Minnesota SC rejects the Franken bid to get seated.

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Gee, three basically GOP posters saying toss the election results, basically admitting its the only chance for Coleman or the GOP.

Its the same Florida 2000 election argument again, but the fullness of time shows Gore would have won with a full and fair recount.

Yeah, because not having 1 out of 100 senators is the same as not having 1 out of 1 President.

Well I'm sure the people of MN would appreciate having full represntation in the Senate.

And its absolutely a valid point. The GOP was demanding Gore drop his challenges in 2000, while here you're suggesting there's now an "interest of fairness" that demands every vote be counted. That most certainly is a double standard.

Really? Can we get rid of Ted Kennedy too since he's out all the time? Or would you support the appointment of Norm Coleman while all legal challenges are being filed since 'they need representation'?

Obviously there is a double standard given the nature of the 2 positions. This is provided for in the Constitution.

 

[Ozoned]

Franken may have won by losing at MN Supreme Court

From a related website:


Rick Valelly submits:


For what it's worth, there is an interesting mistake in the MN Supreme Court's opinion denying Franken's petition for an order to the Governor and the Secretary of State that Minnesota issue a certificate for him. The Court -- glossing Roudebush v. Hartke -reads Smiley v. Holm (a case from Minnesota ironically) as saying that Article 1 section 4 gives any state the authority to establish "a complete [election] code." That's not what Chief Justice Hughes said, though, in Smiley. He said that Article 1 Section 4 gives Congress the authority to establish a "complete code." The mistake does not disturb the finding, as far as Ican tell -- but it's a curious misreading of Smiley.

 

[GenHoth]

How are we so bad at voting in the 21st century? A fucking school can grade hundreds of tests accurately but we can't count votes? FFS

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: GenHoth
How are we so bad at voting in the 21st century? A fucking school can grade hundreds of tests accurately but we can't count votes? FFS

I have to agree with the contention of Ozoned and disagree with this GenHolt post.
American elections always have a certain fraction defective as any process does.
Usually the margin of victory is many many many times greater than the margin of fraud or voter error, if not in the first count, then certainly after the second count.

But everyone once in a great while we get a real squeaker, and 225 ballots out of some 30 million cast if I remember right, amounts to a one vote in 100,000 cast margin of victory. And that means both sides get real hyperspacistic in trying to dispute any adverse vote they can.

Because most states have no cross check paper ballots to compare to electronic counts means most states have a far higher level of some fraud, its only the closeness of the margin of victory that makes the Franken Coleman race almost unique in US history.

The somewhat comparable race in 2008 was the Stevens race in Alaska, and with far fewer voters, Stevens conceded defeat when a recount showed the Begish lead was in the many thousand vote range.

And in fact many States do not even bother to count equally valid absentee votes, usually the contest makes those usual small number of votes trivial unless the election is very close.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Gee, three basically GOP posters saying toss the election results, basically admitting its the only chance for Coleman or the GOP.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Gee, three basically GOP posters saying toss the election results, basically admitting its the only chance for Coleman or the GOP.

Its the same Florida 2000 election argument again, but the fullness of time shows Gore would have won with a full and fair recount.

Wonderful observation!

 

[zephyrprime]

This is ridiculous. The government needs to get a brain and realize that elections have limited resolving power as do all instruments. The fastest, most fair, most legitimate way to solve issues like to is that have a runoff election.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
This is ridiculous. The government needs to get a brain and realize that elections have limited resolving power as do all instruments. The fastest, most fair, most legitimate way to solve issues like to is that have a runoff election.

No such thing as a *do-over* in election law (that I am aware of).

In state and local elections even when it is a tie vote the winner is selected by drawing lots.

The only time a run-off election is permitted by law is in a primary vote when a single candidate does not meet the minimum threshold specified within the law.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
This is ridiculous. The government needs to get a brain and realize that elections have limited resolving power as do all instruments. The fastest, most fair, most legitimate way to solve issues like to is that have a runoff election.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is all well and fine to make that assertion, except embedded in the constitution and laws of all 50 States are procedures to be followed in the event of close elections.

And as Harvey already pointed out, there is zero nada zippo zip in the Minnesota State Constitution or election law to support an run off election. And in fact it mandated the procedure we just went through. Now all Franken and Coleman are doing is squabbling
over slight vagueness in the wording off the laws regarding the criteria for rejection of a very small sub set of ballots.

 

[sandorski]

Does Minnesota get a few Months Tax Free?

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
This is ridiculous. The government needs to get a brain and realize that elections have limited resolving power as do all instruments. The fastest, most fair, most legitimate way to solve issues like to is that have a runoff election.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is all well and fine to make that assertion, except embedded in the constitution and laws of all 50 States are procedures to be followed in the event of close elections.

And as Harvey already pointed out, there is zero nada zippo zip in the Minnesota State Constitution or election law to support an run off election. And in fact it mandated the procedure we just went through. Now all Franken and Coleman are doing is squabbling
over slight vagueness in the wording off the laws regarding the criteria for rejection of a very small sub set of ballots.

