Forums | MacLife

bratboy · 2009-06-30 8:02 pm

Farmerkev wrote:
It's a bit more complicated than that. He won the initial count remember and then it's gets to be a pile of bs from both sides about what's getting counted and what isn't.
They have got to fix this smurfing election smurf. The damn count shouldn't change. I don't care who wins, it shouldn't take months to figure it out.

Why shouldn't the count change? What would be the purpose of of a recount, if only the first calculation was accepted?

Coleman's team repeatedly changed their legal arguments, often contradicting themselves.

An entire recount was conducted, and challenges were made (as allowed by law). I don't see what else could be done, in a contest so close.

bratboy · 2009-06-30 8:05 pm

ShnickyShnack wrote:
Frankly I don't get what's so goddamned complicated about casting and counting votes. They can even do it in the goddamned Congo, for Chrissakes.

I don't know that it was terribly complicated, other than the fact that the legal challenges had to run their course.

Farmerkev · 2009-06-30 9:12 pm

bratboy wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
It's a bit more complicated than that. He won the initial count remember and then it's gets to be a pile of bs from both sides about what's getting counted and what isn't.
They have got to fix this smurfing election smurf. The damn count shouldn't change. I don't care who wins, it shouldn't take months to figure it out.
Why shouldn't the count change? What would be the purpose of of a recount, if only the first calculation was accepted?

Coleman's team repeatedly changed their legal arguments, often contradicting themselves.

An entire recount was conducted, and challenges were made (as allowed by law). I don't see what else could be done, in a contest so close.

Why shouldn't the count change?
In the days of hand counting there was human error but with machines it should come up the same every time.
It shouldn't change period anymore.

Chickenhawk · 2009-06-30 9:17 pm

Problem is, these weren't electronic ballots. They were paper, and people wrote all kind of crazy smurf on them.

bratboy · 2009-06-30 9:20 pm

Farmerkev wrote:
Why shouldn't the count change?
In the days of hand counting there was human error but with machines it should come up the same every time.
It shouldn't change period anymore.

Even in electronic counting there is some human element, and thus the chance for error. Throw in potential machine malfunctions or errors in reading ballots, and absentee and non-electronic ballots...

Tallgeese · 2009-06-30 9:21 pm

...stacks of ballots that somehow didn't get counted...

Farmerkev · 2009-06-30 9:22 pm

Chickenhawk wrote:
Problem is, these weren't electronic ballots. They were paper, and people wrote all kind of crazy smurf on them.

Then toss the smurf out.
If you're not bright enough to color in the little oval tough smurf, you fail.
Take your bitch up with Darwin on your way out the damn door.

Chickenhawk · 2009-06-30 9:25 pm

Literacy requirements were used to disenfranchise minority voters back in the day...

bratboy · 2009-06-30 9:26 pm

Farmerkev wrote:
Then toss the smurf out.
If you're not bright enough to color in the little oval tough smurf, you fail.
Take your bitch up with Darwin on your way out the damn door.

These are questions ultimately determined by elected officials or the laws they write, I would guess.

Farmerkev · 2009-06-30 9:33 pm

bratboy wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
Then toss the smurf out.
If you're not bright enough to color in the little oval tough smurf, you fail.
Take your bitch up with Darwin on your way out the damn door.
These are questions ultimately determined by elected officials or the laws they write, I would guess.

Would you accept this if we were talking about the change counter at your bank?
Would you expect your bank to accept a slug as a quarter?

jerwin · 2009-06-30 9:37 pm

Would you expect your bank to accept a slug as a quarter?

Assay the sucker. Is it gold? Then yes.

bratboy · 2009-06-30 9:38 pm

Farmerkev wrote:
Would you accept this if we were talking about the change counter at your bank?
Would you expect your bank to accept a slug as a quarter?

Ballots are not comparable to currency.

That said, you don't believe that legal issues arise determining the value (if any) of personal checks?

Farmerkev · 2009-06-30 10:08 pm

bratboy wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
Would you accept this if we were talking about the change counter at your bank?
Would you expect your bank to accept a slug as a quarter?
Ballots are not comparable to currency.

That said, you don't believe that legal issues arise determining the value (if any) of personal checks?

I think ballots are like currency, certainly more than a personal check is like a ballot.
Handwriting analysis shouldn't need to enter into the counting process without a write in candidate and even then I'm betting the odds are it's fairly easy to know they meant Sloblonski.
No, there isn't any convincing me this smurf doesn't need to be overhauled.

