands of volunteers and hundreds of lawyers are challenging official decisions, ballot by ballot, waging weighty interpretative battles over voters’ messy scribbles – a few of which you can find here. 
If a voter fills in the bubble for Coleman and then writes “NO” in capital letters next his name, should we take that as an intended vote for Coleman? Does a smudged thumb print count as a distinguishing mark, like a signature or Social Security number, which should invalidate the ballot? And then there are those excruciating calls: “Even though the voter filled in the bubble next to [Dean] Barkley’s name, a Franken representative said what appear to be eraser marks over Franken’s bubble indicated the voter intended to vote for Franken.”
Permalink | Trackback URL: 

OVC-discuss mailing list
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sun Nov 30 23:17:17 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 30 2008 - 23:17:22 CST