I'm not saying that they should have a do over now since obviously there is no law to allow it. I'm saying that law needs to be changed to allow it going forward.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I'm not saying that they should have a do over now since obviously there is no law to allow it. I'm saying that law needs to be changed to allow it going forward.

The way it's set up now is fine. A margin of 1 vote is still a victory. The law handling ties is acceptable too -- resorting to drawing lots.

Having do over elections when things are close makes little sense. What's the guarantee that the next election won't be close too? Do you have a third run off? And a fourth? Until someone wins by a big margin? The only guarantee in a runoff is that there will be flaws and controversy in that election too. And who would pay for these run off elections? When would they be scheduled and how long of a time period would be allocated for the counting and recounting process for these runoffs?

A runoff would take longer, cost more, with no guarantee of any change in situation. Aside for the chance that the losing candidate might win, why would anyone want one?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I'm not saying that they should have a do over now since obviously there is no law to allow it. I'm saying that law needs to be changed to allow it going forward.

The way it's set up now is fine. A margin of 1 vote is still a victory. The law handling ties is acceptable too -- resorting to drawing lots.

Having do over elections when things are close makes little sense. What's the guarantee that the next election won't be close too? Do you have a third run off? And a fourth? Until someone wins by a big margin? The only guarantee in a runoff is that there will be flaws and controversy in that election too. And who would pay for these run off elections? When would they be scheduled and how long of a time period would be allocated for the counting and recounting process for these runoffs?

A runoff would take longer, cost more, with no guarantee of any change in situation. Aside for the chance that the losing candidate might win, why would anyone want one?

Georgia had a runoff that declared a winner 3 months ago.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I'm not saying that they should have a do over now since obviously there is no law to allow it. I'm saying that law needs to be changed to allow it going forward.

The way it's set up now is fine. A margin of 1 vote is still a victory. The law handling ties is acceptable too -- resorting to drawing lots.

Having do over elections when things are close makes little sense. What's the guarantee that the next election won't be close too? Do you have a third run off? And a fourth? Until someone wins by a big margin? The only guarantee in a runoff is that there will be flaws and controversy in that election too. And who would pay for these run off elections? When would they be scheduled and how long of a time period would be allocated for the counting and recounting process for these runoffs?

A runoff would take longer, cost more, with no guarantee of any change in situation. Aside for the chance that the losing candidate might win, why would anyone want one?

Georgia had a runoff that declared a winner 3 months ago.

It was pretty costly though. Lets just seat Coleman until the courts can sort it out.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I'm not saying that they should have a do over now since obviously there is no law to allow it. I'm saying that law needs to be changed to allow it going forward.

The way it's set up now is fine. A margin of 1 vote is still a victory. The law handling ties is acceptable too -- resorting to drawing lots.

Having do over elections when things are close makes little sense. What's the guarantee that the next election won't be close too? Do you have a third run off? And a fourth? Until someone wins by a big margin? The only guarantee in a runoff is that there will be flaws and controversy in that election too. And who would pay for these run off elections? When would they be scheduled and how long of a time period would be allocated for the counting and recounting process for these runoffs?

A runoff would take longer, cost more, with no guarantee of any change in situation. Aside for the chance that the losing candidate might win, why would anyone want one?

Georgia had a runoff that declared a winner 3 months ago.

So Georgia had a runoff that cost the tax payers time, money, and they ended up with the same exact winner as in the general election. More than 40% of voters in the general election chose not to vote in the runoff. How did Georgians benefit from this runoff again?

 

[Lemon law]

Yes, and Georgia State law also required that runoff when no single person got more than 50% of the vote. And if Georgia had many three candidate elections, where a candidate is doing better than chance odds at 40%, the Georgia method of then having a run off election between the top two vote getters would then seemingly guarantee that one candidate then gets more than 50% of the vote., But is the Martin v. Chambliss run off election had been as close as the Franken Coleman race, Georgia with its totally different set of laws would be in the same dilemma as Minnesota.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hacp

It was pretty costly though. Lets just seat Coleman until the courts can sort it out.

I think in all close elections we should seat the losing candidate until the courts work it out.

Wait, what?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hacp

It was pretty costly though. Lets just seat Coleman until the courts can sort it out.

I think in all close elections we should seat the losing candidate until the courts work it out.

Wait, what?

Its unclear who is the winner and who is the loser. Besides, Coleman was the former senator, so he'll hit the ground running.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hacp

It was pretty costly though. Lets just seat Coleman until the courts can sort it out.

I think in all close elections we should seat the losing candidate until the courts work it out.

Wait, what?

Its unclear who is the winner and who is the loser. Besides, Coleman was the former senator, so he'll hit the ground running.