Farmerkev · 2009-06-30 10:11 pm

jerwin wrote:
Would you expect your bank to accept a slug as a quarter?
Assay the sucker. Is it gold? Then yes.

If you're dumb enough to deposit a gold quarter in a bank and only get 25 cents for it you deserved to lose.

bratboy · 2009-06-30 10:45 pm

Farmerkev wrote:
I think ballots are like currency, certainly more than a personal check is like a ballot.

How do you justify that position? There are very few circumstances under which a legitimate piece of currency could be rejected.

There are many more circumstances under which a ballot much be judged--especially absentee ballots, provisional ballots, etc.

Stray marks? Crossed out mistakes? Misspellings? Is the absentee or provisional voter eligible? Appropriately postmarked? Etc. etc. etc.

Farmerkev · 2009-07-01 5:32 am

bratboy wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
I think ballots are like currency, certainly more than a personal check is like a ballot.
How do you justify that position? There are very few circumstances under which a legitimate piece of currency could be rejected.

There are many more circumstances under which a ballot much be judged--especially absentee ballots, provisional ballots, etc.

Stray marks? Crossed out mistakes? Misspellings? Is the absentee or provisional voter eligible? Appropriately postmarked? Etc. etc. etc.

No.
Fill in the oval or punch out the hole, if you make a mistake you must start over.
IF you can't follow directions your vote doesn't count. It's that simple.
Enough with the affirmative action measures for the stupid.

resedit · 2009-07-01 6:23 am

The problem with the status quo is that with close elections, the victor is chosen by the courts, not the people.

Look at the arguments - both sides wanted certain ballots recounted but not others, certain ballots cast out but not others.

Here is shasta county, before they decided to make our electronic voting machines illegal over an issue of the firmware not having certified, it was really nice. After you choose your options, you got to review them to ensure you didn't make a mistake. You got to see how your vote was counted before it was counted and correct it if there was a problem.

Seriously, we need to get over the fear mongering over electronic machines.
Paper ballots are a lot easier to manipulate and put the decision making in the hands of the courts. It's time to do away with them.

bratboy · 2009-07-01 8:18 am

Farmerkev wrote:
No.
Fill in the oval or punch out the hole, if you make a mistake you must start over.
IF you can't follow directions your vote doesn't count. It's that simple.
Enough with the affirmative action measures for the stupid.

You run for the appropriate position on that platform and let us know how it goes.

It doesn't matter how strict the rules are--there will always be questions of interpretation.

bratboy · 2009-07-01 8:21 am

resedit wrote:
The problem with the status quo is that with close elections, the victor is chosen by the courts, not the people.

Look at the arguments - both sides wanted certain ballots recounted but not others, certain ballots cast out but not others.

The law triggered a recount. A number of ballots were challenged by either side, and of course someone had to make a determination on those challenges.

This wasn't about the ballots, it was about the fact that the race was incredibly close.

resedit · 2009-07-01 8:28 am

Right - but in the 21st century, the only paper ballots should be absentee.
Sure, paper backup of the voting machine, but it's absurd that we still have these issues with needing to determine which paper ballots are valid and make judgment calls on who voted for who.

That means some votes aren't being counted properly, which is not acceptable in this day in age.

Putting on my tin foil hat, I think some of the fear mongering over electronic machines is from those who don't want elections to be clear because clear elections are more difficult to manipulate.

bratboy · 2009-07-01 8:35 am

The ballots were still initially tallied by machine.

In an election within a few hundred votes, it's going to come down to absentee and provisional ballots, anyway.

Putting on my tin foil hat, I think some of the fear mongering over electronic machines is from those who don't want elections to be clear because clear elections are more difficult to manipulate.

We vote by machine here, which I'm fine with.

Based on the number of issues that have arisen with such machines ballots, it's not difficult to see why some are wary of them. The suggestion that such people are simply interested in committing fraud is, well, pretty smurfed up.

Last edited by bratboy (2009-07-01 8:37 am)

Pithecanthropus · 2009-07-01 9:38 am

The timeline for anyone who is interested:

NOVEMBER 2008

Nov. 4: Election Day. Race between Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and DFLer Al Franken is too close to call. Coleman's lead, in the early morning hours of of Nov. 5, is 725 votes.

Nov. 5 (evening): As county officials review vote counts, Coleman's margin shrinks.

Nov. 18: With counties having certified results, Coleman has a 215-vote lead. The margin, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, triggers a recount that starts the next day.

DECEMBER 2008

Dec. 5: Hand recounting of ballots ends with Coleman up by 192, but several thousand have been "challenged" by the campaigns -- that is, the counter's decision has been disputed. The ballots will be reviewed by the state Canvassing Board, which will make the all-important final decisions.

