I have signed a non-disclosure agreement regarding information that I personally obtain during the recount process, but I can certainly report on the publicly available data.
The difference between Coleman and Franken at the start of the recount was about 250 votes. Two things are happening during the recount. First, we are re-counting the ballots. So, if the machine had reported 100 Coleman, 100 Franken, and 50 others, and we count them and get 100 Coleman, 101 Franken, and 49 others, then so be it. The count has changed.
In truth, when this sort of thing happened, we tried hard to figure out why, and usually there is some ballot that had some mark that made the machine mess up.
Anyway, this changes the count. With respect to changing counts, the total count with a small percentage of precincts recounted, has shifted by 43 votes in the favor of Franken.
In addition, there are challenged ballots. The number I just cited (43) is not part of this. Challenged ballots are ballots that will be looked at by the special committee at the end of the process.
Yesterday, the Franken Team challenged 106 ballots, and the Coleman team challenged 115 ballots.
In my view, most of the challenges will vaporize. If you want to see examples of them, look here and here. But do not get angry at the challengers. There are criteria that place certain ballots in the challenge zone, and we are simply doing our jobs and using those criteria. The judges will make the decisions later.
There is actually a bit of overlap between challenges and recounted ballots ... not in the numbers I'm giving you, but in the concept. The ballots are being counted fresh, and by hand. So there are probably ballots that the counters (observed by the challengers) simply count for a certain candidate and everyone at the table agrees, or at least no one disagrees, and I'm sure such a ballot is counted correctly ... whereby .... that very same ballot (unbeknown to us or anyone, ever) was previously counted differently by the machine. Or, there may be ballots that are "challenged" but then the challenge becomes a simple change in count ... I.e., the counter puts a Coleman ballot in the "other" pile an the Coleman challenger says "whow, wait a sec, hold on there, lady, whatcha doin'..." and so on , and the counter says ... "oh, right, sorry, Coleman... that's a Coleman." .. And the Franken challenger sees this and perceives it as a situation where a Coleman Ballot was accidentally put for a tenth of a second in the wrong pile. Technically that was not a challenge but it could be thought of as one.
I'll describe a little bit about the process itself (the publically known part of the process) but I want to put that in a separate post because it is mind numbingly boring.
Politics
Comments
Go Lizard People!
Posted by: Nick | November 20, 2008 9:49 AM
Ummm.... have these people never filled in bubble-forms before?
Posted by: Umlud | November 20, 2008 10:29 AM
Reading about the process isn't boring. What's the alternative to counting every vote? You and the other counters are heroes for the democratic process.
For a reward you get to post the latest cognitive dissonance ravings from one of the more unfortunate by-products of the process. Minnesota contains too many contradictions to be able to numb the brain.
Posted by: Luci | November 20, 2008 2:51 PM
Umlud: No. That is exactly the issue. And by and large, Democrats have more people who have not than to Republicans, because there are more first time voters, and more immigrants from countries without bubbles, etc. among the Dems.
Posted by: Greg Laden | November 20, 2008 3:27 PM
Lizard People FTW
Posted by: Traffic Demon | November 20, 2008 3:41 PM
"countries without bubbles"
That's one of the sadder statements I've seen in a while.
Posted by: Moopheus | November 20, 2008 4:15 PM
I've been watching Republicans in action for longer than most of you have been alive, and I can tell you: if this recount goes against them, they will never accept it. When the first vote totals come on the screen on election night, if their guy is ahead, even by three votes with 1% of the vote counted, that's it for them. "We Win! Yeah! Suck it, losers!" Then when the gap narrows (as always happens) or reverses (as frequently happens) it's "Voter fraud! We wuz robbed! ACORN!" etc., etc. They will never reconcile themselves to a reversal no matter how many times the votes are counted. The truth is, they don't want them counted.
I really want Senator-Elect Franken's acceptance speech to be with blond hair, looking into a mirror, and saying: "Because you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you!" OK, I'll mainly be picturing it in my head, but i really, really want it. Please do a good job, Greg! (Just rhetorical--we all know you will.)
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 20, 2008 8:34 PM
Lurkbot: At a recent meeting pursuant to the counting, Mr. Franken gave us a little Stuart Smalley. It was a great hit.
I am waiting to see him do this on the Senate Floor. At just the right moment, of course.
Posted by: Greg Laden | November 20, 2008 8:57 PM
Fill in your bubbles, Johny. There are children living in countries without bubbles, you know!
Posted by: Xavier | November 20, 2008 8:59 PM
After the
fraudtech bubble of the 1990s, and theponzi schemehousing bubble of the current decade, I don't want any more bubbles.Posted by: llewelly | November 20, 2008 10:47 PM
Greg, seeing as you are working on the recounts, maybe you can answer this. Supposedly the law says if there is any mark that may identify the voter, the vote is disqualified, ostensibly because it is some indication of potential voter fraud. I fail to see the rational behind this -- do people who fraudulently vote have an irrational desire to go out of their way to provide evidence of their crime?
Posted by: CS | November 21, 2008 6:34 PM