Gore fell for that "healing process" bullshit in 2000, Norm, and the ass he conceded to proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including 4,100 American military men and women.

Ain't hapnin' again.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, uh ... can't get fooled again.

Coleman is on the record as saying that he would be against a recount if he were in Franken's shoes. It is possible Franken could edge ahead before the recount begins. The margin keeps closing - from 700+ votes to 236. My belief is that if Franken edges ahead before the recount begins, then Coleman decides a recount is absolutely necessary.

But this certainly shows the wisdom of having an automatic recount provision.

"Healing"? It's a political race not an illness or injury.

I kind of agree with Coleman. As soon as the recount shows Franken 1 vote ahead, Norm should concede to help speed the healing process.

Here, we are wondering if Coleman will waive his right to a recount and concede if Franken gets the additional 300 votes he needs to move ahead of Coleman. heh.

Here's another way the election in MN is interesting. A third party candidate, Dean Barkley, got 16% of the vote. And another third party candidate in the 6th Congressional district took 11% of the vote--allowing Michele Bachmann to cling to her seat.

I wonder if any of the naders who voted for the third party candidates are having second thoughts. More people voted against Coleman & Bachmann than for him or for her. We need instant run-offs.

No, it's "heeling" as in what most Republican politicians are...

Since it isn't clear who won, there's no reason why Coleman can't be the one to concede, if he believes that 'starting the healing process' quickly is more important than ascertaining which candidate actually won.

He sees the need, he's in a position to do something about it, and there's nothing preventing him from acting. Go for it, Norm.

Am I mistaken, or does the recount have nothing whatsoever to do with whether Franken does or does not want it to take place?

My understanding was that it was automatic under these circumstances, not something one candidate had to ask for, or had the power to call off.

Similarly, while conceding the election when you've lost it is just a basic good thing to do, it has no legal significance whatsoever, right? If you concede an election, prostrate yourself before your opponent and swear fealty to him while begging for his mercy for ever opposing him, and then a recount discovers that you actually won, then you won, right?

I can't for the life of me figure out what Coleman's trying to achieve here. Sure it's frustrating for the margin to be that tight, but it is so you just have to wait out the recount.

Speaking as a Minnesotan and a Franken supporter, I do have to say I am grateful that we use optical scan technology with paper ballots and not touch screens. At least there will be something to count when we do.

That said, we won't be dealing with any chad issues here. Perhaps an oval not filled in completely or X'ed out to determine intent.

The land of 10,000 lakes will soon be the land of 10,000 lawyers.

Note to Norm: America wants change first, reconciliation second, and you're not part of the solution.

This election was made close by a Third Party candidate who effectively allowed Coleman to make the election close--I hate the stupidity of a spoiler candidacy. That old Nader paradigm. More than automatic recounts, I think in cases where elections are decided by less than the number of votes a Third place candidate draws, there should be an automatic run-off election. It would be far less expensive. I expect Coleman to lose a recount anyway. It will be done by hand and outside the Diebold safety net.

I do have to say I am grateful that we use optical scan technology with paper ballots and not touch screens

I think most states that use touch screens now have the kind that have a paper roll that prints the candidates voted for. The voter can see it as he or she touches the screen, and correct it if necessary. Are the paperless ones still used anywhere?

"but Coleman is urging Franken to waive his right to a recount and concede. Why? Because, well, Coleman thinks it'd be nice "for the healing process."

Let's see apply standard right-wing bullshit factor to statement:

-1 x ("for the healing process.") = "for the rotting process."

There! We've deduce the true meaning.

Eleven Thousandths of a percent.
Sounds even less.

Please dear lord, let Al Franken win. That would be the cherry on top of this near perfect election.

My only problem with Norm other than that he is dishonest is that any person who sits on the Iraqi oversight committee and approves those millions of dollars in expeditures for Bush buddies and cannot initiate one piece of legislation to improve the life of his home state does not get my vote.

Wayne's right. It is .01% not .1%.

Re: Sparko in comments. Minnesota will be having a trial of instant runoff voting in an upcoming election or so I heard on the news from the Twin Cities recently. I hope it catches on and spreads to Wisconsin and then to the nation. It it the only way to elect better people and encourage third party candidates.

What I've always found odd is that the recount numbers will be treated as official, even if they're different than the original numbers.

Is there any good reason to assume that recounts have fewer errors than the initial count?

It seems like if it's within .5% or so, there should be several automatic recounts, repeated until the count numbers converge.

Let them keep counting and make it official. Then go with a recount if it is within the rules and policies provisions. This "healing" is crap. We here in Georgia are also waiting on an official count that will determine if our Senator Saxby (who the hell names there kid Saxby) will have to do a runoff in 4 weeks and then will lose to the better candidate Dem Jim Martin.

I just hope the turnouts at these runoffs is high and not taken for granted. I say bye bye to these repugs.

