What we're dealing with here

Update: More ballot pictures below.

Update #2: We put together a page where you can play election judge.

More We'll probably all tire of this soon, but here's what election officials will be contending with for the next couple of weeks. This picture of an improperly marked ballot comes from photographer Bill Alkofer who was in Shorewood this morning.

It's clearly closer to the Al Franken circle, where the mark would have been properly placed assuming the voter's intention was to vote for Franken. I suppose a case could be made that it's more likely the mark of a voter trying to restart a stalled pen than a sign of intent.

But, from the Minnesota statute on voter intent:

Subd. 6.Mark out of place.

If a mark (X) is made out of its proper place, but so near a name or space as to indicate clearly the voter's intent, the vote shall be counted.

On the whole, the statute gives elections officials pretty generous discretion in determining what counts or not.

More ballot photos...

From MPR's Curtis Gilbert: The Coleman campaign challenged this ballot in Anoka county, arguing the voter drew an arrow pointing at Coleman's name after filling in the bubble next to Franken's name.

Now we've got the spirit. Here's what the statutes say relevant to our next ballot.

Subd. 13.Identifying ballot.

If a ballot is marked by distinguishing characteristics in a manner making it evident that the voter intended to identify the ballot, the entire ballot is defective.

From Gilbert again: The Franken campaign challenged this Anoka County ballot, arguing that the thumb print on it constitutes a distinguishing mark. If a voter signs a ballot or writes his Social Security Number on it, that ballot is invalid under Minnesota state law. The State Canvassing Board will need to determine whether this thumb print has the same effect.

And then there's this one.

From MPR's Tom Robertson: Here is a pic of a ballot that was challenged in Beltrami County. The voter cast their ballot for Al Franken, but also put "Lizard People" as a write-in candidate, not only in the U.S. Senate race, but for several others. The county auditor/treasurer ruled that the vote should not be counted because it's considered an overvote. Representatives for Franken challenged that decision.

For what it's worth, I vote no vote.

"Don't drink and vote" is the message I get from that.

I watched a little of the Uptake's coverage of the voting and it sounded as if "identifying marks" were going to play a role in changing the final tally.

Can someone find out how many of these ballots with identifying marks are going into the "spoiled ballot" pile?

Thank you.

I have to agree with David.

That mark off to the left isn't even within the box containing the names of the candidates. I mean, how hard is it to make a mark (any mark) inside the oval(s)?

However, I would be curious to see how this particular voter went about filling out the ovals for the other contests on the ballot.

My guess is that most of the "identifying marks" ballots will end up being challenged by one or the other campaign, and the state canvassing board will sort them out.

"I would be curious to see how this particular voter went about filling out the ovals for the other contests on the ballot."

Me too. A picture of the whole ballot might clarify this particular voter's intent.

I don't think you can use how they voted on the rest of the ballot as "intent". Plenty of people clearly voted for Obama and Coleman on the same ballot.

Personally, unless it is very clear; x on oval, circle the name, etc... I don't think it should count.

Nick- The guys above didn't mean look to see if it was a straight-ticket vote. They just meant look to see if this voter put all the votes way off to the side, or if they ordinarily used the ovals. Pretty common-sense check.

If you write in yourself for some office, would that invalidate the entire ballot?

I think the thumb print ballot should be counted... it seems clear that there was no intent by the voter to identify him or herself. I suppose that can be a test of the canvassing board.

Sooooo another vote for the lizzzzzard people.

OK that's all i got, but check out the return of "V"
http://www.variety.com/VR1117993725.html

I think Hunter S. Thompson was voting on that last ballot.

Does a write in count if you don't fill in the circle next to it?

As a leftie, I came out of the polls with pen marks on my hand from the ballpoint pens provided to us. I don't think that a smudge should count against the voter.

I THOUGHT ALL REPUBLICANS WERE LIZARD PEOPLE.

I have to agree with Shaina. I don't think accidental thumb prints should be excluded. Unless they rolled their thumb in ink and rolled it somewhere on the ballot, or something else that shows a little more "intent," besides a thumb smug, it should be counted.

brian,
If you wrote in either Franken or Coleman, or it can be deciphered as such, it will probably be counted. Regardless of whether you filled in the circle or not. Otherwise it will just go in the "other" pile with the other write-ins, Barkley votes, and invalid ballots.

If someone signs their name, initials or otherwise indicates who they are, the statutes say it is a spoiled ballot and must be discarded.

I don't think the thumbprint should be viewed as an identifying mark...unless you want to consider the DNA of skin cells potentially left on a ballot as identifying marks. No one can easily use the fingerprint to identify the voter.

BTW, is it not possible this mark was left by an election worker?

Kudos to Minnesota to actually writing their rules in favour counting a voter's intent! What are ya, free and democratic or somethin? ;)

THANK YOU for being one of the only news outlets to include the actual statutory language in your analysis of the recount. Peopele need to understand that there are rules and guidelines to how the votes are decided. It's not just about the recounter's arbitrary feelings on voter intent. Your website is extremely interesting and much appreciated!

I'm just wondering how representative these ballots are, because most of them tend to favor Franken (at least to my biased eye). Is this a random sample, or were they picked based on being interesting?

Considering the “lizard people” voter filled in the write-in oval above the senate race, it seems clear that the voter wrote in “lizard people” to choose between them and Franken. Since Franken's oval is filled in, the vote should go to him.

I agree with Hank: Lizard People was written in to give Al Franken a formidable opponent.

I think you have to reject the "Lizard People" ballot because it's an identifying mark.

I too want to know if you write in yourself (or any unknown name for that matter) for some office, would that be an identifying mark and invalidate the ballot?

The state already declared Coleman the winner. This is just ACORN pushing a recount at Obama's bidding.

