Minnesota SC rejects the Franken bid to get seated.

[Vette73]

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.

That is not what you said. You said...
"this court sht is ridiculous and in the end will cost more than any runoff election"

By that theory I just keep filing a lawsuit until someone agrees its cheaper to do another runoff.

Funny how Coleman agreed to the recount rules and after it does not go his way acts like a little child and files a lawsuit.

Do you not see what coleman is doing is what I am talking about. If there is a option for a do over/rechance then someone will act like a child and drag it out ala Coleman.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

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.

That is not what you said. You said...
"this court sht is ridiculous and in the end will cost more than any runoff election"

By that theory I just keep filing a lawsuit until someone agrees its cheaper to do another runoff.

Funny how Coleman agreed to the recount rules and after it does not go his way acts like a little child and files a lawsuit.

Do you not see what coleman is doing is what I am talking about. If there is a option for a do over/rechance then someone will act like a child and drag it out ala Coleman.

I see your point but it depends on the state. Since Minnesota doesn't do "runoffs" (to my knowledge) but a "recount" (you may be confusing the two terms), then yes Coleman can drag it out through litigation. I was remarking that it will cost more for Minnesota since it's going through the courts vs other states that use a runoff instead (like Georgia).

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

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.

That is not what you said. You said...
"this court sht is ridiculous and in the end will cost more than any runoff election"

By that theory I just keep filing a lawsuit until someone agrees its cheaper to do another runoff.

Funny how Coleman agreed to the recount rules and after it does not go his way acts like a little child and files a lawsuit.

Do you not see what coleman is doing is what I am talking about. If there is a option for a do over/rechance then someone will act like a child and drag it out ala Coleman.

I see your point but it depends on the state. Since Minnesota doesn't do "runoffs" (to my knowledge) but a "recount" (you may be confusing the two terms), then yes Coleman can drag it out through litigation. I was remarking that it will cost more for Minnesota since it's going through the courts vs other states that use a runoff instead (like Georgia).

I disagree with the cost. Right now Coleman is the one paying and the courts which cost $ no matter if there is a case or not. For a runoff you have the state that has to pay and it cost quite a bit, let alone if that happened and Coleman again filed more lawsuits if he lost again.

 

[Genx87]

The 3rd party candidate wouldnt be part of the runoff. I doubt the election would be close enough for a lawsuit the second time around. That would take some serious odds.

 

[L00PY]

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.

The point is that a run off changed nothing in that case. Just take the results from the general election and you've got a winner. Pushing for a runoff when things just because things are close makes no sense. The odds of having an actual tie in a state wide election are infinitesimal. In all other case, you've got a winner without the need for a runoff.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: L00PY

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.

The point is that a run off changed nothing in that case. Just take the results from the general election and you've got a winner. Pushing for a runoff when things just because things are close makes no sense. The odds of having an actual tie in a state wide election are infinitesimal. In all other case, you've got a winner without the need for a runoff.

A runoff removes doubt of corruption/mishandled ballots. It encourages bipartisan solidarity so I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
A runoff removes doubt of corruption/mishandled ballots. It encourages bipartisan solidarity so I don't see anything wrong with it.

If you can prevent corruption/mishandled ballots in a runoff, you can prevent them in a general election. If you have corruption/mishandled ballots with a general election, you'll have them with a run off. The same applies to bipartisan solidarity.

There's no logical reason for ignoring the close results of a general election and having a run off.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: daishi5

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.

I hate entering political threads, but do you mean to say you oppose every vote being counted?

I have not followed this race, but 225 votes is a tiny lead for an election of this scale, and I would hope the democrats want every vote counted even if it might cost them a seat.

Just because republicans have been corrupt before, and are still slimy dirtballs, does not mean that when they want every vote counted we should just do the opposite.

No, not at all. I'm simply pointing out the double standard of people like "Winnar"111 who are now demanding counting all the votes yet were insisting that Al Gore's request for the same thing was somehow anti-American.

Gore wasn't asking that every vote be counted... just those in the counties that favored him.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: wetech

Gore wasn't asking that every vote be counted... just those in the counties that favored him.

Damn you Al Gore for following Florida election law!

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: wetech

Gore wasn't asking that every vote be counted... just those in the counties that favored him.

Damn you Al Gore for following Florida election law!

regardless, I was responding to his claim that Gore was asking to count every vote, which wasn't the case.

Coleman is following MN election law as well. I think he has a pretty good case, since it appears that different standards were applied to the various recounts throughout the state. It's Franken who wants to sidestep the law and get himself seated.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: wetech

Gore wasn't asking that every vote be counted... just those in the counties that favored him.

Damn you Al Gore for following Florida election law!

regardless, I was responding to his claim that Gore was asking to count every vote, which wasn't the case.

Coleman is following MN election law as well. I think he has a pretty good case, since it appears that different standards were applied to the various recounts throughout the state. It's Franken who wants to sidestep the law and get himself seated.

And Coleman agreed to the rules for the recount. It was not till after he had a problem.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
A runoff removes doubt of corruption/mishandled ballots. It encourages bipartisan solidarity so I don't see anything wrong with it.

If you can prevent corruption/mishandled ballots in a runoff, you can prevent them in a general election. If you have corruption/mishandled ballots with a general election, you'll have them with a run off. The same applies to bipartisan solidarity.

There's no logical reason for ignoring the close results of a general election and having a run off.

Wrong, because there are many examples where absentee ballots have been mishandled and abused. A second time ensures that the majority will win beyond a doubt, it's simple statistics.