I agree, more importantly SCOTUS does too... On Mar 10, 11:54 am, Running <[email protected]> wrote: > The way Democratic counties count their absentee votes is laxer the in > Republican precincts. > > ================================================== > > That is quite unfair and shameful if true. Both should be equally lax > or strict. > > On Mar 10, 11:16 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > and in 2008 in Minnesota they are not... The way Democratic counties > > count their absentee votes is laxer the in Republican precincts. And > > that difference is the difference in Franken lead... So all together > > now, do we want transparent election that are fair, or do we seek our > > guy to win if possible??? After all, that is Chicago's style of > > politics now in rage... > > >http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023022.php > > > >>> Take, for example, the requirement that the signature on an absentee > > >>> ballot must be witnessed by a registered voter. In some counties, > > >>> registration lists are carefully scrutinized and if the witness's name > > >>> does not appear, the absentee ballot is not counted. Other counties > > >>> make no effort to check this requirement and count hundreds or > > >>> thousands of technically illegal ballots. Another example is the > > >>> voter's signature: some counties check carefully to make sure that the > > >>> signature on the absentee ballot looks like the one on file, while > > >>> others will accept virtually anything as a signature. > > > It turns out, not surprisingly, that the counties that are careful > > about applying election laws are Republican-leading counties, while > > the lax ones--Hennepin, Ramsey and St. Louis--are heavily Democratic. > > What this means, in practice, is that thousands of votes are counted > > in Democratic counties that would not be counted if the same voter > > lived in a Republican county. Coleman observed that we hadn't realized > > it until now, but every Republican who runs in a state-wide race > > starts with a deficit of several thousand votes for this reason. > > > Coleman has asked the judges to open and count ballots that are in > > substantial compliance with Minnesota's statute and have exactly the > > same status as many votes that have already been counted. The court, > > however, has shown an inclination to apply the election law rigorously > > and exclude all ballots that are not in full technical compliance with > > the statute. Thus a deep irony arises: if a uniform standard of strict > > compliance with the absentee ballot statute is applied, Coleman wins. > > If a looser standard of substantial compliance with the statute is > > uniformly applied, Coleman also wins. The only way Coleman loses is if > > a strict standard is applied in Republican counties and a lax standard > > is applied in Democratic counties. Unfortunately, that is exactly what > > has happened so far. > > > The trial court has established standards for counting ballots under > > which thousands of ballots now ruled improper were counted on election > > day. There is no way to identify them and un-count them. (An absentee > > ballot has two envelopes; the outer envelope has the voter's name on > > it, the inner one doesn't. If the ballot is approved, it is opened and > > the inner, secret ballot is fed through a machine with the other > > ballots.) The logical implication is that we can never determine who > > actually received more properly-cast votes for Minnesota's Senate > > seat, the task with which the trial court is charged. > > > I was skeptical when the idea of a second election was first raised, > > but the more I learn about the facts, the more reasonable that > > alternative sounds. If it really is impossible to determine which > > candidate received more properly-cast votes, a new election would seem > > to be the fairest alternative. It may, however, take Senate action to > > bring about that result. (Coleman's supporters are concerned that if > > Franken comes out ahead in the current process, Harry Reid will seat > > him, while if Coleman comes out ahead, Reid will order a new > > election.) > > > An important policy consideration supports this result: as the system > > currently operates, a county's failure to follow the law is rewarded, > > not punished. A Democratic-leaning county like Hennepin has every > > incentive to loosen the rules, not check on witnesses' registrations, > > etc., so as to count the maximum number of Democratic votes. If the > > court ratifies such lax conduct in the current proceeding, any county > > that scrupulously applies state law will perceive that it is merely > > selling its own citizens short. This is hardly to be encouraged. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