Oooh no scary ACORN, one of those organizations who registers poor, dark-skinned people to vote! Nevermind that all those fictional voter registrations came to the government with a cover sheet saying "We at ACORN think these are fake, written by a few bad apples trying to meet a quota and while we're required to submit them by law, please don't accept them." Naaaah, that's not important.

I say give the ballot to "Lizard People". And since Norm is closer to a lizard than Al...

Wow ... and I thought we had some messed-up voters Tuesday before last. Guess my native Minnesota has some voters with at least as much cognitive difficulty. Our machines kicked out ballots that were mismarked - why doesn't MN have machines skilled enough to tell voters about their errors at the polling place so they could spoil the ballot and do it again, right?

Neither Obama nor ACORN has anything to do with this recount, and the state of Minnesota sure as heck hasn't declared anyone the winner.

The State of Minnesota *mandates* a recount on any election where the margin of victory equals less than one half of one percent of the total votes counted. Neither Franken nor Coleman has any control over this -- Coleman won the initial count by *only 215 votes*, way way waaay less than 0.5% of Minnesota voters.

The *State* says that with results that very close a hand recount *must* be done to make sure everyone's vote was counted. Franken would not only be a damned fool to voluntarily concede the race at this point, he would be openly undermining the democratic process.

The only 'common sense' rule I used that seemed to match the internet voting percentages, yet is likely problematic, is the cases where the vote is given to the candidate with the circle 'more darkened in' (when there is not external negation such as 'No' added to the side).

Hence although I am a Franken fan, I gave the ballot with Coleman blacked in fully, (but Franken only a horizontal scratch or two) to Coleman, while I gave the ballot with Barkley fully filled (and only a dot in Coleman) to Barkley. The one with both Coleman and Franken fully filled but with 'Franken underlined' (which most voters apparently read as Franken crossed out) was a neither vote because it could be interpreted just as fully both ways.

But 'more darkened in' seems a rather subjective metric unless the scantron machines actually provide an objective measure of 'darkening percentage' or something.

I can see where there are some instances where the campaigns are simply trying to have decisions made in their favor (Franken's camp challenging the thumbprint is the most egregious), but in the end this is politics in its raw form, and we would be naive to expect different. What irks me is how inept at life you must be to not be able to fill in a bubble on a piece of paper. Request another ballot for Christ's sake. These voters must not have supported their canidate enough to worry about their vote not being counted or switched based upon their lack of hand-eye coordination to make an ink circle.

Lord help us...

On "Lizard People": Only one bubble was filled in, so the intent is clear; the voter wanted Lizard People to be a candidate, but didn't vote for them

On the multiple-bubble-marks: Tiny dots, smudges, and pen slips (like the so-called "arrow" which looks pretty clearly like a slip) shouldn't be counted as overvotes. However, when a voter starts actually filling in a bubble and there's no external negation, the intent's no longer clear.

On the mark way off to the side: the intent is completely unclear, since it's not in a box and it's not a decipherable form of communication.

When the oval is completely filled for one candidate, and partially filled for another, they should count it as a vote for the candidate whose oval is completely filled.

The voter probably started to fill in the wrong oval by accident and then realized his or her mistake.

If a ballot is double marked, it should be INVALID, PERIOD!! When in doubt, THROW IT OUT!! It is amazing that anyone thinks that ANY of these questionable ballots should be counted! If you are so dimwitted that you can't follow simple 1st grade instructions about how to mark something so simple as an election ballot, you SHOULDN'T BE VOTING ANYWAY you cretins!

Lizard People: the bubble is the vote. Franken has the clearly and neatly filled bubble. Franken gets the vote.

Write in own name: how are they going to tell the difference between me writing in my name because I think I ought to be a senator, and you writing in my name for it? Are they going to discard your ballot by assuming it's me making my ballot 'identifiable'?

WY election judge: our machines *do* (or can) point out errors on the spot. The man in front of me caused the machine to start beeping. As he'd walked away, I looked at it, and there was a clear message that he'd voted too many times for one office (I think it might have mentioned which office, since I vaguely recall which office). Anyway, it must have been clear enough for the machine to refuse it - or at least set off an alarm. They had to call him back and take his ballot out to be invalidated and a new one assigned.

After looking at the "be an election judge" page ...

Lizard People: considering that the voter quite clearly wrote in the lizard people AND clearly voted for them above for the president, I think it obvious that they did *not* vote for this candidate for senator.

It's also pretty clear that people don't understand they can ask for a new ballot. Perhaps much of this could be eliminated by a bit of on-the-spot at-the-polling-place voter education next time by driving home this point.

Little Dots In the Bubble: Election judges ought to be able to look at the voter's style in other places. If each vote is a little dot in the bubble, then it should count for the senate. If ALL of the other votes cast are clearly filled-in or mostly-filled-in bubbles, then the little dot does not constitute intent.

Where possible, it would be nice to see the full ballot. Here are my opinions (and why)

Ballot #1: The Arrow
Reject it ... just isn't clear enough what's going on.

Ballot #2: The Thumbprint
Accept it. The Tumbprint does not show intent to identify the ballot.
"Subd. 13.Identifying ballot.

If a ballot is marked by distinguishing characteristics in a manner making it evident that the voter intended to identify the ballot, the entire ballot is defective."

Ballot #3: Outside the lines
Reject it. If every office was marked in a similar spot I MIGHT consider counting it, but on that much evidence it could very well be just a stray mark.

Ballot #4: The NO ballot
Count for Franken. Clear case of an "Attempted erasure" (see Subd. 11.)

Ballot #5: Lizard People
Count for Franken. If Franken's bubble wasn't filled in, it would be counted for "Lizard People", but especially in comparison to the Presidential line, it is clear the voter wanted Lizard People to be a candidate, but to vote for Franken.

