(MN-Senate) Coleman now wants to disregard '08 election

[erik_t]

Four months later (that's 1/18 of a US Senate term) and we're still not even through the first trial...

Coleman camp asks that election result be 'set aside'


For more than a month, Norm Coleman stressed flaws in Minnesota's election system.

And on Monday, Coleman lawyer Jim Langdon wrote the three-judge panel to suggest the problems are so serious they may not be able to declare a winner.

"Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates -- and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast -- the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election," Langdon wrote in a letter to the court.

Coleman's team rested most of his case Monday in the U.S. Senate election trial after more testimony underscoring problems with the election system. Under questioning from the Republican's lawyers, Minnesota's elections director acknowledged inaccurate data in the registration system that could exclude otherwise qualified people from voting.

Now Al Franken's team will try to convince judges that things aren't so bad after all.

Franken lawyer Marc Elias said the team will begin a case today that will include evidence "about the good job that the state of Minnesota did ... that the hardworking auditors and election night officials did. How the system worked, by and large."

But Franken lawyers will walk a tightrope with that strategy, because they also plan to call on voters to testify that their absentee ballots were wrongly rejected. While Coleman seeks to count 2,000 rejected ballots, the DFLer has a list of 804 rejected ballots he wants reconsidered. Elias said more than 100 voters could be called to testify, including more than a dozen today.

Coleman rested the bulk of his case as the trial entered its sixth week. Franken's side of the trial is likely to last two to three weeks, Elias said. Franken holds a 225-vote lead that he gained after the state Canvassing Board, on Jan. 5, certified the results of a recount.

(article continues on related matters)

Star-Tribune

Remember Coleman's sentiments months ago when he was ahead by a similar margain (actually 215, compared to 225 now, if memory serves):

If you asked me what I would do, I would step back. I just think the healing process is so important. The possibility of any change of this magnitude in the voting system we have would be so remote — that would be my judgment. Mr. Franken will decide what Mr. Franken will do.

video

Coleman finished his opening arguments a few days back. No end appears to be in sight, and the people of Minnesota continue to have less representation in the US Senate than they are lawfully entitled to.

To avoid this being the obnoxious "posted-without-comment"-spam I see so much of here, what solution do people see to this dilemma? Errors are made in any system with millions of entries, and it appears to me that introducing paper-trail-less electronic systems (at least as we know them) causes more problems than it solves. And people will always fight tooth-and-nail if they think they have a snowball's chance in hell. Giving the judges the power to just shout down the opposition ala Florida 2000 does not seem like a good answer either.

It's not obvious to me how to avoid this sort of bullshit. Anyone have any thoughts?

[Big Phil]

Have the Supreme Court (of Minnesota or the US) make a decision quickly (i.e., in the next few weeks). Then live with it. SCOTUS was able to make a decision on Florida back in 2000 by December; why is this one taking so long?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Automatic run-off elections based on too-narrow of margins?

[Guardsman Bass]

That's what should have happened in the first place - when the results came in too narrow, they should have held a run-off election between the top two candidates, like what they did in Georgia with Saxby Chambliss.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Have the Supreme Court (of Minnesota or the US) make a decision quickly (i.e., in the next few weeks). Then live with it. SCOTUS was able to make a decision on Florida back in 2000 by December; why is this one taking so long?

Kneejerk: Because this time the Republicans will be hurt by it.

With more thought: I don't think anyone wants a repeat of THAT mess again.

[Patrick Degan]

"Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates -- and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast -- the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election," Langdon wrote in a letter to the court.

Translation: "We're not at all sure we're going to win this in court, and we've lost the recounts, so we want another vote."

[B5B7]

Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates -- and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast -- the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election," Langdon wrote in a letter to the court.

Unless one has reason to assume otherwise, then could expect the "illegal" votes to be evenly distributed between the two candidates. Therefore, the margin would remain pretty much the same. An assumption one could make if a Republitard is that all the illegal votes are for the Democrat candidate. Would need a clear bias in the illegal votes that exceeded X, where X is the margin, for the result to be affected; so, for instance, if X = 1,000, and illegal votes in 2:1 ratio in favour of winning [say, Democrat] candidate, then number of illegal votes would need to be at least 3X [ie 3,000] o have an affect on actual determination of winner.

If one goes by precedent, we know that in the past, that is in 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, that dubious treatment in voting favoured Bush.

[Pelranius]

What makes Coleman think that he can win a new election, if they somehow resurrect Roger Taney and those Plessy vs Ferguson asshats to give him what he wants? I doubt the Minnesotan voters have very much patience left and any more new campaigning time is probably going to drive them over the edge.

[Morilore]

"Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates -- and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast -- the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election," Langdon wrote in a letter to the court.

What the fuck is Coleman trying to accomplish here? A runoff? Does he honestly think that people around here aren't sick of his bullshit? Then again, it's possible that millions of people wouldn't show up for a runoff out of apathetic disgust, and die-hard Republitards could pull it off. Is that what he's shooting for? Or is he saying we should throw out the election period and keep him in office just because?

My god that man's a piece of shit.

To avoid this being the obnoxious "posted-without-comment"-spam I see so much of here, what solution do people see to this dilemma? Errors are made in any system with millions of entries, and it appears to me that introducing paper-trail-less electronic systems (at least as we know them) causes more problems than it solves. And people will always fight tooth-and-nail if they think they have a snowball's chance in hell. Giving the judges the power to just shout down the opposition ala Florida 2000 does not seem like a good answer either.

Immediate runoffs are probably the most reasonable response, but the problem with that is that the American electoral sports season is so ridiculously drawn out that after Election Day everyone just wants it to be over. I can't see the idea of hey lets do it again guys gaining much support around here.

The courts need to have the power to shut down opposition at some point, in order to get some governance crammed in between all the politics. I mean, we literally do not have a senator right now. This shit needs to stop.

What makes Coleman think that he can win a new election, if they somehow resurrect Roger Taney and those Plessy vs Ferguson asshats to give him what he wants? I doubt the Minnesotan voters have very much patience left and any more new campaigning time is probably going to drive them over the edge.

You posted when I was typing, but as I said above, it's possible that Coleman's banking on the majority of Minnesotans not showing up for a new election out of disgust with the whole system, leaving only the diehard Republitards and Coleman-backers.

[erik_t]

Immediate runoffs are probably the most reasonable response, but the problem with that is that the American electoral sports season is so ridiculously drawn out that after Election Day everyone just wants it to be over. I can't see the idea of hey lets do it again guys gaining much support around here.

The courts need to have the power to shut down opposition at some point, in order to get some governance crammed in between all the politics. I mean, we literally do not have a senator right now. This shit needs to stop.

I know, man, emphasis on we. But I don't know a good non-ad-hoc way to define when it is or isn't okay to shut this shit down.

[Glocksman]

WTF???

Most Americans see Minnesotans and MN government as so honest and civic minded that they might as well be Canadians.

Asking me to see a narrow statewide election result in Mississippi, California, or even my own state of Indiana as 'flawed' is something I could do easily, but Minnesota and some other states have reputations for honesty and government transparency that make the claim not very credible at first glance.

That said, Coleman could be correct.
Then again, I could really be Barack Obama posting here under a pseudonym.

Neither are very likely.

IOW, it's possible but the burden of proof is heavy on Coleman.