Al Franken actually won by a landslide

In any event, more people seem to like Al Franken than who voted for him ... if we compare the 42% of the vote he got with the 49% approval rating he now has. (details)

This is partly a function of increased favorablity following the nasty recount process, but is also reminds us of something else: There was a third candidate in this race. If Dean Barkley was not in this race, would the outcome have been so close? And, who would have won?

The common knowledge on the street at the time of the election is that about two thirds of Barkley's votes would have been for Franken had Barkley not been in the race. In addition, Franken was advancing on Coleman for the last several weeks. In other words, if the election was held three weeks later, OR if Barkley was not in the race, Franken would have had a decisive if not overwhelming victory. If both were true, Franken would have taken Coleman out by a landslide.

This is why I've been so frequently annoyed at calls to "just do it over" or statements that "no one really won" and so on. Franke was behind. Franken came from behind and passed colement.

In addition, consider this: If Franken was moving in on the vote count, then what about absentee votes cast days or weeks before the election? Wouldn't more of those have been Franken votes had they been cast on election day?

More like this

... and there is strong evidence of shenanigans on the part of Coleman supporters (or someone). As I mentioned earlier, the idea is afoot that there will be more of a shift towards Al Franken in geographical regions that favor Franken than in Coleman-sympathetic regions, in the current US Senate…
In the Gallup Tracking Poll for the US election, Obama leads McCain for the ninth straight day, and for the seventeenth out of the last nineteenth pollings. We will have to see if the absurd new tactics being attempted by Palin and her running mate McCain will have an effect on this one way or…
The judicial panel that has been off somewhere deciding what to do about the Coleman election challenge has ordered 400 additional ballots opened and counted on April 7th. If (and we do not know this for a fact) these are THE remaining ballots to count, them Coleman would have to get a…
Something very interesting just happened in Minnesota. You know about the recount, and you know that today the canvassing board is deciding what to do about a number of possibly improperly rejected absentee ballots. At least 630, and possibly as many as 1,500, absentee ballots have been…

This is a case of shoulda, coulda, woulda. It is pointless.

He will do a good job, or not, and next time people will get to vote on that job performance.

By NewEnglandBob (not verified) on 21 Jul 2009 #permalink

Bob, it is not pointless as long as people keep complaining that he only won by 300 points, that is was essentially an even election, tha the didn't really win, etc. etc.

Otherwise it is pretty pointless.

Franken did, I'm sure, garner some sympathy from those who recognized that Coleman's protracted, pointless challenges were an insult to fellow citizens. But even in the short time he has been "on the job", Frnken has handled himself very well. I was especially pleased to see that he used humor very effectively in the Sotomayor hearings. Fresh air in an otherwise stale, stifling environmnet. Go Al!

By bob koepp (not verified) on 21 Jul 2009 #permalink

There was a third party? Jeez. I had no idea. Sucks that he acted as such a spoiler for Al, as he brought him within a hair's breadth of losing to Coleman's shenanigans.

Can we get a more sensible electoral system please. "Instant runoff" or some other variety of ranking system would do a much better job assessing the "will of the electorate" than the insanely crappy (and archaic) plurality system we use now.

Yeah, every electoral system (I know of at least) has some weaknesses and potential pathologies. However, the probability of those coming into play for most ranking voting systems is much much much smaller than for plurality.

Oh, and could we actually have some people who understand measurement and statistics involved? The Colman-Franken election was similar to Bush-Gore in Florida (though a bit less dramatically clear). It is quite clear to a high confidence who won on an 'intent of the voters' basis. (In Bush-Gore the differential error rates of voting equipment alone put the "true" results in Gore's favor to a high certainty.)

PS: had a good analysis way back when basically pointing out that the race was almost certainly not really "close", but hinged (quite non-linearly) on how many ballots were not initially counted but where the 'intent of the voter' could be deduced. IE: Actually count the votes more accurately and Franken would win decisively. (Sorry no link... I can't find the original post anymore.)

One more thing... plurality voting systems tend to lead to candidates with an relatively extremist "base" getting elected. That is a bad thing IMO.

Single transferable vote (STV) is the way ahead. All those votes for a third party would have been transferred to the two leaders. Franken would have won easily. Democracy would have been served. In November.