Republicans ask Supreme Court to halt recount

[bobblehead]

bobblehead, all your examples of election foul-play are of democrats screwing republicans.

Is it possible that you are repeating the accounts you hear from right-leaning media? It sounds like you live in an echo chamber of conservative opinion.

I get what you republicans are saying: the dems are unethical scoundrals and are stealing the election. End of story.

There is nothing that can happen in this situation that you would accept if the Dem wins. Do you suggest that there should not be a recount? Can you imagine a situation in an election this close where there are not accusations of fraud?

There will be intense scrutiny. (All of which means nothing to you, since you simply assume dems are crooked and control all the levers. ) But the legal challenges will go forward, all the statisical evidence will be be there, surely some people will squeel if they are aware of "funny business". Isn't this far better than a partisian Supreme Court just declaring "its over, everybody go home."

The reason is one sided is because no one can cite me an example of a republican losing on election day, losing a hand count and getting a seat.

Yes, I am against hand recounts...I firmly believe in letting the machine count and ending it...I always have, this isn't new. Everyone admits that machines do mundane tasks without error better than people do, its a fact. I would feel the same way if Franken had won, on election night without "found" ballots, by 1 vote.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Yes, I am against hand recounts...I firmly believe in letting the machine count and ending it...I always have, this isn't new.

Fine, maybe there should be no recounts. But the rules are the rules. And no need to mention some case in 1974 where some Democrat did the nasty to some Republican, implying that history is repeating itself.

Lets talk Florida 2000, that's always fun. The electronic voting machines in the richer, REpublican districts had a less than 1% error rate. Around 10% of ballots were disqualified in districts with crude technology.

Did this gross injustice piss you off?

The Supreme Court agreed to act on the recount there because it said the recount wasn't being done uniformily. Violation of Equal Protection Clause. Well, arguably true. But the entire election process was even MORE unequal, how the hell do you disqualify just the recount!?

I like your idea of no recounts. Or put another way, it should all be done electronicly, and if a vote is somehow ambiguous, it is simply excluded in all cases. So no opportunity for recount. This policy is not perfectly fair, but probably it is more fair than the messiness of recounts.

[mraynrand]

It's not to hard. Openess and uniformity. Recounts in close elections should conform with the conditions established prior to the election - uniformly across the voting region. Voting should require some not overly burdensome standard of registration that takes place well before the day of the election and be well advertised. Ballots should be uniform as well. This will never happen. Repubs typically try to make it harder to vote in the first place and Dems try to get more people to vote even if they are voting fraudulently, voting multiple times or are dead.

If the MN recount is done correctly and uniformly, Franken will probably win by less than 50 votes. I'm not happy about that, but if it's done properly, then at least it won't look like a stolen election, like in WA in 2004, etc. etc.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The numbers I saw today are that FRanken is ahead by 250 votes out of about 3 million cast.

The recount swung about 300 net votes from the initial total. This is a tiny number, nothing suspicious in this change on face value.

I'm sure there was bias somewhere, in some cases, in the recount. Maybe enough to make a difference. But I don't see anyway to deal with it other than to fight it out in court, as Coleman will do, ballot by ballot. Its an imperfect process where the margin of victory is less than the margin of error.

[sheepshead]

25 precincts had more votes than registered voters.

[Harlan Huckleby]

25 precincts had more votes than registered voters.

If true then Coleman's legal challenges will sail through. Coleman will get the keys to his office back.

Or this could be just a misleading bit of half-truth bouncing around the right wing media-sphere.

We'll see which is the case.

[SkinBasket]

Harlan, if you think the courts are any more apolitical than the other political mechanisms at that level, you're a bigger fool than even I thought possible. I'm guessing Minnesota is similar to Wisconsin in that it's courts are filled to the gills with crazy, egomaniacal, partisan, and just plain terrible judges that don't have the intellect to match their delusions of power.

[Freak Out]

Do you guys "re-elect" your State Superior court judges in Wisco and Minn?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, if you think the courts are any more apolitical than the other political mechanisms

So the courts are part of the crooked, anti-Republican conspiracy.

a three judge panel is going to evaluate Coleman's case. The panel will be appointed by Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, who himself is an apointee of the the Republican Governor.

Something very fishy in Minnesota, indeed! The Republicans are pulling the levers and packing the panel. :P

[sheepshead]

25 precincts had more votes than registered voters.

If true then Coleman's legal challenges will sail through. Coleman will get the keys to his office back.

Or this could be just a misleading bit of half-truth bouncing around the right wing media-sphere.

We'll see which is the case.

Could be, i heard it from ORielly and Hannity last night!

[Harlan Huckleby]

I find O'Reilly to be pretty reliable. Hannity - not so much.

[SkinBasket]

Harlan, if you think the courts are any more apolitical than the other political mechanisms

So the courts are part of the crooked, anti-Republican conspiracy.

No conspiracy. Just plenty of second hand experience with state judges. They aren't the golden beacons of justice you make them out to be. I'm pretty sure you actually know that, but it doesn't fit with your conspiracy nonsense.

[Harlan Huckleby]

well, the panel of judges are being named by a republican appointee, so they are your crooks this time.

[bobblehead]

Why do you find it no big deal that machines had him losing by 700+ votes on election night, but by the time the recount started it was down to 100-? I have problems with recounts...period. I think if you can't fill out a ballot properly then tough shit...and obviously I had the same feeling when Elian Gonzalez cost Al Gore the presidency. Al Gore lost on election night, but was trying to steal it.

Democrats don't like losing, the ends justify the means. I have seen it over and over. I won $50 from a naive democrat guy I know because we bet on this recount. I gave him 2:1 that Franken would win the hand count. He has the same advisor that headed up the Washington state recount..I see a pattern, maybe you don't.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why do you find it no big deal that machines had him losing by 700+ votes on election night, but by the time the recount started it was down to 100-?

I don't know the details. I don't trust the facts as presented by editorial writers or posters. There is much editing of the "facts" going on. I will trust what the 3 judge panel determines. If Coleman has a real case, he'll prevail.

Democrats don't like losing, the ends justify the means. I have seen it over and over.

FL 2000 was the ultimate ends-justifies-the-means job by the Republicans.

Nasty, nasty people those republicans. Worse than FAvre apologists.