Ballot #6: The Checkmark
Count for Franken. It would be nice to see the rest of this ballot as well. Either the checkmark or circle alone would be harder to count, but with both pieces of evidence corresponding so perfectly, I would count it.

Ballot #7: The Oops
Reject. This is probably the toughest call for me. My way of rationalizing this is that Franken's oval is "more than a dot" or "more than halfway filled in".

Ballot #8: The Dot
Count for Franken. Just a dot elsewhere doesn't give me as much pause as #7

Ballot #9: The Eraser
Count for Barkely.

Ballot #10: The Confusion
Count for Barkely. The rest are pretty clearly stray marks.

Ballot #11: The Underline
Reject. This may have been an attempted Erasure, but Jeff Lange's rationale is just plausible enough.

Damn good quiz and post. I expect and hope you will get a lot of traffic over it.

Please post more ballots and thanks.

Really, a damn good quiz.

Thanks MPR, for bringing all of the subtleties of the recount to light. You have made the unclarity of the process very clear indeed.

I hope that the five judges at the end who have to look at all of these challenged ballots have at least as much sense as the people who took this poll...I agree with the majority in every case.

God, why are some people so stupid? Is it that hard to just fill in a bubble, properly?!?

Excellent work MPR, especially having the statute there for instructions.

There are only a few where voter intent isn't easy to tell. The viewer votes are quite consistent in most examples.

As for "Lizard people," I would count that one as a vote for Franken. The voter filled in the oval for L.P. in the presidential race but left the Senate race LP oval blank, while clearly filling in the oval for Franken. This is the one instance where the issue of "identifying marks" might be raised, but I would consider it more of a protest gesture like voting for Donald Duck (as some people do) rather than as an identifier. The thumbprint is just an accident---Franken's people are off base to challenge that---who's going to be checking the fingerprint database in order to pay off a bribed voter? Ridiculous.

As a political junkie, this constitutes a post-election fix!

Although election laws vis-a-vis rejected or accepted ballots are necessary and surely exhaustive, I imagine they don't account for all possibilities. I suppose that's why some ballots can be challenged in spite of laws that would seem in direct contradiction to said challenge(s).

Here are my two cents (full disclosure: I voted for Franken)...

Ballot #1: Evidently, as some have stated, it would be interesting (potentially helpful) to see if this voter marked their ballot similarly for each contest. If so, then I believe the voter's intent in this circumstance was/is a vote for Franken. On the other hand, if the voter correctly filled in the "bubbles" throughout the remainder of the ballot, this is nothing more than a scribble ("restarting a stalled pen"), I would presume - and thus, the voter likely abstained from voting in the Senate race.

Ballot #2: I'm not convinced I see an arrow; a scribble drawn by a shaky hand is more plausible. Regardless, the "bubble" beside Franken's name is filled in rather fully and should count as a vote for him, I believe.

Ballot #3: A thumb print is hardly an identifying mark and should not be deemed as such, unless the ballot was used as a muder weapon (CSI Duluth, anyone?). In all likelihood, nearly every ballot cast has their respective voter's finger print smudged somewhere on it; besides, as one person stated, who's to say the finger print wasn't left by someone other than the voter? That said, if the voter identified their choice using an ink-soaked finger (I'm sure it has happened!), it should done so, consistently and clearly throughout the ballot. This strange way to fill out a ballot leaves little room for intent; in other words, a finger print can cover a large enough surface on such a ballot so as to overlap more than one candidate. Oufff, just use a pen or pencil already!

Ballot #4: Overvote, in my opinion. This genius voted for Franken and also decided to write in a candidate, albeit without filling in the "bubble". I still view this as an overvote.

I agreed with the majority on all these examples. I think there needs to be a way to school people in filling out ballots. They're standing in line for how long? Clear instructions need to be displayed on posters along the waiting areas. Kids should be getting this stuff in civics classes. A single design for ballots would also help. How about a desk where people could take ballots they know they've made a mistake on?

Billions of financial transactions are conducted every day, and are tallied to the penny, virtually without error. I have to believe that the inadequacies we see in voting methods are intentional so some can game the system to their advantage.

"God, why are some people so stupid? Is it that hard to just fill in a bubble, properly?!?"

My wife brought up the point that if we hadn't grown up taking "fill in the bubble" tests, filling in a bubble on a ballot might seem pretty weird. Especially if english weren't our first language.

I think people still would have to work at not paying attention to all the signs... and there are probably people that are just stupid. But you don't have to take an intelligence test to vote.

I am totally voting for Lizard People next time I can't make up my mind.

The voter only wrote in "Lizard People" in the Senate race, but didn't actually mark the bubble for the write-in. Franken gets the vote.

Full disclosure -- I'm a leftie partisan, but I voted squarely on the samples provided, included some votes for Coleman. This is fun. Let's do Florida 2000 next!

As an election judge you often need to see the entire ballot. Regarding the mark outside the line, were all the marks for all the candidates made the same way or was the voter able to fill the circles? If so, I think they were trying to get their pen to work. The thumbprint is perfectly understandable by someone who is hurrying from a trade's job to get to the polls before they close or from someone who had to check something on their engine before coming up to vote. It happens!

If there is an overvote some people make that choice as a statement to indicate that they don't think there is a hill of beans of difference between the two. The one that says no should be a Coleman vote. Where there is a dot, then a full circle, the full circle should count. I believe the rest of the ballot would indicate the voter was able to adequately fill the circle to make the choice. I told the voters that if they made any mistake to bring the ballot back, and we would give them a new ballot. When one voter did make a tiny dot in a circle where he did not want it, the voting machine did reject the ballot so he chose to get a new ballot and re-fill the ballot. There are voters who do not care enough if they have overvoted and choose to send the ballot through knowing that that will invalidate the vote for the elected position. Be careful not to think that everyone has the same mindset that you do!

