digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at startribune.com

Minnesota Recount: Most Undervotes in Counties Won By Obama

startribune.com — An analysis of the 25,000 vote difference in Minnesota Presidential and Senate race tallies shows that most ballots lacking a Senate vote were cast in counties won by Barack Obama. The finding could have implications for Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken, who are separated by the thinnest of margins -- 221 votes as of Friday, or about 0.01 percent.

Who dugg this? Made popular Nov 9, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

124 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • xnathanielx, on 11/08/2008, -13/+85Don't blame me, I voted for both Obama and Franken. Let' go Al Franken!
  • elwior, on 11/09/2008, -8/+42 Al Franken will prevail in this, the "outstanding" votes in Alaska will turn up, and the convicted felon will go down.
    All eyes will then turn to Georgia for a knockdown, drag out fight between Chambliss and Martin, with Senate seat #60 on the line, which is likely to be a nail biter.
  • pennvneff, on 11/09/2008, -3/+33How the hell could people in Minnesota vote for Michele Bachmann? I just don't get it.
  • ScottMitchell, on 11/09/2008, -2/+32This reminds me somewhat of an election in San Diego in 2004. A popular city councilwoman, Donna Frye, ran for mayor as a write in candidate. And she actually won by a thin margin, but several of her votes were discredited because although the voter clearly wrote in her name in the appropriate space, they did not fill in the bubble that indicates that they are voting for the write-in candidate. Consequently, their ballots were not counted and Donna Frye did not win the election.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Frye
  • qdkk, on 11/08/2008, -13/+43Those republicans and their shenanigans.
    Actually, this is serious. How do we guarantee that our votes are not tampered.
  • nosecohn, on 11/09/2008, -1/+20I answered my own question...

    According to a CNN.com article, "Candidates with leftover funds may... donate an unlimited amount to a national, state, or local political party committee; contribute money to other candidates, subject to allowable federal contribution limits."

    I just sent a note to the Obama campaign suggesting that they contribute to Jim Martin and the DNC so they can run ads prior to the Georgia runoff election.
  • kpberry, on 11/09/2008, -3/+20Its not foul play. It was just a bunch of new voters who only knew the name of the guy they wanted for president. In another state, I watched one girl turning in her paper ballot and saw that she only voted Obama and nobody else. Also, most people don't even know their senator's name anyway.

  • inactive, on 11/09/2008, -0/+16Wow, some people seem extremely bitter about the recount. What the heck? It's just a recount people, calm the ***** down. What's wrong with saying "Well, the results were really close, we should double check"?
  • smotpoker, on 11/09/2008, -3/+17In other words: Even if you openly/actively oppose an action or entity, you should still be eager and willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of that [entity's] action?

    That is like saying you should share/take blame for a murder when you risked your life trying to stop the person who actually pulled the trigger.

    I agree that gloating is petty and often counter-productive but placing blame is not synonymous with gloating. Often it is simply intended as a reminder to avoid the mistake(s) you made previously if you seem likely to repeat it/them.
  • BrandonEagan, on 11/09/2008, -0/+13I disagree with your "Let's go Franken" statement. I'd say "Let's go democracy!" That is, I want a fair recount where the real winner of the vote gets into office--even though that probably will be Coleman.
  • Bigmodirty, on 11/09/2008, -3/+16You obviously read the article. Good job.
  • niradg, on 11/09/2008, -1/+14This is why it requires people from both candidates to be present and agree when questionable ballots are counted by hand.
  • novenator, on 11/09/2008, -15/+27Minnesota is not Florida. Instead of a corrupt republican being in charge of the recount, there is a fair and rational democrat. The recount will proceed according to state law in an air of transparency. If the theme of this article is correct, that the optical scanning machines may have malfunctioned in these areas, a human scan of them could very well put Franken over the top, meaning the democrats would take back Paul Wellstone's old senate seat.
  • apastafarian, on 11/09/2008, -2/+13This is for a Senate seat that won't be filled till January, there's no need to rush to judgment. If the recount is done transparently and above board, we can wait for the results. I know the people of Minnesota are not happy with the cost of the recount, but consider it a incentive to fix the problem for the future.
  • seanv775, on 11/09/2008, -13/+24I cast my vote for Obama and Franken.
    Count baby count!
  • BrandonEagan, on 11/09/2008, -0/+11The article doesn't even support a malfunction theory. It sounds like everything was above board and correct--but that many voters were turned off by the senate race and registered their protest by voting for neither candidate. That's also the same reason many people voted third party.

