Friday, July 10, 2009

Fun With Numbers

"Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from." ~ Al Franken

In a previous post about Minnesota's new Senator, Al Franken, I made this statement in the comment thread:

"[I]n many counties in Minnesota, there were more votes counted for Franken than there were registered voters".

My resident Liberal, Jim, who I have yet to run off (nor do I want to), pounced on that statement, and demanded I supply citation or shut up. Actually, to be fair to Jim, his comment was, "Cite it, prove it, or shove it".

So, despite the fact that I really don't like to do research, I began googling the words, "more votes for Franken than registered voters", and found, to my surprise, there wasn't any concrete evidence that my statement was true.

I wrote it because I had read it on some other blogs, and never considered it might not be supportable.

So, I shoved it, figuratively speaking.

I did find the original article that made the charge. It was from the Wall Street Journal, and I published the appropriate link in my next thread comment.

The singular statement made by the WSJ, which spawned all the other references to counties with more votes for Franken than registered voters was, "This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote", yet the WSJ, nor any of their affiliates have provided any citation in support of that statement.

But, I did find some interesting information regarding how Franken could have ended up with more votes than Coleman despite the fact that Coleman had, when the votes were counted on election night, 775 votes more than Franken. By Minnesota law, that is grounds for an immediate recount, since the final vote tallied at less than 1% difference between candidates.

Al Franken didn't demand the first recount. He didn't need to, although, if not for Minnesota state law, he probably would have. It is Minnesota law that elections that close have to be recounted.

Nevertheless, the first recount showed Coleman still led Franken by 215 votes. This should have been final, but then Franken demanded another recount. And another. And another, until the results were more to his liking.

Here's what happened:

According to the WSJ, "Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots".

But, they didn't segregate the original ballots, as required, but instead, added the total of duplicate ballots counted to the total of original ballots.

For example, say one precinct had 100 ballots originally cast for Franken and 90 cast for Coleman. By law, the election commission should figuratively throw out the original ballots (because they are damaged) and only count the duplicates. But, instead, they counted the duplicates, and then added the total of duplicate ballots to the total of original ballots. Now, Franken has 200 votes and Coleman, 180.

That results in an increase of 10 votes more for Franken than for Coleman. Now, recount again, and this time add the newest totals, once again, to the earlier totals, instead of throwing the original ( the first recount results) away.

The new results? 300 for Franken and 270 for Coleman. That's 20 more votes for Franken than were actually cast.

And, that's only in one precinct!

This method of recounting could conceivably go on forever, or until some one stops the process, whichever comes first.

But, now, consider that this same odd method of recounting ballots may have taken place in other precincts, all precincts that traditionally vote Democratic. This creative recounting, in the end, netted Franken 225 votes more than Coleman, and Franken won the election.

It wouldn't be at all difficult to believe precincts that traditionally vote Republican recounted the ballots the right way, with the final tally probably not much different than the original, if different at all.

Liberal Jim makes the point, "Why didn't Coleman charge this in any of his lawsuits?", which is a very good question, but one I'd have to direct to Coleman, as I don't know.

But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say because Norm Coleman knew in advance how the Liberally-biased Minnesota Supreme court would decide, and refused to waste his valuable time and resources.

20 comments:

Mark said...

Of course, If Democrats charge voter fraud, they are correct, but if Republicans do, they are just sore losers.

Right, AlGore?

Jim said...

"But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say because Norm Coleman knew in advance how the Liberally-biased Minnesota Supreme court would decide, and refused to waste his valuable time and resources. "

Please read what you wrote above and think about the last eight months and well over a million dollars that Norm spent challenging the election. Then think about trying a different guess.

And by the way, 4 of the 7 Minnesota supreme court justices were appointed by Pawlenty, one by Ventura, and the other 2 I couldn't find. By what standards and evidence do you find them "liberally-biased"? They found for Franken unanimously, too.

Trader Rick said...

Dimocrats have no honor, none of them. They are vile, crooked gangsters--and I have the citations to back that up! They are worms. I can prove that, too. They are quite disgusting. That party has morphed, under O'Bama, into a sad, bizzarre ghost of itself.

Mark said...

Well, as I said, it was just a guess.

Perhaps he just ran out of money, or perhaps he considered it a waste of time to pursue the matter any further. Perhaps he just decided to cut his losses and prepare for another challenge in 2010.

Some of the US Supreme Court Justices betrayed the Presidents that nominated them. On both sides. So, the argument that the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans doesn't necessarily mean they would vote in a republicans favor.

As I said, you'll have to ask him.

Mark said...

I do find if strange that you fail to respond to my other point:

Funny how Democrats consider suspect vote counts as voter fraud when their guy loses, but it's perfectly fair and honest when their guy wins.

Jim said...