PS. I heard that our precinct was already counted and the count came out exactly as our judges called the votes. Way to go for our judges and our voters!

The 'distinguishing mark' of a thumbprint seems a bit ridiculous. While the print on the pictured ballot is apparent, aren't prints on most - if not all ballots? My hands weren't greasy on voting day, so my prints won't be visible to the naked eye; but that doesn't mean they're not there. If greasy guy's thumbprint invalidates his ballot, nearly all ballots should likewise be eliminated.

I think that several of these ballots could actually be votes for the FSM by a devoted pastafarian!

I'm just surprized that someone would go to the polling station, wait in line for (possibly) a long time, and then write in some non-existent people. It seems an awfully small amount of entertainment for such an effort...

As the official Presidential candidate on the Lizard People ticket, I believe that the vote in question should go to Franken for Senate. How do I know what the intent of the lizard was? I know by the ovals...lizards aren't stupid, duh! The lizard/voter colored in the oval for the Lizard People party for President (that's me), and colored in the oval for Franken clearly intending that the vote go to Franken who, we know, is a tin-foil hat wearing lizard. End of discussion.

who knows when or who scribbled on those. use the computer totals.

Is there anyway we can see the instructions at the top of the ballot? I believe it states to completely fill in the oval, not "x" , check , or mark outside the oval. Does not following explicit instructions show intent to not take voting serious?

Re: "Lizard People"

What about Minnesota Statutes § 204C.22 Subd. 4? "If a voter has written the name of an individual in the proper place on a general or special election ballot a vote shall be counted for that individual whether or not the voter makes a mark (X) in a square opposite the blank."

I guess based on that I'd have toss out that vote.

*****
Re: Identifying marks

That's a really good question if your ballot can be tossed because you voted for yourself as a write-in for some office. I can't imagine some judge interpreting the law that way. It would limit your right to vote for whom you wanted. (But sometimes you gotta wonder about the courts...)

Lizard People FTW!

@ J.C. - Good catch in the statutes. I wonder, then, if the ballot becomes an overvote and must be discarded because the voter filled in the Al Franken oval as well.

@StefanMuc - Odds are the lines in Beltrami County, ~40,000 in 3,000 sq. mi., weren't as bad as some around the country.

This was pretty fun, maybe if they just posted contested ballots online for people to vote on they wouldn't have to pay to do a recount. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that Lizard People are "an awfully small amount of entertainment" (and I am pointing my finger squarely at StefanMuc) has clearly not done their research on Lizard People. They are an awfully large amount of entertainment, especially those of the David Icke variety.

This all seems a little silly, though - here in Wisconsin, we use similar forms (but there are broken arrows that are completed instead of circles to be filled in). We have sample ballots and people offering assistance. You feed the form into a scanner and if it has difficulty reading it, there's a person there to help you figure out what went wrong and you get another form to fill out. It seems like an obvious solution, though perhaps some contentious ballots would still get accepted.

Can someone answer this for me, Do the Challenged votes currently count in the totals until a change is made by the Canvasing board or are they completely held out of of the picture until that date?

Can someone answer this for me, Do the Challenged votes currently count in the totals until a change is made by the Canvasing board or are they completely held out of of the picture until that date?

While being able to see how they filled out the other ovals can be useful, the danger is implying voter intent from whoever else the person voted for. Inferring intent when Franken had a 23% undervote compared to Obama and Coleman has only a 5% undervote compared to McCain would be presuming the voters intent, not being able to actually tell. If this race is the only one poorly marked on a ballot, the judgement should lean toward a NO VOTE.

My understanding (from here) is that the contested ballots are not included in the running totals.

If you fail to fill in one circle completely, your ballot should be thrown away.

If you are too stupid to fill in a circle, you should not be allowed to vote.

Mike we should also make sure people can speak fluent english and are land owners to allow them to vote too.

sorry but stupidity is not a disqualifier.

Really, it's not very hard to vote in MN. All we have to do is fill in the little oval next to the name. Most election judges even tell you that. And there are diagrams inside the voting booths describing how/where to mark. Perhaps if someone can't figure it out, we don't really want to be counting their vote. ----Just a thought.

Admittedly, I haven't read the statute for vote determination yet: But with each contested vote, what I would find most instructive/helpful is to see tendencies throughout the contested ballot. That is, did the individual vote unambiguously for all democratic or republican candidates on the rest of the ballot? It seems a logical additional variable to determine intent. And if the voter does not show clear tendency for other republican or democratic candidates, the fallback is whatever rules those charged with recounting typically use. Thank you to all of those charged with this responsibility.

This ig great! I want to see them ALL! can you put ALL the challenged ballots on your site, with polls for each one? and then could you compile the results onto a single page chart so we can see who would be ahead, based on the listeners' consensus?

These are ridiculous. We have one of the simplest ballot systems in the country, why is it so hard for people to follow simple instructions? If you make a mistake, you get a new ballot. It seems like a case of "if you can't be bothered to do it right, don't show up". Voting is too important for it to have to come down to guessing intent. Election officials are there to help and avoid problems like this, but it's up to the voter to care enough to do it right.

All mis-marked ballots go to the Lizard People; they'll get the leaders they deserve.

I don't know what's scariest: the fact that statute 204C.22 is outdated with respect to the voting technology (it refers to making the mark "X" when the ballot is of the type that calls for the oval to be filled in, not marked with an "X" ... how old *is* that statute?), the badly marked ballots, the bizarre arguments by the candidates' staffs, or the votes cast by the readers of the MPR article.

