|
Title: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: Fuzzy on November 20, 2008, 12:52:14 PM We had to have the easiest ballots to understand in the nation this year. Simply fill in the oval next to the name of the candidate you want. Yet it appears that for some people it is still too complex.
Anywho, here is a sample of our "hanging chads": http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/ Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: Aske on November 20, 2008, 12:57:56 PM lizard people.
Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: Clive on November 20, 2008, 01:10:45 PM They don't seem that confusing to anyone not running for a Senate seat.
Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: Fuzzy on November 20, 2008, 01:11:47 PM lizard people. Don't laugh. I think they all live in the 6th congressional district. Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: Clive on November 20, 2008, 01:15:04 PM "A cricket in every pot!"
Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: gleek on November 20, 2008, 01:32:54 PM lizard people. Don't laugh. I think they all live in the 6th congressional district. That was clearly a write-in vote for Bachmann. Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: stroh on November 20, 2008, 02:05:45 PM (http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/05/09/land-of-the-lost.jpg)
Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: stroh on November 20, 2008, 03:04:58 PM Dear GolfHos,
What happens if it's a tie? Thanks, Donovan Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: Clive on November 20, 2008, 03:08:29 PM Dear GolfHos, Dear Donovan,What happens if it's a tie? Thanks, Donovan You tell your kids it's awesome, and you make sure you wear it at least twice in the ensuing four months. Then you burn it. Welcome, Mr. Politenessman (watch out for my steel hanky!) Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: E-A-G-L-E! on November 20, 2008, 03:17:09 PM Friends of mine were election judges, and it was interesting to hear of some of their experiences. One voter in particular had a difficult time. You know how it goes, you register, get your ballot, listen to their explanation, etc... Well, after all that, she placed check marks in each one instead of filling in the little ovals, which was rejected of course. So the judges gave her a new ballot, and explained again to color in the oval. However, she placed check marks in the ovals. Rejection #2. The judges, being the accommodating people they should be, gave her another ballot and explained everything again. Alas, she placed check marks in the ovals yet again. After being rejected 3 times, she decided it was too hard and walked out. :sad3:
Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: Clive on November 20, 2008, 03:35:12 PM The MN statute that was linked in the OP sounded pretty clear that so long as the voter used a mark consistently to indicate a vote, that mark was sufficient. I.e., her check-mark v. fully coloring in the oval shouldn't have been cause for rejection.
Quote 204C.22 DETERMINING VOTER'S INTENT. Subdivision 1.Ballot valid if intent determinable. A ballot shall not be rejected for a technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter's intent. In determining intent the principles contained in this section apply. Subd. 10.Different marks. If a voter uniformly uses a mark other than (X) which clearly indicates an intent to mark a name or to mark yes or no on a question, and the voter does not use (X) anywhere else on the ballot, a vote shall be counted for each candidate or response to a question marked. If a voter uses two or more distinct marks, such as (X) and some other mark, a vote shall be counted for each candidate or response to a question marked, unless the ballot is marked by distinguishing characteristics that make the entire ballot defective as provided in subdivision 13. Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: E-A-G-L-E! on November 20, 2008, 05:03:28 PM Well, being I wasn't witness to it and thus not having firsthand information or knowledge of the circumstances, what I gathered from the conversation was that it wasn't the judges rejecting it, rather the machine was. It could well be that the precinct was therefore at fault for not having an alternative plan for when that happens. Or it could also be that he meant x and I thought check mark, as the above post was not verbatim. I don't know.
Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: stroh on November 20, 2008, 05:17:55 PM So you never actually saw the defendants leaving the Sac-O-Suds did you?
Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: Clive on November 20, 2008, 06:07:51 PM Not questioning you, EAGLE, but rather the judges' possible misapplication of MN election law.
Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: hobbit on November 20, 2008, 06:10:33 PM "A cricket in every pot!" Am I the only geek that chuckled when he read this? :watchingyou: Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: stroh on November 20, 2008, 06:13:30 PM "A cricket in every pot!" Am I the only geek that chuckled when he read this? :watchingyou: Noop. [sm_anon] Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: MFAWG on November 20, 2008, 06:21:57 PM lizard people. I, for one, would like to welcome our new Lizard People Overlords. The beauty of that is that long ago, before he, Al Franken, became one of the most obnoxious people in American politics, he, Al Franken, would have been the type of guy to encourage people to write 'Lizard People' in on their ballots even if it mean that it cost him, Al Franken, a few votes. I guess it's not so funny now that he, Al Franken, is running for Congress in Minnesota where he, Al Franken, is from and has become the type of obnoxious tool that only he, Al Franken, could possibly become after being obnoxious while he, Al Franken was sitting on the sidelines. PS: Election law is for pussies. Lizard People FTW!!! Title: Re: [Politics/Religion] Minnesota re-count Post by: Aske on November 20, 2008, 07:39:24 PM :)
|