I call as my first and only witness — the Pioneer Press itself!

Pioneer Press, today you submit that ”what we have here is a statistical tie.” You say “there is no mandate to be found in the ‘random errors’ produced by our imperfect measuring instrument.” And even as the election-contest process you’ve said you respect remains underway, you conclude that holding a new “do-over” vote — a solution you now welcome seeing “on the horizon” – is the only way to settle this election.

It’s a very convenient time to reach that conclusion, don’t you think, now that the court has again seen fit to shrink the universe of ballots that could provide a reversal for Coleman? Why the sudden-onset despair from an editorial page that has — with the odd exception now and then — cheered on the state’s patient, painstaking approach?

Let’s sample what you’ve had to say on the subject since you endorsed Coleman last fall. What, for example, did you say on Nov. 18 about letting the system work?

It’s not necessarily pretty, but the system is working. Competition and the institutions that support rule of law are doing what they’re supposed to. As all of the legally cast and counted votes are recounted, a process Minnesotans can be proud of should lead to a result they can believe.

And what did you say on Nov. 25 about letting the election contest run its course?

… a court contest seems highly likely. … A discrepancy in totals, a “missing” ballot or two, a rejected absentee — all may fit the bill. Let us hope that whoever jumps into court first has the decency to wait until the last pile has been collated and the totals posted.

And what did you say on Dec. 30 about our prospects for deciding an apparent tie?

Let us say it again. We do not know who won. How we decide a statistically tied election is more important right now than who is declared the winner. It will take time. We can get through it.

And what did you say on Jan. 4 about allowing Minnesota’s process to play out?

Because this process involves human beings, it has required corrections and judgment calls. But, slowly, painstakingly, everyone involved, from election officials to the two campaigns, has pursued the answer to the question, who won? There’s form and substance to the process of finding that answer, and it needs to play out — in Minnesota. The U.S. Senate, along with partisans favoring one candidate or the other, should just sit tight while Minnesotans reason their way to a decision.

And what did you say on Jan. 6 about the election contest being part of that process?

Coleman plans to file a legal challenge, known as an election contest, today. … No one wants an interminable trial of Minnesota’s election system. But Coleman has a right to make his case.

And what did you say on Jan. 7 about allowing our process to settle an close election with its inevitable errors?

Errors happen, and at some point, neutral referees need to make a call. Will a two-month legal fight will produce more confidence in the result? Maybe not. But it is the procedure spelled out in Minnesota law and it could put all remaining issues before neutral arbiters one more time. … While we do not expect instant results, we do want and need the finality of a ruling based on the best evidence available.

No more questions, Your Honors. I rest my case.

Updated: Norm Coleman’s razor-thin lead over Al Franken keeps getting even tighter. Yesterday, Coleman’s lead was 477 votes, but as of 10:45 a.m. Thursday, it’s now a 438-vote gap. [At 4:15 took a 590-vote lead, but the margin is again back to 336 by 5 pm. At 8:45 pm, Franken trailed by 236 votes. On Friday, Franken trails by 239 votes. By early Saturday, the gap is 221. And, on Monday morning, the tally is 204.] Forum Communications reports one small reason why: Election officials in Buhl, Minn., reportedly went to bed election night without reporting the tallies for its 550 voters to county officials. Also reporting of results in Duluth was delayed because one precinct, “inundated with hundreds of same-day registrations,” took longer to count.

Could the recount shift victory to Franken’s side? Hard to say, but SenateGuru does the math on what that’d take. Answer: Not much.

Franken needs only to pick up one single vote every 8.6 precincts in order to claim the lead.  Every 8 or 9 precincts, there just has to be one single ballot overlooked, one single ballot that didn’t scan right.

Vote tallies are literally changing minute to minute. Follow the changes at the Secretary of State’s Office.

Update: David Brauer offers some interesting details. Two of every 1,000 optically scanned votes aren’t counted, he writes: “Extrapolated, that means 6,000 votes could enter the pool this time.”

Update: Here’s why the vote counts keep changing, from MPR’s Polinaut:

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie said the Senate vote totals will continue to move as county election officials double check their work. He said the numbers will continue to fluctuate until the County Canvassing Boards certify the election. The deadline for the county boards to certify the numbers is Monday, November 10th. The counties are required to submit their election reports by November 14th to the Minnesota Secretary of State.

The State Canvassing Board will then meet on Tuesday, November 18th to certify the election. At that point, the board will order a recount which is required by state law.