    Minnesota has clean politics. There'll be a fair recount any any scanner malfunctions or number miscounts will be fixed.
  • inactive, on 11/09/2008, -4/+15What the heck's your problem? Why are you getting so bent out of shape over the suggestion that people may have simply filled out their ballots incorrectly, or that the machines did not scan them correctly? Are you just some sort of diehard Coleman fan who can't bear the thought that he might lose?
  • nosecohn, on 11/09/2008, -2/+12I'm curious about the financing rules. Does anyone know if Obama can donate his campaign surplus to the DNC, which they could then funnel to the runoff election in Georgia?
  • jnnycakes, on 11/09/2008, -1/+10Don't know why melindag is being dugg down. He's right. They left it blank. If they would have circled Franken's name or drawn a big arrow to it, the vount will be counted under the voter intent law. The fact is, though, that they have to make some sort of effort to point out the candidate they would like to vote for. You can't automatically infer from their presidential pick who there senate pick would have been.

    If they would have had a similar law in place in California, Frye would have gotten the write-in votes.
  • DangerCollie, on 11/09/2008, -4/+13This is a case where the provisional ballots will be significant as well. In a lopsided result, they don't need to be counted if the margin of victory is beyond the total number of provisional ballots.

    Under-votes, provisional ballots (and associated challenges) and absentee ballots will all have to be reviewed. It's going to take time, there will be a lot of lawyers involved for both sides.

    What's that say about the Republicans when an incumbent senator almost gets beat by a comedian? What a pathetic showing.

    With a Democrat in charge at least we won't have to worry about Florida 2000 and another Katherine Harris...may that harpy bitch burn in hell.
  • DangerCollie, on 11/09/2008, -0/+9MN has Republican areas, just like TN, that went 60% for McCain, has Democratic areas. The former speaker of the state house in TN is a Democrat and the congressman in the same district is also a Democrat. Republicans are taking over the TN state house in Jan. but that's a recent development.

    Now you can bet MN will be redrawing some of those congressional districts, just like other states with new Democratic majorities and governors. Some of the recent statements from Backmann indicate she might have gotten the message. If Democrats would have a stronger candidate in that district, she would have lost.
  • novenator, on 11/09/2008, -0/+9As a former Minnesotan, I apologize to the rest of the nation that we did not manage to outs michelle bachman. She is an embarrassment.
  • Zap2, on 11/09/2008, -3/+11well I'm not not going to call of the republicans on crap, because the dems may have done it in the past.

    2 wrongs don't make a right!
  • BloodyMess, on 11/09/2008, -1/+9I voted her out with extreme prejudice, but I failed. Others I talked to that live in central MN were as confused as I was that she didn't lose in a landslide.
  • jemonk, on 11/09/2008, -1/+9We need a real comedian in the U.S. Senate!
  • inactive, on 11/09/2008, -2/+9I see stupid people. They're everywhere. They don't even know they're stupid.
  • doublefelix, on 11/09/2008, -0/+7What is the deal with this comment being the same as novenators' and that inurl stuff?
  • Mejari, on 11/09/2008, -3/+10"Just the type of uneducated voter that gives our democracy a bad name. All she knows is that he's sooo cool."

    As opposed to all the religious wackos who voted for Bush cause "That man talks with Jebus"? Yup, they're the knowledgeable voters.
  • Bigmodirty, on 11/09/2008, -3/+10I doubt this will lead to any good news for Franken however. I guess I can only hope.
  • BrandonEagan, on 11/09/2008, -1/+7This is NOT a voting irregularity and is a nonissue. These "undervotes" are just people who voted for a presidential candidate but not a senate candidate. That is not surprising at all. Obama turned out a TON of people who were very interested in the presidential election but were less interested in the other races. And Obama also campaigned on a positive message of hope---in stark contrast to the negative, dirty campaigns run by both the major party senate candidates. It is thus no surprise that any voter--particularly Obama voters--might vote for president but not for the Senate.

    Minnesota is a well-run state with clean elections. The article doesn't suggest even the slightest foul play. There'll be a fair recount and we'll see what happens in this very close, very important race.
  • Spektr4, on 11/09/2008, -0/+6We won't win a Georgia run-off. Denying Democrats a filibuster-proof majority will be a winning argument there.
  • TheOther1, on 11/09/2008, -0/+6No. In other words, support the government we have, but continue to vote for the changes that will improve our country.

    Despite everything bad, we still have the best system in the world. Enough bickering and division of the people! This is how we got in this situation to start with.