What happens if the person casting the "Lizard People" ballot ends up parlaying their notoriety as the result of this story into a news story (or a book deal, or Hollywood movie)? Does the ballot then fall under the "distinguishing mark" section of the law, ex post facto? Or could you still say there was not an intent at the time of casting of the ballot for the voter to become noteworthy, therefore eliminating the intent portion of that section?

WTF people. If you screwed up your ballot, REQUEST A NEW BALLOT and REDO it. Otherwise you clearly don't care and if there is any question your ballot should be thrown out. Hey, you only do this once very four years, you think you could maybe take the effort to do it right. I think there was clear intent on some of these even though they were technically inadmissible, but it's an easy problem to solve by the voter just redoing their ballot and not making us all guess at what they meant.

By the way, Lizard People while written in was not marked in. I don't know the technical rules but I'd give that one to Al. But he'll have some work to do bring folks together. This isn't the Non-Lizard States of America or Lizard States of America, it's the United States of America.

It occurs to me that the best way to adjudicate these ballots would be to subject them to a "blinded" panel of independent observers. Blank out the candidate names on the ballots and have a "jury" of observers vote on who gets the nod.

@Robodoc - Very interesting idea. I wonder what the implications are for a internal/emotional influence when you know a) the whole country is watching and b) the pressure is mounting as/if the difference between Franken and Coleman gets smaller.

It'd be a tough thing to implement though, especially in cases like ballot #11.

I don't know about MN, but in Florida, where we brought back the fill-in-the-oval ballots, there is a handy guideline when you sign in. They show you a piece of paper with a bunch of ovals. One is completely filled and says YES in green. Then there are x's, slashes, half-filled, check-marks, etc, each labeled NO in red. They even have a little pad of post-its with practice ovals so you can test yourself and be approved by the election staff.

Ballot #11 and the challenge are hillarious. One could interpret it as a strike mark against Franken, or one could interpret it as an underline for Franken, or one could even interpret it as a cartoon sperm cell (tadpole?). If the tadpole theory is discounted, would the sperm represent a more macho Y chromosome in favor of Franken or does it suggest he's a dick and Coleman is not?

I'm confused . . . I guess this is why we have election officials.

I am an Election judge in Chicago, where we also do optical scan ballots. Do MN polls have a scanner in each polling place, like we do? Ballots with too many extraneous marks are rejected by the machine, and we give the voter a fresh ballot and tell them to try again, while we mark the first ballot "spoiled". It rejects most weird vots like those shown. Or are all these absentee votes, counded later?

Man. There are some DUMB people voting. How hard it is it to fill in the bubbles? And erasing or filling in the wrong bubble? How could anybody be that undecided in the booth with candidates like that? And 'lizard people'?

I looked over all of these, and there was perhaps one tough call. Most of them are very obvious. People make some stupid mistakes, but it is still apparent what their intention was.

Offhand, I can think of a lot of legitimate reasons why someone might mark a ballot incorrectly, that don't include being "stupid".

For people with physical problems like arthritis or limited vision, or with limited english, it could be very hard to mark a ballot fully. Volunteers are available to help. Many people use them. Those who don't may either be paranoid about having ANYONE else see their ballot, take pride in still being able to vote alone, or don't know they marked the ballot incorrectly.
Having seen first-hand the effects of things like ALS, I'm not going to call anyone struggling to remain self-sufficient "stupid" for thinking their skills on this one are still better than they really are. And I'm not surprised they wouldn't call for a spoiled ballot-- they THINK it was okay, they don't want to be a fuss, and they really don't want anyone to think they can't fill out a ballot correctly when they KNOW they can.

The next reason I can think of is more a concepts issue:

Large numbers of people still have little to no familiarity with computers. Not all of them are elderly; they just never use a computer in their jobs or at home.
An optical scanning device is a computer. If you aren't familiar with computers, you may not have a clear concept of what they can and can't do.
What if your concept of that scanner is that it's just a big box, and all the ballots get taken out and counted at the end of the day? An election judge will surely see your crossed-out vote and new arrow.
Why SHOULDN'T a scanner be able to distinguish between a full bubble and a partial bubble? And when that ballot isn't accepted by the scanner, isn't it most logical that you just didn't feed it quite correctly, like your dollar bill in a vending machine?

None of this is stupidity. These are mistakes that are made when you're not familiar with the equipment. And no, the fact that you see people using computers on TV doesn't give you an accurate concept. What, you thought that was really a hologram Wolf Blitzer was speaking to on election night?

There are reasons we count votes that weren't marked correctly. Because we have no way of knowing what happened, and no way of controlling for all the possibilities.
Anyway: are you absolutely 100% sure your ballot was all correct? Really? I bet a lot of the people marking ballots we're seeing here thought so, too.

This whole "intent" thing is stupid. Whichever circle is completely filled is the candidate who got the vote. These little marks are either an - "oops! Misread the name!" or someone dropping the pen or something like that.

And you ARE allowed to change your mind in the voting booth.

Really good suggestions, Robodoc & Alfred. Since the voting officials in Minn. probably aren't reading this page, may I suggest that you both pass your ideas directly to the appropriate Minn. state agency? No guarantee that they'll read or care about vox populi, but I'd say there's a better chance of that in Minnesota than in my home, the Neanderthal State of Texas.

Why would a person write in a name on the ballot, only to vote for a candidate already on the ballot? It's not logical, and that's why I believe it was challenged.

If the voter really wanted Franken to get his or her vote, then the voter should not have been so irresponsible as to write in "Lizard People".

The Thumbprint voter, however, should have his/her vote counted toward McCain (not that it matters).

