Comments on: The Franken, Coleman Recounts

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:01:53 +0000

NA- I do agree that from everything I have read, the way Minnesota conducted the recount could be a model for the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, the loser's decision to seek legal redress leaves the state with only one senator for an unknowable period of time. its all legal but it hurts the legitimacy of the final victor.

By: NordicAngst

NordicAngst — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:25:06 +0000

Minnesota has handled this tense election in a transparent and laudable fashion. This was not the mess Florida was nor was it a tie. People take a civic, no nonsense view of government in the high turnout North-Central region and it shows. This was simply a very close race that is now over.

By: StockBoySF

StockBoySF — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:15:28 +0000

I don't like either Franken or Coleman, but I thought the MN election results had Franken being the winner, and that Coleman is just prolonging the process. Isn't the argument he's using that all votes should be treated and counted by the same standard, and because different voting districts had different standards there's a basis to challenge? Personally I think each district can use their own judgement, if that's absolutely required. I would hope that most ballots have an obvious vote cast for a candidate.

There is no tie, Don Quijote is correct that if Coleman was in the lead by one vote then no Republicans would call for a run-off.

As for the article stating that the Republicans are looking for people whose ballots were rejected.... am I to assume that Coleman would do the right thing and bring forth ballots for Franken if he uncovered some? Otherwise all Coleman is doing is suppressing the votes he doesn't like. Not very democratic.

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:10:42 +0000

I think both are equally unsuitable for the office.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:09:29 +0000

Personally, I hope Franken gets the seat.

He'll improve the prospects for Republicans way more than Coleman will.

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:56:25 +0000

Well, this endless haggling over a few ballots is no answer- and its not cheap either.

Now neither will be seen as legit.

By: river

river — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:06:34 +0000

agree with you Chris WWW. . .i was reading an article on the web this morning which stated Coleman's camp had brought forth some shady ballots???. . .just stating that re-counts really need to be protected. . .2000 does not seem so far away. . . .

By: roland1

roland1 — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:06:44 +0000

A run off ?So the run off can be contested ?We have a canvas board,We have both sides agreeing to the judges,lets leave it there;;;;;;; Pretty simple;

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:50:19 +0000

but rather legitimate recounts

Who decides what's legit?

This recount was very transparent. Weren't they showing videos of the entire process so you could see which ballots were counted and which weren't?

By: river

river — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:37:20 +0000

no runoff election. . .but rather legitimate recounts. . .we are told EVERY vote can make a difference. . .

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:27:06 +0000

F**k that! If Coleman was in the lead by 1 vote, there would not be a single republican calling for a runoff election…

Remember 2000!

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:23:03 +0000

It may be expensive- but I'm in favor of a runoff election when its this close.