    I will make a conscious effort to support our new president, but I will still vote for the people that I think will make the changes to move us in the direction I feel we should be headed.
  • inactive, on 11/09/2008, -1/+7No one's suggesting foul play, you creep - it's just that they were within a few hundred votes of each other, so we need to double check. What the *****'s wrong with that?
  • geodebug, on 11/09/2008, -2/+8I grew up around the Anoka, Coon Rapids (yes that is a real town), and Blaine in MN. That is about how far north of the cities you have to drive to get to the cusp of hicksville. Go one mile more north and the inevitable "right to life" and "meth will kill you" road signs start popping up.
  • DangerCollie, on 11/09/2008, -3/+8Undervotes need to be considered...if you can determine the will of the voter. Just agree on how they're judged before the counting starts so everyone is using the same criteria. That was the disaster in Florida. Some counties were using one method, some were using a different one. That is unfair.

    That's not a slippery slope, that's the best you can do with an imperfect system.
  • Jareth86, on 11/09/2008, -5/+10Why is it that "voting irregularities" always seem to benefit the republican?
  • neelsama, on 11/09/2008, -0/+5At worst it would be machine fault, having wrongly read the markings. But, yet i would be optimistic, as compared to having someone infiltrate through the system and tamper with the voting system.
  • jtmitl, on 11/09/2008, -1/+6I voted Tinklenberg, you can't blame me
  • Larsonal777, on 11/09/2008, -0/+5Well, I could accept having Obama as the president, as he seems to be a man of very good character... Al Franken is a slime ball... even democrats have a low opinion of him. Just because people voted Obama doesn't mean they would vote Al Franken.
  • inactive, on 11/09/2008, -5/+10Here in Michigan I was disappointed with both the republican and democrat congressional choices and intentionally abstained from voting for either--however Obama did receive my vote. I don't think this is a story.
  • smacksaw, on 11/09/2008, -12/+17Wrong. The moment you think partisanship of EITHER party has a place in counting votes is the time you should move to North Korea.
  • ichbeineinrcg, on 11/09/2008, -0/+5I don't think it's fair to call single-candidate voters uneducated; if you're not inspired by the other races, then I'd rather you didn't vote in them and leave it for those who do care.
  • cquinnd, on 11/09/2008, -1/+6You just made the same point as melindag without having to call the people you are explaining it to nitwits.

    I agree though, I could have written in a candidate on my ballot in this last election and then still chosen to place my actual vote for someone else. Not placing a vote "abstaining" is just as valid a practice and is recognized as such.

  • cquinnd, on 11/09/2008, -0/+4No, make sure that the winner has clearly earned the majority of votes in a way that should not be later contested and will be considered fair by both parties.

    We can hope that the outcome favors one candidate over the other.
  • egbert, on 11/09/2008, -0/+4The "outstanding" votes in Alaska have not been lost. If you look at http://www.elections.alaska.gov/files/08GENR/remai ... you will see that about 63000 early and absentee votes have not been counted yet. That is about 22% of the votes have not been counted yet. If you also add in the questioned ballots it goes up to 26% of the votes have not been counted. The election is not official until these votes are counted and the secretary of state of Alaska has certified the election.
  • Tweets, on 11/09/2008, -0/+4Dugg for the picture of the Beagle.
  • Nothlit, on 11/09/2008, -4/+8This really doesn't surprise me. It seems completely plausible that many people went in to vote for Obama and either did not know or care about the other races on the ballot, so they left them blank.
  • LBTS, on 11/09/2008, -2/+6@jnnycakes, melindag is being dugg down for the lame attempt to equate a machine's malfunction in recording votes, to the voters who probably did place a vote for senator.

    melindag also placed blame on Obama voters, never realizing that this would mean that quite a few McCain supporters would have had to cast their votes for Franken (do the math), which would be really odd, to say the least.

    And jnnycakes, you're being presumptuous in assuming that the ballots were improperly marked next to Franken's name. They could just as easily be marked votes that the scanner didn't count next to Coleman's name.

    Lastly, no one was stupid enough to say diddly-squat about inferring that a vote cast for one office can be based on a vote cast for a separate office elsewhere on the same ballot. Oh wait, you did.
  • BrandonEagan, on 11/09/2008, -0/+4There's no problem to fix for the future though--everything is working just as it should. The people voted, their votes were counted, the count was close, and now we're doing a recount to make sure the machines got it right.
  • LBTS, on 11/09/2008, -1/+4@kpberry, no kidding, you looked over someone else's vote?

    In America we have a secret ballot. It's a sacred thing. What country were you voting in?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...