The Arrow vote, I believe, should be counted for Franken, though I would suggest that this is perhaps the most "questionable" of the examples shown.

and no, I am not a Republican :-)

In all these cases where people have messed up their ballots the ballots should be thrown out, no matter who benefits or how the re-counters feel about what a voter "really meant".

You goof around with your ballot, try to be cute and mess it up in the process, get sloppy with and render it illegible - your ballot gets tossed into the circular file.

Minnesota needs to ditch the Scantron SAT sheets and give the voters some good, reliable binary YES/NO way to mark a candidate or referendum answer. This is BS.

Why are still effing around with paper ballots OF ANY KIND in the 21st Century? Clearly, there is certain segment of the population who simply can't do it.

In my town, I press a button, it lights up, and my vote is recorded. I could press the button with ANY part of my anatomy, and I still voted.

It just goes to show that there are some pretty stupid folks out there. You would have thought these folks had never taken an SAT. (Maybe they didn't)

How dare Franken attempt to steal votes from Lizard people! When will this hateful discrimination come to an end? Lizard people are people too!

Why do I get the distinct impression that the ballots aren't the only challenged things in Minnesota?

Doewsn't matter-the Dems will find someway to cheat and let Al win . Typical frauds- remember ACORN

/Why are still effing around with paper ballots OF ANY KIND in the 21st Century?

Paper ballots produce a paper trail which I feel is essential in recounts such as this. I feel electronic machines are dangerous if there is no paper trail to back up the election results. Also, there have been many instances of fraud with machines, particularly the Diebold brand. There were instances during this election of machines flipping the vote to the other candidate rather than the one selected.

One hopes that the scanning process could be improved, but I'll stick with the paper ballot with optical scanner anytime!

Ballot #1: Coleman. Voter marked Franken, then drew arrow for Coleman.

Ballot #2: McCain/Palin. Voter started to vote Nader, erased it and chose McCain.

Ballot #3: Nobody. Mark is clearly outside the line.

Ballot #4: Franken. Voter filled in Coleman, wrote NO, then voted Franken.

Ballot #5: Nobody. Voter looks like he crossed out Franken vote, then wrote in Lizard People.

Ballot #6: Franken. Voter both circled box and put in check mark near Franken. Not too bright, may be one of the Lizard People.

Ballot #7. Coleman. Voter started to fill in Franken, changed his mind and completely filled in Coleman.

Ballot #8: Franken. Voter started to fill in Barkley, changed his mind and filled in Franken.

Ballot #9: Barkley. Voter obviously erased Franken vote, changed mind and voted Barkley.

Ballot #10: Barkley.

Ballot #11. Nobody. Both Coleman and Franken ovals filled in, not clear whether voter wanted to underline or cross out Franken.

I am a Democrat from outside of Minnesota. My sympathies are with Franken. In several cases, I didn't agree with Franken's challenges, such as with the so-called "thumbprint" (#2) and the knucklehead (#5) who wrote in "Lizard People." I would accept ballot #2 and throw out ballot #5 in the races where he filled in an oval and wrote "Lizard People." (There are times when we all follow our lizard brains, and when we do so, we must live with the consequences.)

I wouldn't accept #3 as a Franken vote, because the mark is small, ambiguous, and too far from his name. However, I'd give Franken #4 because the "NO" next to Coleman's name shows a clear intent. I'd give Franken #6 for the same reason. I would also give Franken #8 because the mark in Barkley's circle is small enough that it could have been accidental, while the mark in Franken's circle is definite.

I would reject ballot #7 because there are clear marks in two ovals. Same goes for #11. I would give #9 to Barkley, because it seems obvious to me that the voter intended to erase his mark in Franken's circle. I would give #10 to Barkley for the same reason that I would give #8 to Franken.

--------

To those who write things like, " ... where people have messed up their ballots the ballots should be thrown out, no matter who benefits or how the re-counters feel about what a voter 'really meant' ..." I simply disagree.

I think voter intent should be the guide. This isn't an SAT test. The aim should be to count votes, and if a reasonable person can figure out who someone wanted to vote for, then the vote should be scored for that candidate.

By the way, I think it's great that these examples are out there in the public eye. It provides a useful check on the judges. Even though I'd like Franken to win, it is more important to me that the election be fair. If Franken loses a fair election, so be it.

The Lizard People vote shouldn't count. They were voting for a whole group of people. That person should have choosen one lizard person, for instance, Orac the Destroyer. A group of people can not hold a seat.

By the way, I find the vote for "Lizard People" ambiguous, as that would generally include the entire political establishment. This is one more reason to reject the ballot. Elections are all about choosing one lizard person over another lizard person.

The thumbprint may not have been left by the voter, so this should be accepted. The arrow does not look like an arrow to me, it looks like a shaky hand. Although Lizard people was written in, the oval was not filled in, however in the presidential race, Lizard people was written in and the oval was filled in. So, I would count that one for Franken.

I think the MN statute that states the intent of the voter must be followed when it can be determined is a marvelous thing. Voting is a constitutional right; it is "inalienable." It is not based on whether you follow directions, or whether you can fill in a scantron circle.

Despite what some people seem to think, the government has no authority to throw away a legally cast vote, even if the voter was "stupid" or "doesn't take voting seriosly." That person is a citizen of the U.S. and Minnesota. The powers of the government derive from the consent of the governed, not the other way around.

Give the near-sighted a break! The form may seem perfectly clear in the photo, bu not if you're looking at it through a dirty gold-fish bowl. Or if you're old and nervous. Some people also have no eye/hand coordination, for many reasons.

Let's remember that any and all of the ambiguous ballots may be mailed in, perhaps from an older citizen currently in a hospital or nursing home,

Even some of our new citizens voting at home may have problems with reading the instructions and with seeing the oval circles to be marked.

