Coleman-Franken Minn. Senate race comes down to votes of several dolts

Even with Florida 2000 on our minds, maybe you too couldn't understand what's the big deal about still counting ballots three full weeks after the Nov. 4 voting.

Thanks to Minnesota Public Radio, we can all at least partially understand now the predicament of the poor election judges trying to decipher what in the world many Minnesota voters had in mind -- or if they had one when they voted.

You'd think with millions of votes, a few dozen knuckleheads wouldn't matter much one way or the other.

But it now appears these dimwits could actually be the deciding factor in determining not only the Minnesota Senate race but also whether the Democrats achieve their coveted Republican-proof majority of 60 seats there.

Professional comedian Al Franken, the Democrat, and professional politician Norm Coleman, the Republican incumbent, are separated by a very few votes.

The deciding challenged votes could include:

-- One with the circle properly filled in but a thumbprint on another candidate's name, possibly interpreted as an identifying imprint that would disqualify the vote;

-- A ballot with "No" written by one name and another marked in;

-- A ballot with one name marked but a little arrow pointing up to another candidate.

This is not unlike stowing bags in the overhead bins of airplanes, which a few million of us are going to be doing here in a day or two.

What is so hard about that or voting? You put the bags in the bin and shut the cover. You darken one circle next to your chosen candidate.

If the suitcase did not fit in your car trunk or if two adults can't lift it, the bag is unlikely to fit overhead in a 737. It's also understood that when voting for one candidate, you don't prefer all the others. Comments not necessary.

So, click on the "Read more" line below and see some amazing samples of ballots cast by real-live Minnesotans. No wonder the Lakers left there.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Speaking of votes, cast yours online simply by registering here for free cellphone alerts of each new Ticket item.

Photo credits: Associated Press (Franken/Coleman); MPR (below).

This ballot was challenged by the Franken campaign, which claimed the vote for Coleman had been crossed out.

At first glance this ballot looks OK, right? But wait. Is that a vote mark up by Dean Barkley's name? Coleman's crowd says yes.

Hmm, it looks like someone left a smudge by Al's name after or before marking Dean's name. So, who gets the count?

Comments

[Walter L. Johnson]

It is unfair to consider the ballots above as done by dolts. In the first case, the voter obviously changed their mind about voting for Coleman or any other Senate candidate, since the X out is by rule a clear indication of a change of mind about your vote. Apparently the voter decided that none of the candidates, including Franken and Coleman were worth any vote.

In the second case it is very clear that the voter just put the writing instrument on the Dean Barkley circle while deciding who to vote for. The voter clearly voted for Al Franken, and normal scanning machine logic should have simply disregarded the small dot for dramatically less density.

In the third case, clearly the voter again changed their mind and did so with a pencil with a low quality eraser. Once you fill in a dot, it is hard to completely erase, but again a machine or election judge should have no trouble with knowing voter intent.

One thing this whole contested ballot problem points out is that like Georgia, Minnesota would be better off with a runoff election. Recounts likely cost more than the general election because of the amount of labor involved with each ballot plus the eventual litigation in which the state also has to take a side.

A better voting alternative would be to have two columns for each Presidential candidate with the first column for 1st choice, and the 2nd column for 2nd choice. That way third party voters would be able to show their loyalty to their third party while allowing their 2nd choice to count if their first choice isn't among the top two candidates.

In any case none of these voters were dolts. To me as a former election official in another state, the voter intent is absolutely clear, and if that is not apparent under Minnesota statute, the election law needs to be changed..

[Jon Cox]

OMG we need to set some standards for who can vote perhaps a sample ballot where you choose

smart enough to vote
not smarth enough to vote

All we need are folks that can pick one. If you mark two you are not allowed to vote.

[Stephen]

Who are the biggest morons, those who didn't fill out the ballot correctly, or those who are trying to determine another persons thoughts? If you throw out all of the improper ballots you will have a winner. At this point the winner would be the tax payer who is paying for this stupidity!

[Jay]

I have no horse in this race and could care less who wins.

Here is my call on these ballots.

1. Before the fill in the circle type ballots, we had the make an X ballots. This person was just covering all bases by making an X and than filling in the circle. My Call: COLEMAN

2. This person was clearly testing the pen. My call: FRANKEN

3. This person filled in the wrong spot and tried to erase it. My call: BARKLEY

The dolts are the people who pulled these ballots for review. The intent is very clear.

[Mark]

It looks pretty obvious to me what the intent was on these three ballots. On the first one the voter put an x on the oval like you do on a lot of other type forms, realized his mistake and then filled in the oval. The second ballot is obviously for Al Franken. The third is obviously for Dean Barkley. The person probably marked Franken, changed his mind or realized his mistake and tried to erase it.

[jthebear]

I guess "dolts"mismark their ballots.

What does that make the reporter of this story that tells us to click on the "Read More" line below when there is no "Read More" line below?

Is he a "dolt" too?

[bruce]

If there's a couple hundred ballots cast by "dolts" out of 2.8 million, that's a "dolt rate" of 0.01% - yet on that basis the author paints my home state as some kind of backwoods asylum. Considering Minnesota perennially leads the nation in voter turnout, the scorn seems a bit misplaced...

