This is hyst-fucking-erical.
OK, we've been recounting ballots pursuant to the implementation of actual Democracy in the Coleman-Franken race for U.S. Senate.
So what do you think the standard JOKE among the Democrats ... working as volunteers to observe the count for Franken ... has been? This:
"I challene this ballot because the voter filled in the bubble for Norm Coleman. Obviously, this voter is delusional."
Ha ha ha. Well, even if it is not the funniest joke you've ever heard, it IS a joke. Right?
Well, no, not if you are a Republican. The Coleman challengers have apparently challenged a number of ballots where a voter voted for McCain and Franken, on the grounds that if the person voted for McCAin, they MUST have MEANT to vote for Coleman! In one case, they've even challenged a ballot where the voter did NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE FOR SENATE. This is a ballot where there is no choice for senate. The Coleman people want this vote counted as a vote for Coleman because that voter voted for McCain. So they MUST have MEANT to vote for Coleman!!!!
Wow. Don't believe me? Watch and weep:
Ah, the ideological purity argument, I see...
Last I heard, Obama won the majority of Minnesota votes.
Therefore, Franken won too.
Y'all can go home now and stop worrying about all those pesky ballots.
Gee, I didn't know that mind-reading was allowed in elections.
The good news about the bias in asking people to vote again is that more of the re-evaluated votes will be for Franken, right?
Is everyone finished now? Can you tell us who won?
Thank you, Pierce. That was my first thought, too. Do these people never think about what they're saying...or do they merely expect us not to?
Monado, we've still got quite a ways to go. I promise, you'll hear about the outcome.
I got into a rather heated argument/discussion regarding this particular race. I will use this video tomorrow to try to show him the absurdity of the Coleman challenges. I just wrote about this on my blog (if this blog-whoring is too blatant, please just delete) at: http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/bouncing-reality-off-of-a-skul… .
Weep? I'd be ropeable.
Here in Australia we have an extremely robust scruitineering system (the process where party officials and members oversee the count and challenge questionable ballots), and it's something I've done myself for years.
If I tried to make "challenges" like these I'd be ignored by the Returning Officer and probably removed by the electoral officials after about the third one (that's if the party itself didn't kneecap me first).
There is no basis for this sort of challenge and "voter intent" in this case is totally ridiculous. The boxes are clearly marked and the voter intent could not be clearer. What the Coleman campaign is asserting is "campaign intent" - ie. our campaign wants you to vote the ticket, if you didn't we'll substitute our own judgement in place of yours.
So, they wanted a republican, but not an unpleasant loud-mouthed, letch?
eddie: Very funny. I wonder if you are or who have med one of those women who has been stuck alone, say as a waitress in a private room at a restaurant, with Norm Coleman and his cigar smoking buddies.
I pray Coleman is hanging his chances of winnimg on these challenges. Any reasonable authority will reject these challenges in the end. So long you scumbag Republican, but don't take it personally, you are just a statistic. Another one bites the dust. Buh Bye.
Maybe one could argue that since they voted for Franken that their intent was to vote all democratic on the ticket...
I wonder how many ballots for Obama also had votes for Coleman? not many I'd wager.
Interestingly, all these arguments were considered valid when trying to make Gore win FL in 2000.
Actually, Michael, the argument in Florida was that the ballot was bad. People couldn't tell who they were voting for, as evidenced by the large number of votes for a right-of-Republican third-party candidate among voters who were otherwise voting a full Democratic slate.
It was not, "Ooh, two clearly-labeled votes are for different parties. Therefore, the voter must not be competent." Slightly different.