In such a case, if the voter or an aide noted any error, there was no fresh ballot at hand to replace the ambiguous one.

Let's not ignore the dignity of every citizen attempting to cast a ballot, recognizing our commitment to the democra1tic process as a personal responsibility.

Let's be dignitarians as we look forward to learning the final vote !!! -- even if we are also partisans.

I really appreciate this look at challenged ballot so that I know what judges have to look at. I took the test and agreed with the majority in almost every case, so I am fairly confident that reasonable people can determine what reasonable people intended to vote. This seems to be a transparent process that makes me proud to say that I'm from MN.

I thought the scanning machines were supposed to pick up these kinds of errors and reject the ballots for redos. What gives?

PENELOPE: RE: "...are rules and guidelines"

Statute means LAWS... Election Laws to be exact. :)

Enforceable Laws.

I was in NV with the Voter Protection efforts there.

Lines being to long problems with voting machines all have applicable Laws.

Voters are not all created equally yet all ballots & votes should be treated with uniform fairness and determined according to the law. Much reform & improvement remains to be completed for We The Peoples elections!

I have been an election worker myself many times...

THANK YOU for being one of the only news outlets to include the actual statutory language in your analysis of the recount. People need to understand that there are rules and guidelines to how the votes are decided. It's not just about the recounter's arbitrary feelings on voter intent. Your website is extremely interesting and much appreciated!

Posted by Penelope | November 19, 2008 9:52 PM

1) Anybody can vote, regardless of their reading ability. The supreme court struck down literacy tests as unconstitutional decades ago.

You are violating the Constitution if you suggest that not being able to read and follow the instructions invalidates somebody's vote. That would be an unconstitutional literacy test. Voting isn't a test of reading comprehension for instructions. It is a determination of voter intent.

There is nothing more Elitist then you Republican elitists saying that those who can't read as well as you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

2) Just because you have seen plenty of bubble sheets in your life, it doesn't mean your half-blind granny has.

3) Just because you personally had everything clearly explained to you by the poll worker at your precinct doesn't mean EVERY poll worker in EVERY precinct did the same for EVERY voter.

1) Anybody can vote, regardless of their reading ability. The supreme court struck down literacy tests as unconstitutional decades ago.

You are violating the Constitution if you suggest that not being able to read and follow the instructions invalidates somebody's vote. That would be an unconstitutional literacy test. Voting isn't a test of reading comprehension for instructions. It is a determination of voter intent.

There is nothing more Elitist then you Republican elitists saying that those who can't read as well as you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

2) Just because you have seen plenty of bubble sheets in your life, it doesn't mean your half-blind granny has.

3) Just because you personally had everything clearly explained to you by the poll worker at your precinct doesn't mean EVERY poll worker in EVERY precinct did the same for EVERY voter.

Re: #4 "Bachmen." It looks to me like the voter was writing "Bad men," not "Bachmen" This may be a comment on the campaign or the candidates -- not an attempt to vote for Michelle Bachmann.

Either way, as with "lizard people," the actual vote mark next to the candidate is clear, and more important than the write in name/remark with no vote mark.

I for one welcome our new lizard people overlords.

In the cases presented, I often wonder how the voter expressed their preference on the rest of the ballot. Did they make the same error for other offices? If so, it is not so hard to discern that there is a method to their madness. However, if their less-than clear marking is unique to this particular office, then I am less inclined to read intent from an irregular marking. In those cases, rejecting any vote for this office (though not necessarily the ballot as a whole) seems safer than guessing too much about voter intent.

Given the examples given here, the Coleman team seems to really be reaching. Nearly all of the ballots that the Coleman people think should go for Coleman were obviously not votes for him. I understand he wants to win and would be dissappointed if the results were overturned. But if he is willing to lie like this to win, perhaps he does not deserve the job.

The one with the check mark by Franken and the black box to the left of the bubbles appears to have been an elderly voter. It looks very similar to the way my grandmother often interpreted forms when she was in her 90s. I do think it shows sufficient intent.

I voted in Berkeley, CA. I made a mistake on my ballot. I then showed it to an official who took that ballot, tore it up, and threw in in the trash, so I could witness it, and gave me a new ballot, which I filled out correctly.

This seems like a more sane approach, and I an easy remedy to the problem.

It would help to see how these voters marked the rest of their ballots. For example, if a voter underlined every name s/he voted for, that would imply a different voter intent than is s/he only drew a line halfway under and halway through one name. Same with the extra 'dots' and what a particular voter means by an 'x' through a filled-in circle. These marks have to be put in context to clarify intent.

I'm just surprized that someone would go to the polling station, wait in line for (possibly) a long time, and then write in some non-existent people. It seems an awfully small amount of entertainment for such an effort...
Posted by StefanMuc

You really think the Lizard People are "non-existent"? MUWAHAHAHAHA, that's just what they want you to think!

I think no vote on the first one (though it is a shame if the person actually was trying to vote for Franken -- really you do have to have some sense though!), Franken on the second, no thumb print (or identifying mark) on the third, and dont count the last one. It is clearly voting for two parties and the fact that one of the parties is Lizard People does not undermine the fact that it is two parties. People shouldnt be silly with their votes.

It is important that the statutes here clearly place an emphasis on judgment and intent. They might count the because of this. For the first one, they might also count it for the same reason. I think a zoomed out picture would help people decide. The close up makes the mark look sort of scribbly and clearly out of place. If you back up though, it may look like a more approrpriate place to put a dot.

Note that the voter didn't actually fill in the oval to vote for "lizard People". Since only one oval was filled in, the vote should go to Franken.