Is there any good reason to assume that recounts have fewer errors than the initial count?

republicans are so interested in the "healing process," you'd think they'd be as interested in affordable universal healthcare.

What I've always found odd is that the recount numbers will be treated as official, even if they're different than the original numbers.

Is there any good reason to assume that recounts have fewer errors than the initial count?

It seems like if it's within .5% or so, there should be several automatic recounts, repeated until the count numbers converge.

I think that if the margin is less than 2% in a Senatorial election, it should be considered a tie. Send them both to Washington, but only give them 1/2 a vote each.

Anyone out there still think their vote isn't important?

One vote can't matter?

Certainly not in the BIG races like US Senate.

I'm wondering when all the provisional ballots will get counted. Then watch for the lawyers...

Send them both to Washington, but only give them 1/2 a vote each.

Send them both to Washington, but only give them 1/2 a vote each.

In this case, a public wrestling match would fit the bill.

They love their wrestlers up there.

I'm wondering when all the provisional ballots will get counted. Then watch for the lawyers...

Minnesota does not have provisional ballots; they have same day registration. One of Franken's claims is that some areas ran out of registration materials.

Hell, maybe I'm just an inveterate cynic who sees dishonesty in every shadow, but I can't help but note that these 'errors' are only starting to come to light just in advance of a recount and the 'errors' all seem to have been against Franken.

Perhaps Coleman knows a little more than he's letting on about local counts and knows that when independent observers start going through things with a fine-toothed comb, a sizable numbers of mistakes are going to come to light and strangely they will all have undercounted Franken's vote.

But that can't be possible, because that would mean that the sitting senator was aware of dubious practices and is calling for a concession from his opponent to stop them coming to light. And that can't be possible, can it?

I work at the polls in a NH town that uses the AccuVote optical scanners. Even with pretty clear instructions posted in every voting booth, I have seen voters circle the name of a candidate but not mark the oval (vote not counted by machine). Sometimes they only put a dot in the oval, so it depends on how faint the mark is and how sensitive that particular portion of the reader is. I have also seen voters vote for one candidate but write “no� or “not� for the other candidate, just to make sure or to emophasise their choice. If the writing goes into the other oval, the machine can read the vote for that office as an overvote and not record any vote for that office. And I also presume that sometimes there are stray marks on the ballots that get misread as votes, even if unintentional.

In the overall scheme of things, these discrepancies usually don’t matter and won’t affect the outcome. But a hand recount can pick up these voter errors and machine misreads.

Geez, if this keeps dragging on, Norm might have time to switch back to calling himself a Democrat.

Norm "How the wind blows" Coleman

As for Franken, lots of "evil" voters out there, Mr O'Arrogantone. Better start lighting a whole bunch of candles at FAUX.

> Is there any good reason to assume that recounts have fewer errors than the initial count?

yes, you can spend more time on it and be more careful. we processed 9000 absentee ballots in 18 hours. I got one precinct to balance at the last minute, but when I got it to balance I stopped checking. If I kept checking, I might have found some more errors. But deadlines and fatigue stopped me.

Another precinct I didn't get to balance. I'm pretty sure that the county board will be rechecking that precinct, to get correct numbers.

Dealing with absentees is always a problem since there's little recourse when the voter screws up. Sometimes you can determine voter intent. Often you can't.

The other breaking news on this matter is the reports that a paid staffer of the Coleman campaign, a Somali gentleman doubled as an interpreter election night and was stumping for his candidate pretty hard at the polls.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/16268/witnesses-claim-somali-translator-in-minneapolis-encouraged-voting-for-coleman

Those of us who are having a little trouble adjusting to a post-election news day thank Minnesota for providing all this excitement.

Why is it that the numbers keep moving in a single direction (i.e.: in Franken's direction)? You'd think that, all other factors being equal, the numbers would move both ways.

The Tinfoil Hatter in me wonders if the fact that there is such a clear Democratic majority already established, is having an influence on the recount.

Out here in New Mexico we use paper ballots that are then inserted into a machine that reads them.

IF the ballot is not filled out correctly - voting for two people in the same race, not completely marking in an oval - the ballot is rejected from the machine and the machine tells what's wrong with the ballot. The voter then gets a new ballot and the old ballot is marked as a spoiled ballot.

I know this because my job on Tuesday was to help voters put their marked ballots into the machine once they had filled them out. I was amazed at how many ballots were kicked out.

but Coleman is urging Franken to waive his right to a recount and concede. Why? Because, well, Coleman thinks it'd be nice "for the healing process.

Of course, Coleman could also recognize that he's in a virtual tie and concede himself. That would also help the healing process, wouldn't it?

Be the better man, Norm. Prove you care about your country more than that silly comedian does.

Is there any good reason to assume that recounts have fewer errors than the initial count?

Look again at the part where it turned out the precinct had accidentally put Franken down for 24 votes instead of 124 because it was 5:30 am on Wednesday and they could barely see straight.

Counting things in a rush will lead to errors.