[Del]

In the first ballot I think the more natural interpretation is the voter "X"ed the bubble and then decided to fill it in. We have to assume people are voting and an "X" is an indicator of a person's selection in many other fill-in-the-blank forms. It would be a strained interpretation that the voter voted, decided not to vote for anyone, study the ballot to figure out how to remove his vote, and then "X"ed out his vote.
I'm sure people are going to fall on the side of whoever their candidate is, but Franken supporters will have to explain why we should assume a voter decided not to vote when we risk disenfranchising a voter who merely used a common indicator to sellect his vote.

[Karma]

I just can't understand why these people have difficult time figuring out who they are going to vote . Aren't you suppose to know the candidate and their visions/plans at least before getting into voting booth?

[johnson]

It is interesting to note how the X and black filler in the same oval is interpreted by a "former election official". I think personal experience with such voting, polling or survey FORMS speaks louder. I have committed that error on some forms myself - but not in voting. Some people just don't take the time to READ ALL of the instructions, which include, that if you make a mistake, ask for another ballot! So, by sight, can the election judge know whether the X came before or after the "filling in" of the oval?

[Eric Lewis]

The first ballot was obviously for Coleman! An X doesn't mean they changed their mind, some people X boxes and some fill them in. The X was obviously a mistake. Mr Johnson says he was an election official? Apparently the dolts are the ones counting the ballots!

[Jonas Hodges]

I agree with Walter Johnson. The first goes to no one, as it is unclear whether the voter marked a circle first and then tried to cross out the vote with an X or marked an X first, then realized that a circle was required. The second goes to Al Franken, as the voter obviously rested his pen on the paper while thinking. The third goes to Dean Barkley, as this was obviously intended by the voter.

I have to question why Andrew Malcolm is wasting our time with this article, when all he can show in support of his assertions are ballots that don't lend credence to select Minnesotans being dolts or dimwits.

[Andra]

In the first example, my initial thought was that the voter mistakenly marked an X, then filled in the oval dot. They filled in the adjacent "Yes" dot without any ambiguity so the context is important - how did this person mark the contest at the top of the ballot?

If Minnesota, like my home state of Wisconsin, had the Presidential contest at the top, then how that contest was marked is significant:

- if the Presidential contest likewise showed a filled in dot with an X through it, the voter likely thinking with the old X-the-box mindset, then went back to correct it. In that case he/she probably meant to vote for the selected candidates.

- if the Presidential contest showed a solid dot without a cross, then the X through Norm Coleman's name probably means a rejection.

- if the Senate contest was at the top of the ticket, it's anyone's guess.

My husband accidentally marked the wrong oval on the state senate contest and notified the election judges. They disqualified that ballot and issued him a new one. It's unfortunate this voter didn't do the same.

[shrink]

Here is my call on these ballots.

1. This person filled in the oval, indicating that he had voted for Coleman in the last election; but then crossed it out with an X showing that he now wanted Coleman to be an eX-Senator. I interpret this as a vote for Franken.

2. This is a very shrewd "stealth" vote. The voter filled in the oval for Franken so that the voting machine would read it as a vote for Franken, all the while knowing that in a recount, the canvassing committee would eventually award it to his first choice, Barkley. A true pre-cog.

3. This person filled in the oval next to Barkley just to get the pen working, but when they went to vote for Franken, it had almost completely run out of ink. My call: Franken.

[Tom J]

Not every voter knows that if they make a mistake they can ask for a fresh ballot.

And please don't call them dolts. They may be moms with young children in the voting booth with them and they got distracted for a moment.

If two circles are filled and one is X'd out, it's obvious. If only one circle is filled and it's also crossed out,and this isn't a pattern throughout the entire ballot, I wouldn't try to guess the intent.

[Buffalo T.]

Context is critical. In the first vote, did any of the other races have similar X-over-oval marks? If not, it lends weight to the argument that it's a cross-out, at least enough weight to make the argument reasonable and the result unclear. Coleman/Franken wasn't the first issue on the ballot, so it's not like they were testing it out. The second two are obvious; challenging those should make the attorneys liable for contempt fines.

[Harm Derksen]

In the first ballot, the two ovals are very neatly filled.
If that person wanted to vote for Coleman by putting
a cross, it would have been a neat cross within the
oval. Instead it is a big cross, which means
a cross-out. So: no vote for any senator.

The second ballot is fake. It is a black&white copy
of the regular ballot which has colors.The voter
clearly rested the pen before deciding for Franken.
If at all, count it for Franken. It is silly of the Coleman
campaign to contest this.

The third ballot is a Barkley vote. The caption does
not say that the Franken capmpaign contests this.

[Bob Webster]

The examples shown should have little controversy. The clear intent for the vote is evident in every instance. Had any voter actually cast a vote, then suddenly changed their mind (during voting!), one would have expected that voter to bring their predicament to the attention of one of the poll workers (there is a procedure for getting a fresh ballot). It is more likely that the voter simply emphasized the vote (using an "X" to mark a ballot is not uncommon). The other examples are clear. The smudge is overwhelmed by the clearly marked in vote and the dot is likely a hesitation before actually casting the clear vote shown.

