Coleman-Franken Isn’t Florida 2000
Some national media types are trying to make it sound like the Coleman-Franken recount sound like Florida 2000. It’s time to deflate that myth. The minute that public hears that someone has to determine voter intent, they first flash back to Florida’s butterfly ballots, then think of the punch cards ballots.
While it’s natural to do that, that isn’t the case. In Florida 2000, people were debating voter intent based on the chad family (dimpled, pregnant or hanging.) Minnesota’s ballots are extremely straightforward. When determining voter intent, here’s some things to look for:
1) Did the voter fill in the oval?
2) Did the voter put a check mark inside the oval?
3) Did the voter put an X inside the oval?
4) Did the voter underline the candidate’s name?
5) Did the voter circle the candidate’s name?
6) Did the voter fill in more than one oval? If they did, then voter intent can’t be determined.
Minnesota election law stipulates that voter intent can only be determined by what’s marked on the ballot’s face. If people haven’t underlined or circled the candidate’s name, then they have to have either filled in the oval, put a check mark in the oval or put an X inside the oval. Those are extremely objective benchmarks. They aren’t subjective by any stretch of the imagination.
The election officials that I’ve worked with have been courteous and professional. The methods they use are consistent, logical and straightforward. Now that I’ve worked within the system, it’s my opinion that the administrative side is flawless.
I don’t want to paint the picture that everything is proceeding without incident. That isn’t accurate by any stretch of the imagination. From the outset, Franken employed a challenge strategy to make it look like he was gaining votes, thereby momentum. I wrote about that here. I’d bet that the vast majority of the ballots that they’ve challenged will wind up as Coleman votes. It’s still important that people volunteer for Team Coleman. That’s their check against Team Franken’s planned mischief.
It’s my opinion that the recount itself is a smokescreen for the fight. The fight won’t start until this reaches the courts.
Questioning the voter’s intent is aimed more at temporarily subtracting votes from Sen. Coleman’s totals. I’m betting that Team Franken hoped that they’d overtake Sen. Coleman’s totals so they could point to when they actually led. That hasn’t happened thus far. I doubt it ever will.
Each time a precinct’s worth of ballots is finished, the odds increase that Team Franken won’t get the results they want without a court fight.
That’s about the only thing the Coleman-Franken recount has in common with Florida 2000.
Technorati Tags: Recount, Norm Coleman, Al Franken, Florida Recount, Bush v. Gore, Voter Intent, Hanging Chads, Dimpled Chads, Election Laws, Lawsuits, Canvassing Boards, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog