Senate recount: 133 + 5 ÷ 87 = 1 big muddle

  • Article by: KEVIN DUCHSCHERE and MARK BRUNSWICK , Star Tribune staff writers
  • Updated: December 12, 2008 - 11:33 PM

A state panel's haggling over 133 stray Minneapolis votes and previously rejected absentee ballots in all 87 counties fell to Al Franken's favor.

  • 341
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
greenberetDec. 12, 08 8:15 AM

They're going to count them. And then they're going to count the election-night totals for the 133 missing ballots. And then they're going to do whatever they need to, and they're not going to stop this process until Franken comes out in the lead. The outcome is predetermined by Ritchie, it's just a matter of dancing the charade for the public to give the outcome the pretense of legitimacy.

94
195
leftwingloonDec. 12, 08 8:26 AM

Since Ritchie is one vote out of five on the board and the other four are all respected judges (including two Supreme Court) with no connections to the DFL, how do you suggest he would be able to pull off this "predetermined charade" even if he wanted to.

174
55
jmaynardDec. 12, 08 8:31 AM

...just as they did in Washington's governor election two years ago, when it was stolen by a Democrat on the third recount.

75
155
joe1701Dec. 12, 08 8:40 AM

Let's start by following state law.

161
10
gresumesDec. 12, 08 8:45 AM

bleh

72
87
goofticketDec. 12, 08 8:51 AM

The law mandates that every effort be made to make sure, every ballot is secure, after it's cast; and then given all the reviews needed to assure it can count. Not that it will, but that it would be given individual attention to assure the voter's intent and the election processes of validation was provided. I suspect they will go through every challenged ballot and accept the affidavits from actual voters Franken provided. So what's with the Coleman home improvement, aka: Ted Stevens, that popped up? Seems like the FBI was looking into this for quite a while. Might be kinda fun to see the US Senate not seat Coleman, because of this payola thing.

75
46
koskie4lifeDec. 12, 08 8:57 AM

Umm...reject them? Because...they're, umm, "rejected"? Shouldn't a re-count include the same number of ballots as the original count? I mean, that just seems like common sense to me.

56
116
metrocampusDec. 12, 08 9:07 AM

...through no fault of your own? Because of clerical error, change of address, or choosing not to have a driver's license? Would you still say that "rejected = rejected", koskie4life?

138
38
joe1701Dec. 12, 08 9:07 AM

What I meant earlier about following state law is that if the ballots were rejected for a valid reason, determined by law, then it's rejected. No going back to determine the "intent" or going back to the voter to see what they really wanted. You only get to vote once. Al, stop your pitiful attempt to create sympathy for yourself.

49
107
mcleanmDec. 12, 08 9:11 AM

According to people like Rep Keith Ellison, you don't need a driver's license and never should need one. So if you're breathing, then you're voting...

56
65

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT