All clear on the recount?

Posted at 3:58 PM on November 24, 2008 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

MPR's Steve Mullis has put this graphic together showing Web pages status updates of the U.S. Senate recount in Minnesota on the MPR, Star Tribune, and Pioneer Press Web sites.

MPR's numbers are based on the Secretary of State's recount site, which treats the results the same way they're treated on election night.

The Star Tribune and Pioneer Press are focusing on the gap between Coleman and Franken on election night, and then subtracting or adding to that as differences in each precinct are reported from election night to the recount.

Clear as mud?

---

Comments (6)

I realize this is an important story and nooze outlets feel obliged to cover it, but doesn't this seem ... how shall I put it ... deathly dull?

It's going to be quite a while before we have this settled because we have to go through Lizard People ballots and all the rest before we're sure.

I really wonder who's paying attention to every detail. I know, I know - someone *has* to, this is our democracy and all that. But I'd go absolute nuts if I was on top of this. Sorry, more nuts.

Posted by Erik Hare | November 24, 2008 4:43 PM

---

I would be interested in the vote margin reported based upon the original ruling of the local election official - prior to any challenge. (along with the number which you are presenting which excludes all challenged ballots pending review). Coleman continues to "game" the news media by artificially inflating his vote margin with hundreds of frivolous ballot challenges. If people knew that Coleman was presently only winning by 50 votes with the large Democratic population centers yet to be re-counted, that would paint a whole different picture. The Coleman camp can win the spin war with this phase of the recount, if the local news media continues to fail to report this aspect of the recount.

Posted by P.J. | November 24, 2008 5:09 PM

---

//If people knew that Coleman was presently only winning by 50 votes with the large Democratic population centers yet to be re-counted,

Maybe, but when I left here early on Weds. Nov. 5th, they were saying the same thing because the Iron Range was still out.

Part of me just says "wake me when we have a winner" because everything else is just showbiz.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 24, 2008 5:33 PM

---

I have been looking at these challenged ballots and I am wondering . . .

Does the entire State of Minnesota print ALL of their ballots with the names of the candidates in the b>same order

Here in Oregon, our candidate's names are shuffled so any two people receiving a ballot (standing next to each other at the Elections office for instance) are UNLIKELY to have candidates in a race with the same exact order, unless there are only two candidates. It is probably possible for two ballots to have one race in identical order but the entire ballot will certainly not be the same.

How does a candidate achieve the order, i.e., how does Barkley get the first line and incumbent Coleman get the second line?

BTW, thanks to Minnesota for going through this. I thought that we would have something similar here in Oregon but the Democratic stronghold of Portland pushed Senator Merkley to victory taking out the incumbent Gordon Smith.

Good luck on doing what seven other states have done - vote out the Republicans!

Posted by Gary Rowell | November 24, 2008 7:09 PM

---

Bob- Your numbers guy at fivethirtyeight.com, Nate Silver, has a great post on the recount and challenged ballots.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/minnesota-challenged-ballot-primer.html

Posted by brian hanf | November 25, 2008 8:55 AM

---

Day 2, Ballot #3 - The X-factor didn't provide enough info for me to decide.

My initial thought was that the voter mistakenly marked an X, then filled in the oval dot; however, he/she filled in the adjacent "Yes" dot with no ambiguity.

I then discovered Minnesota, like my home state of Wisconsin, had the Presidential contest at the top, making the context important:

- if the Presidential contest likewise showed a filled in dot with an X through it, the voter was likely thinking with the old X-the-box mindset, then went back to correct it. In that case he/she probably meant to vote for Coleman.

- if the Presidential contest showed a solid dot without a cross, then the X through Norm Coleman's name probably meant a rejection.

I wonder how the recount officials actually decided this one.

Posted by Andra Keller | November 26, 2008 1:52 AM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Save to Delicious
• Submit to Digg
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories

Become a Sponsor