"Perhaps he just ran out of money, or perhaps he considered it a waste of time to pursue the matter any further."

But the point is, he NEVER pursued that issue at all. His arguments were all about whether and how ballots not included in the count on election night due ambiguous voter markings should be counted and whether certain absentee ballots were legally cast and should be counted. Coleman lost every step of the way.

So this supposed voter fraud issue was not even an issue for Coleman and the RNCC who supported him.

Yes, justices sometimes rule differently from expectations. But you cite no evidence or history which would make your "liberally-biased" claim remotely valid. Your argument seems to be that they found in favor of the liberal, so they must have liberal bias rather than that Minnesota law supported Franken's side of the case.

"Funny how Democrats consider suspect vote counts as voter fraud when their guy loses, but it's perfectly fair and honest when their guy wins."

I did respond to your point. You've demonstrated no such voter fraud.

Mark said...

Actually Jim, All the citation I need is in the WSJ article, part of which I will quote here:

"Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals.
"

There you go, Jim. Citation provided. Voter fraud alleged.

If double counting isn't voter fraud, what is? The only other possible explanation would be someone made a mistake. But mistakes were made in 26 precincts? And all those precincts traditionally Democratic strongholds? Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say?

You know what they say..."If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck..."

Jim said...

"All the citation I need..."

Well, here is part of that citation: "it appears that some officials may have failed...". This then is a suggestion that maybe, possibly, could have been since these were Democratic strongholds errors made by election officials. And just because a precinct was a "Democratic stronghold" doesn't mean that the handling of results wasn't done by both Democratic and Republican officials.

Oh, and you should check out the difference between "voter fraud" and "election fraud."

And lastly, 80 to 100 votes double counted (by some estimates {who's}) would not have won the election for Coleman. Furthermore, I doubt that Franken and the Democrats would have hatched a scheme to net him 80 to 100 extra votes out of 2.4 million cast.

Jim said...

Just to correct me previous post, I meant to say that possible, supposed, imagined double counting might have given Franken an 80 to 100 vote advantage, maybe, one could surmise, perhaps.

Mark said...

LOL! No one wants to go out on a limb.

Politics is not for the weak of heart.

Yes, all that double counting could be just a mistake, but it happened in 26 precincts! That's a lot of precincts to make the same mistake.

Jim said...

"but it happened in 26 precincts"

No, it "appears" that it "may" have happened in 26 precincts.

"That's a lot of precincts"

That's 26 out of 4,130 precincts or 6 tenths of 1 percent or them.

Z said...

to say nothing of Coleman being ahead by a few votes until Coleman made a quick trip to Reid in DC and came back...SUDDENLY, they found ballot boxes in cars...and wasn't it amazing that they were all for Franken?

whatever..it's over......he won.
And there are Americans who'd vote for a guy who posed in diapers, spread eagle.......what dignity! what CLASS!..congratulations, Minnesota, I hope it works out for you.
WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

Mark said...

Still, isn't that a little much if it's only a coincidence?

Jim said...

Mark, less than 1% of precincts making a clerical error? Seems WELL within any margin of error.

Z, don't see any connection at all in your first paragraph. And the diaper photo is totally manufactured, and you've fallen for it.

Mark said...

If I may speak for Z, I'm guessing she meant Franken made a trip to see Harry Reid. Not Coleman.

No, Kim, I still think it's a remarkable coincidence. one precinct, perhaps. Two or three even. But not 26. Naw, too much of a coincidence especially since they all traditionally vote Democrat.

Mark said...

Sorry, Jim. I meant Jim, not Kim. That's what I get for trying to type in the dark.

Jim said...

There is still no story here. There's a "appears" and a "maybe" and supposedly 26 precincts and supposedly all 26 are "democratic strongholds."

Where is the list of precincts? Where are the numbers and voting history to declare them "democratic strongholds"? Where are the statements of all the precinct officials about how they handled the ballots in questions? How do we know this only happened in 26 precincts? How do we know this is not a common problem across the state and for many previous elections?

There is nothing here except the need to imply that Franken cheated to win the election and is therefore illegitimate.

Susannah said...

Fun with #'s indeed!

Mark, I see our friend Jim is still as tedious as ever! (Hi Jim! Long time, no see!)

Off topic: can someone please tell me how you create a hyperlink in a comment - like Jim did w/ "manufactured"? I'd be ever so appreciative. (If you'd like to email me instead of taking Mark's space, that's fine.) Thanks!

Jim said...

I'd help you, but I'm afraid of being too tedious.

Susannah said...

Jim!
Never fear...see, it takes one (read: Me) to know one.

My husband says - ever so lovingly - that I'm 'incredibly thorough'. (In other words, no offense intended toward you, friend. Sorry if my comment came off that way.)

Thanks for the email, Mark. I'll give it a go!