PLEASE NOTE THAT THE STAR TRIBUNE SEEMS TO BE CHANGING THE PAGES THAT THESE LINKS GO TO. I WILL TRY TO KEEP THEM UPDATED, BUT THERE ARE TOO MANY EXAMPLES HERE FOR ME TO ENSURE THAT THE LINKS REMAIN ACCURATE.
Below is only a sample of some of the questionable calls made by the Minnesota Canvassing Board. These examples are culled from just first 99 cases, more from that group could have been included. There are a few calls in favor of Coleman that are also difficult to explain (possibly to make it harder to show bias), but at a rough glance what I have looked through so far seems to show a systematic bias by the board in favor of Franken. I am in the process of trying to go through these decisions more scientifically.
Here is an example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is clearly for no one.
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one.
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is clearly for Franken. Question: If an "X" through the vote means no when it is for Coleman (see above two examples), why does this "X" mean yes for Franken?
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one. Apparently, an "X" when it comes to a Coleman ballot doesn't mean no in some cases.
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one.
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one. This vote is disqualified because the voter used the wrong ballot, but there are a couple things to note. I haven't found any similar cases for Franken, and it would be useful to have some discussion of how the voter got the wrong ballot.
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one. Same as previous case.
On the other hand, there are some calls that could arguably go either way that they made in Coleman's direction. Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for Coleman.
Another example is here, where the decision was made in favor of Coleman.
Still overall I think that there are many more questionable decisions that go in Franken's favor than the reverse.
After consulting with the Democrat Attorney General, at first Ritchie rejects Franken’s desire to count rejected Absentee Ballots relying on the Attorney General’s opinion that such ballots are not a subject of a recount but rather for the courts to decide in an election contest. The Attorney General’s office opinion is here.
UPDATE: A couple of the examples that I originally had here were removed. They involved whether voters had made an identifying mark on their ballots. These are not always obvious to me (e.g., is the note "TO" an identifying mark?). In any case, the point distracted from the other real questions here.
Below is only a sample of some of the questionable calls made by the Minnesota Canvassing Board. These examples are culled from just first 99 cases, more from that group could have been included. There are a few calls in favor of Coleman that are also difficult to explain (possibly to make it harder to show bias), but at a rough glance what I have looked through so far seems to show a systematic bias by the board in favor of Franken. I am in the process of trying to go through these decisions more scientifically.
Here is an example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is clearly for no one.
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one.
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is clearly for Franken. Question: If an "X" through the vote means no when it is for Coleman (see above two examples), why does this "X" mean yes for Franken?
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one. Apparently, an "X" when it comes to a Coleman ballot doesn't mean no in some cases.
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one.
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one. This vote is disqualified because the voter used the wrong ballot, but there are a couple things to note. I haven't found any similar cases for Franken, and it would be useful to have some discussion of how the voter got the wrong ballot.
Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for no one. Same as previous case.
On the other hand, there are some calls that could arguably go either way that they made in Coleman's direction. Here is another example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is for Coleman.
Another example is here, where the decision was made in favor of Coleman.
Still overall I think that there are many more questionable decisions that go in Franken's favor than the reverse.
After consulting with the Democrat Attorney General, at first Ritchie rejects Franken’s desire to count rejected Absentee Ballots relying on the Attorney General’s opinion that such ballots are not a subject of a recount but rather for the courts to decide in an election contest. The Attorney General’s office opinion is here.
UPDATE: A couple of the examples that I originally had here were removed. They involved whether voters had made an identifying mark on their ballots. These are not always obvious to me (e.g., is the note "TO" an identifying mark?). In any case, the point distracted from the other real questions here.
Minnesota Canvassing Board's mischief?
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