Dec. 18: State Supreme Court rules 3-2 that improperly rejected absentee ballots should be identified and counted. The ruling requires both campaigns plus local election officials to agree that a ballot was wrongly disqualified for it to be accepted. Franken has been seeking to have such ballots added to the mix, while Coleman has been opposed, saying the matter is beyond the scope of a recount and something to be addressed in a legal challenge.

Dec. 19: After the Canvassing Board spends several days reviewing disputed ballots, Coleman's long-held lead disappears and Franken jumps ahead for the first time.

Dec. 22: After the state Canvassing Board finishes its review of challenged ballots, Franken has an unofficial lead of 47 votes.

JANUARY 2009

Jan. 3: The secretary of state's office counts 933 absentee ballots that the campaigns agree were wrongly rejected. Franken's lead grows to 225 votes, a result the Canvassing Board certifies two days later.

Jan. 6: Coleman files a lawsuit challenging the results. Much of his case involves trying to get more rejected absentee ballots counted. Franken defends the state's strict requirements for absentee ballots.

FEBRUARY 2009

Feb. 13: The judicial panel hearing the lawsuit issues a ruling on which categories of rejected absentee ballots can be admitted. The Coleman camp later dubs it the "Friday the 13th" order, saying it is too restrictive and compounds a problem of similar ballots being treated differently.

APRIL 2009

April 7: Under the panel's ruling, 351 once-rejected ballots are counted, and Franken's lead grows to 312.

April 13: The panel issues a final trial ruling, saying Franken won.

April 20: Coleman files a promised appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

April 28: In Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter announces that he is switching from the Republican to the Democratic Party, heightening the stakes in Minnesota. With Specter's move, Franken stands to become the 60th Democratic vote in the Senate, a filibuster-proof majority -- if he wins.

JUNE 2009

June 1: Oral arguments are heard in Coleman's state Supreme Court appeal.

June 30: Coleman concedes.

user · 2009-07-01 9:41 am

Electronic voting machines are fine, but the company that makes them can't hide the software that they use. The system must be verified independently that it is practically tamper-proof.

And the guy who owns the company shouldn't be such a dummass that he goes around saying that he's going to win the election for xxx.

Last edited by user (2009-07-01 9:43 am)

resedit · 2009-07-01 9:49 am

user wrote:
Electronic voting machines are fine, but the company that makes them can't hide the software that they use.

Just how verified do you think mechanical counting is?
Ballot software need not be open source. It should be open to inspecting by the regulatory agencies of the state.

The system must be verified independently that it is practically tamper-proof.

The current system is not tamper proof. It's wide open to tampering.

And the guy who owns the company shouldn't be such a dummass that he goes around saying that he's going to win the election for xxx.

No freedom of speech for the businessman, eh?

Tallgeese · 2009-07-01 9:54 am

resedit wrote:
And the guy who owns the company shouldn't be such a dummass that he goes around saying that he's going to win the election for xxx.
No freedom of speech for the businessman, eh?

hmm

That is just plain stupid.

Forums | MacLife

#26 2009-06-30 8:02 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

Farmerkev wrote:

#27 2009-06-30 8:05 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#28 2009-06-30 9:12 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

#29 2009-06-30 9:17 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

#30 2009-06-30 9:20 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

Farmerkev wrote:

#31 2009-06-30 9:21 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

#32 2009-06-30 9:22 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

Chickenhawk wrote:

#33 2009-06-30 9:25 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

#34 2009-06-30 9:26 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

Farmerkev wrote:

#35 2009-06-30 9:33 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

#36 2009-06-30 9:37 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

#37 2009-06-30 9:38 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

Farmerkev wrote:

#38 2009-06-30 10:08 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

#39 2009-06-30 10:11 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

jerwin wrote:

#40 2009-06-30 10:45 pm

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

Farmerkev wrote:

#41 2009-07-01 5:32 am

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

#42 2009-07-01 6:23 am

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

#43 2009-07-01 8:18 am

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

Farmerkev wrote:

#44 2009-07-01 8:21 am

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

resedit wrote:

#45 2009-07-01 8:28 am

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

#46 2009-07-01 8:35 am

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

#47 2009-07-01 9:38 am

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

#48 2009-07-01 9:41 am

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

#49 2009-07-01 9:49 am

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

user wrote:

#50 2009-07-01 9:54 am

Re: Court rules unaniamously for Franken

resedit wrote:

Board footer