My previous pieces on the Minnesota Recount can be found here, here, and here. The new piece at Fox News starts this way (note some additional links are included here):
Note: There was a mistake in one ballot that I discussed in the original piece. The Star Tribune made a mistake on the ballot shown below and discussed in this link here (corrected the day after I fixed it). All the rest of the discussion is fine. I am not going to be publishing any comments that just repeat this point without them indicating that they have already read this note. For a response to some of those who have been attacking the piece, please see this.
The piece was mentioned on the Drudge Report.
My piece is the most read on the Fox News website:
The Canvassing Board overseeing the vote recount for Minnesota’s tightly contested US Senate race isn’t quite done examining disputed ballots, but the board issued a projection Saturday night that Al Franken would pick up 270 votes when it finished examining the ballots. Currently the board is determining voter intent in disputed ballots. If the project proves correct, Franken will beat incumbent Senator Norm Coleman by 78 votes.
Vote totals have changed a lot since November 4th when Coleman lead Franken by 725 votes. Correcting typos cut Coleman’s margin to 215, and a recount by all the counties reduced it further to 192. Yet, the additional 270 votes picked up by Franken from the Canvassing Board’s decisions have been among the most controversial.
The vote pickup has occurred through two actions by the board – divining voter intent and determining what votes should be counted. While decisions to include missing or overlooked ballots has gotten the most attention, the process of determining intent has also been important in determining the outcome here.
The Canvassing Board faces a difficult task in divining voter intentions. It is very difficult to determine how a voter meant to vote simply by looking at what might be stray marks on the ballot. And whatever rules are adopted must be consistently used in evaluating all ballots. . . .
Note: There was a mistake in one ballot that I discussed in the original piece. The Star Tribune made a mistake on the ballot shown below and discussed in this link here (corrected the day after I fixed it). All the rest of the discussion is fine. I am not going to be publishing any comments that just repeat this point without them indicating that they have already read this note. For a response to some of those who have been attacking the piece, please see this.
The piece was mentioned on the Drudge Report.
My piece is the most read on the Fox News website:
New Op-ed piece at Fox News: The Minnesota Recount Bias
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