Ahh no there was a recount that Coleman agreed to. Of course when it did not end the way he wanted he filed a lawsuit. The legal winner right now is Franken, and that is based on what Coleman was for until he was against it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I'm not saying that they should have a do over now since obviously there is no law to allow it. I'm saying that law needs to be changed to allow it going forward.

The way it's set up now is fine. A margin of 1 vote is still a victory. The law handling ties is acceptable too -- resorting to drawing lots.

Having do over elections when things are close makes little sense. What's the guarantee that the next election won't be close too? Do you have a third run off? And a fourth? Until someone wins by a big margin? The only guarantee in a runoff is that there will be flaws and controversy in that election too. And who would pay for these run off elections? When would they be scheduled and how long of a time period would be allocated for the counting and recounting process for these runoffs?

A runoff would take longer, cost more, with no guarantee of any change in situation. Aside for the chance that the losing candidate might win, why would anyone want one?

Georgia had a runoff that declared a winner 3 months ago.

So Georgia had a runoff that cost the tax payers time, money, and they ended up with the same exact winner as in the general election. More than 40% of voters in the general election chose not to vote in the runoff. How did Georgians benefit from this runoff again?

Lets see, they have a winner. Which is the point of a election no?

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY
A runoff would take longer, cost more, with no guarantee of any change in situation. Aside for the chance that the losing candidate might win, why would anyone want one?

Georgia had a runoff that declared a winner 3 months ago.

So Georgia had a runoff that cost the tax payers time, money, and they ended up with the same exact winner as in the general election. More than 40% of voters in the general election chose not to vote in the runoff. How did Georgians benefit from this runoff again?

Lets see, they have a winner. Which is the point of a election no?

Again, they ended up with the same exact winner as in the general election. Not a very compelling argument.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY
A runoff would take longer, cost more, with no guarantee of any change in situation. Aside for the chance that the losing candidate might win, why would anyone want one?

Georgia had a runoff that declared a winner 3 months ago.

So Georgia had a runoff that cost the tax payers time, money, and they ended up with the same exact winner as in the general election. More than 40% of voters in the general election chose not to vote in the runoff. How did Georgians benefit from this runoff again?

Lets see, they have a winner. Which is the point of a election no?

Again, they ended up with the same exact winner as in the general election. Not a very compelling argument.

So what?

I dont see having a specific winner as a criteria for a system to work. The simple fact it determined a winner vs a prolonged court battle is good enough for me.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY
A runoff would take longer, cost more, with no guarantee of any change in situation. Aside for the chance that the losing candidate might win, why would anyone want one?

Georgia had a runoff that declared a winner 3 months ago.

So Georgia had a runoff that cost the tax payers time, money, and they ended up with the same exact winner as in the general election. More than 40% of voters in the general election chose not to vote in the runoff. How did Georgians benefit from this runoff again?

Lets see, they have a winner. Which is the point of a election no?

Again, they ended up with the same exact winner as in the general election. Not a very compelling argument.

So what?

I dont see having a specific winner as a criteria for a system to work. The simple fact it determined a winner vs a prolonged court battle is good enough for me.

Agreed, this court sht is ridiculous and in the end will cost more than any runoff election.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: L00PY
A runoff would take longer, cost more, with no guarantee of any change in situation. Aside for the chance that the losing candidate might win, why would anyone want one?

Georgia had a runoff that declared a winner 3 months ago.

So Georgia had a runoff that cost the tax payers time, money, and they ended up with the same exact winner as in the general election. More than 40% of voters in the general election chose not to vote in the runoff. How did Georgians benefit from this runoff again?

Lets see, they have a winner. Which is the point of a election no?

Again, they ended up with the same exact winner as in the general election. Not a very compelling argument.

So what?

I dont see having a specific winner as a criteria for a system to work. The simple fact it determined a winner vs a prolonged court battle is good enough for me.

Agreed, this court sht is ridiculous and in the end will cost more than any runoff election.

Yea lets keep doing runoffs. That way every time there is one, one person files a lawsuit and then we do another run off as they learned why agree with the count when you can just file a lawsuit and get another shot.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Yea lets keep doing runoffs. That way every time there is one, one person files a lawsuit and then we do another run off as they learned why agree with the count when you can just file a lawsuit and get another shot.

You know there are rules to initiating a runoff? You act like every election will come down to a 50/50 split, be realistic: it's only for extremely close elections which are not all that common, and a runoff IS a viable solution. If voters were really that passionate about their candidate, then they should have no trouble getting off their ass and voting for them a second time.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Yea lets keep doing runoffs. That way every time there is one, one person files a lawsuit and then we do another run off as they learned why agree with the count when you can just file a lawsuit and get another shot.

You know there are rules to initiating a runoff? You act like every election will come down to a 50/50 split, be realistic: it's only for extremely close elections which are not all that common, and a runoff IS a viable solution. If voters were really that passionate about their candidate, then they should have no trouble getting off their ass and voting for them a second time.

Yeah he acts as if every election will be a runoff or another election. What hyperbole.