This could be easily taken care of by REQUIRING RESPONSIBILITY. A novel notion. Voters either cast their votes in the prescribed manner with no other marks on the ballot for that question/office, or the vote isn't counted. It is ludicrous to believe an "impartial" panel can be constructed to make decisions about such tainted ballots, particularly in a highly-charged strongly-contested election. We end up with the desire of the "impartial" panel, not the voter.

[Marcel]

This is ridiculous. Lawyers are destroying our democratic system. I thought that anybody should know the law. So why isn't it a an obligation for the citizens to know how to vote and that any unclear ballot will not count. None of the ballots shown above should count. Moreover, it is not complicated science to understand that nobody can guess with certainty the intention of a voter after the fact. The only result of recounts is that any "official" result will be considered unofficially an illegitimate one by half of the voters. Minnesota has now clearly joined the ranks of other Banana Republics !

[Patricia Daly]

On the first ballot, I don't see the crossed-out vote as a clear cut example of a vote for Franken. Which came first, the "x" or the filled-in dot? Franken was not filled in at all, so only an idiot like him would claim this vote as his own. The second is a Frankel vote. The third is a cheap erasure mark by Frankel's name...the vote is clearly for Barkley.

With all this said, in Ohio those who voted at the polls had their ballots read by machine before they left...if there was a discrepency (two cadidates marked for the same office), the machine rejected the vote, and a new ballot was given to the voter. I'm assuming the same happened in MN...as the ballots are the same style as Ohio's.

I don't know how things could have been made any clearer on the ballots...but humans do make mistakes.

[Alessandro Machi]

If depends when these votes are counted. If they are counted last, then everybody makes a big deal about it. If however, the dolts (your word) who run the election agreed to decipher these ballots BEFORE all the other votes had been counted, then their importance would have been signficantly less.

http://www.DailyPUMA.com

[Dan Lindsay]

I'm an election official in Hawai‘i, and this is a plug for electronic scanners at the ballot box. All of those three ballots would have been spit back by our scanning machines, and the voter would have had the opportunity to clarify his/her intent on a new ballot.

In our primary this year, one voter managed to spoil FIVE (5, count them, five) ballots before finally getting it right. He left to a round of applause, grinning and waving his fists in the air in triumph. (I have no idea what he was doing wrong -- secret ballot and all.)

For what it's worth (not much!), I'd give Nos. 1 & 2 to Franken, 3 to Barkley.

[Alex]

It's horribly arrogrant of this article to presume that a close recount with unclear ballots leads to the conclusion that the election judges as well as the voters in Minnesota are dumb. We happen to have a race that is very close and each candidate is (cleverly) trying to extract every vote the can. 2 of the 3 most literate cities in the country happen not to be in California, but in Minnesota. Just imagine all the dumb looking ballots California would produce.

[Jeff in Illinois]

How about considering the intent of the nation to get rid of the Republicans.. that's gotta be worth something? LOL

[Greg in Texas]

The real dolts are the party leaders in Minnesota who can't do any better than fielding marginal candidates like Coleman and Franken.

Coleman is a flip-flopping, self-serving egotist who was swept into office in the post 9-11 pro-Bush mayhem. Though Norm both smoked and sold marijuana as a college student, now he advocates locking up people like his college alter-ego and throwing away the key. When he campaigned for the senate in 2002, Norm was outspoken in his opposition to drilling in the ANWR. In 2005, in lock-step with his Bush cronies, Norm suddenly decided that ANWR drilling was a good idea.

What a loser!

Then, on the other side of the ticket, you've got a fricking comedian (literally). Al Franken is at best a polarizing, stubborn, egotistical ideologue. At worst he's an incompetent clown. The truth is that if the DFL'ers had run a credible candidate, they would have easily won this seat.

No mater which of these idiots wins the election, I figure that the people of Minnesota are pretty much getting what they deserve. Until they demand better candidates and actually start holding their elected leaders accountable, they'll have more elections like this.

[KC Kunnanz]

If in the first one, the X were to mean a change of their mind, it is highly unlikely they wouldn't have then made a different selection.

Therefore, my money in on an X being changed to a Dot.

The other 2 are too obvious to merit comment. There are plenty of "dolts" in Minnesota and elsewhere that managed to properly fill it out.

I would be in favor of the simplifying the voting laws. Voting is a privelege. If you fill it out wrong, it WILL be rejected - period. If you screw up, ask for a fresh form.

Save the tax payers some money and just throw out the questionable ballets and call it a day.

[ultra1000]

Why do we allow Republicans to even run for office. They have NO right to hold any public office!!!! How dare they!!!!

Al Franken

[Erin13]

That's why electronic voting machines are a LITTLE better; at least you don't have to contend with pen, ink marks, written "X"s, or circling -- or, God forbid, swinging chads...

You just push the button and you're done.

I wonder why they haven't budgeted for that statewide expense yet.

[Clyde Outlaw]

The obvious solution is for a revote but with just Franken and Coleman on the ballot, having it be a runoff. Thing is, no matter who wins, both are under 45 % which is a joke. Let the real winner get 50 %