Comments on: Franken prevails on two fronts at state canvassing board

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 04:03:13 +0000

Myerson, they have four envelopes labeled “2 of 5″ on up to “5 of 5″. No “1 of 5″. The log and the machine count match, but one envelope containing 133 votes is missing. Is that impossible to understand?

The “ran through the machine twice” story wasn’t Ritchie’s and was abandoned a week ago by everyone but you.

The fact-free morons screaming about a stolen election are in the house. Joy.

By: John Myerson

John Myerson — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:51:53 +0000

After the original ballot count, Mark Ritchie, before these became “lost ballots” stated that by counting envelopes they had determined that at least 129 ballots were mistakenly run through machines twice. After having had time “to reflect” he now says he is not so sure and maybe the envelope AND ballot hand counts were wrong. (LOL)

Funny how that works. Funny too how the 8 years going “selected not elected” crowd suddenly becomes the “Cue the morons screaming about a stolen election” crowd.

Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

By: Nixon

Nixon — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:13:20 +0000

John, the criteria is that the MOST ACCURATE between the hand recount and the original tally, with deference going to the hand recount. In one case, and one case only, the evidence shows that the most accurate count is from the original tally instead of a known incorrect hand recount.

There is no contradiction in always using the most accurate count when two counts are available. That is the point of the process, to come up with the most accurate count. If you know of any inaccuracies in any hand recount that rise to the level of the 133 lost votes, you should bring it in front of the Board.

By: Hank Gillette

Hank Gillette — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:09:34 +0000

“I love the way that a hand recount is now considered less accurate than the original tally.”

I think it’s pretty obvious that a hand recount is less accurate than the original tally when 133 of the original ballots have mysteriously disappeared. There is no way that the slightly more accurate hand recount could compensate for 133 missing ballots.

By: jim

jim — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:24:59 +0000

Yep, John, when Coleman people vanish 133 votes it is definitely more accurate
to use the original count. WHAAAH, it hurts when you can’t steal the election for Coleman, doesn’t it? Fortunately, the people of Minnesota have greater integrity than Georgia (for Saxby Chambliss), Florida (1st Shrub election) or
Ohio (2nd Shrub election). When Al Franken takes office, it will keep Minnesotans from having find another senator when Coleman goes to prison.

By: Mark Janney

Mark Janney — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:04:43 +0000

No, a ballot that got lost and therefore can’t be re-counted is considered less accurate than the original counted vote. It’s very simple, really. Best Evidence.

By: John Myerson

John Myerson — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:06:35 +0000

I love the way that a hand recount is now considered less accurate than the original tally. Go Franken. By Any Means Necessary.

By: charles gillis

charles gillis — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:00:20 +0000

just another democratic piece of trash trying to steal another election.

By: chuck

chuck — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:46:16 +0000

Yes, John, the election will be stolen – by the voters !!!

By: Cry baby

Cry baby — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:43:12 +0000

Cry baby cry, stick your finger in your eye.

The Republican whiners that do not want to count legal absentee ballots and suppress the
turnout of voters are gearing up to do some major shrieking. Over 4% of the absentee ballots
were spoiled, (12K of 288K not counted), this is a criminal amount. It is treason not
to count legal ballots and those that do not should be prosecuted.