I was at one of the recount sites both yesterday and today, as an observer for one of the campaigns. I saw some sloppy and weird ballots like the examples...but I also saw at least a hundred myself that had NO choice marked at all for the US Senate, with other ballot choices filled in. Based on that sample I believe that the number of people who voted for other offices but made no choice for Senator vastly outnumbers the margin in this race. How could they not have an opinion?

Holy posts! I have never seen such a wide response to a News Cut post. High drama in the cold state. Well done Mr. Collins and Mr. Tibbetts.

I took the poll and answered how I'd rule on some of the questionable ballots. Some interesting decisions to be made, for sure. I don't quite understand, though, how a majority of people thought that the person who filled in the Coleman circle but then wrote Bachmann thought that nobody should get the vote, but when somebody voted for Franken but wrote in Lizard People a majority thought the vote should count for Franken??? Or with the ballot that had a full circle filled in for Coleman and only a small amount filled in for Franken, a majority of the people voted for the choice that nobody should get the vote, yet when a vote had a complete circle for Franken and only a little filled in for Barkley, the majority thought the vote should go to Franken. Those were the only two cases where I didn't vote with the majority. I guess what I'm seeing is a pretty big Franken bias in the overall majority of people who took this poll. I myself voted for Franken, and am hoping for a fair Franken victory here, but come on folks, that's pretty bad!

Day 2 #4 and Day 1 #5 are identical situations but the kool-aid drinkers on the Left disqualify the Coleman vote (#4) and approve the Franken vote (#5).......please! Watch the Zogby poll video to see why one man, one vote doesn't work when the electorate is full of idiots.

this is a total setup. shame on everyone.

Tim -- I agree with you about the Lizard People/Bachman ballots -- either both or neither should be counted. I am not sure about the sloppy penmenship ballots -- I thought for most of them the intent was pretty clear for one or the other and that they could be counted. I agree with your sentiment that there should be some sort of consistent standard used for all of these ballots. In my opinion, the standard should tend towards counting unclear ballots instead of throwing them away.

I think the first ballot at the top is probably the trickiest one -- it is almost exactly on the line of being as unclear as possible whether it was a vote or whether it was just a scribblily mark.

The ballot with both bubbles filled in and Al Franken underlined/crossed out is another tricky one -- I personally felt it should be thrown out. There is simply no clear way to tell what the voter meant by the underline/cross out mark.

It would be more interesting if someone did a little photoshop work to remove the actual candidates names and party affiliations.

Then show the ballots to reasonably intelligent folks around the country and get a fair sample of what unbiased folks think about each scenerio.

Then Public Radio could generate some real value, rather than generating hyperventilation.

Ernie

I saw a well dressed elderly lady (80s perhaps) who was having trouble voting. The machine kept rejecting her ballots because she had marked more than one person in a race (that's what the election person told her) but she was saying "no I didn't!". The lady was obviously very frustrated and flustered. Don't know how it turned out because she was given another ballot (3rd at least) as I was exiting.

I don't think she was stupid. Maybe she had shaky hands or trouble reading them or who knows what.

Bill, regarding "I saw a well dressed elderly lady (80s perhaps) who was having trouble voting.", I've heard that many elderly have problems filling in ballots, through some combination of not understanding scanners, not being able to see the instructions, not understanding that they can ask for help, and so on. I think you saw something common. I agree with you she wasn't stupid. When I'm 80 and some new technology comes out, I wonder how well I'll at at understanding it, and if I'll be willing to swallow my pride and ask for help. Knowing my personality, I'm guessing I'll try to tough it out. So I sympathize with these elderly, and I'm glad we have out "intent of the voter" standard.

It's about time someone corrected a few of these misconceptions over the Lizard People. First of all, they have no interest in ACORNs, usually being content with locusts and small rodents. Second, they get an undeservedly bad rep for surly and overbearing temperment (probably due to their resemblance to a certain vice president). Finally, even the voter had to have known that Lizard People are not eligible for election to that office, or even to vote (unless the equal protection clause was reinterpreted to include all humanoids, while I wasn't looking).

Regardless, it's clear that the Lizard People take their civic responsibilities more seriously than many full-blooded humans. It's even possible the voter deliberately wrote in the candidates as a prank or publicity stunt, to discredit the election process. Are we going to fall for such a transparent ruse? Please...let's limit our theories of the voter's intent to the rational. Leave the Lizard People out of it. They suffer enough at the hands of the Mole Men.

Day 2:
1. I don't agree with the law that about the "distinguishing mark", but that certainly looks "signature like" to me and if the that means it's invalid, then it's invalid. I think the law should be changed though.

2. It's a Franken vote, who cares what the instrument was.

3. It's a Coleman vote. There are no other marks.

4. It's a Coleman vote. There's another one at Day 1 (Lizard People) that falls into the same boat -- they may have written another name in the blank, but they didn't "vote" for their writein.

Day 1:
1. It's Franken. To see an arrow is basically doing a Rorschach test. I see less an arrow and more a simple smudge.

2. A signature is one thing.. a thumbprint .. (probably from getting ink on your finger) shouldn't matter. It's a a McCain vote.

3. Reject, no vote. It looks like the start of something then scribbled out. If it's not clear intent, it's not counted.

4. Franken. The voter wrote "No" which would indicate he changes his mind. It's hard to argue a "No" isn't clear. (Are you going to argue he started to write "Norm"?) I could see this getting thrown out though.

5. Franken - As with the other one, he wrote in a candidate but didn't vote for him. (This position is solidified by the fact above he did write it and actually voted for his writein.)

6. Franken - Two marks on the line, circle is pretty obvious of intent here.

7. Coleman. Looks like he started one name, switched to the other. But I think intent goes to Coleman here.

8. Franken - A single dot versus a full fill in, I think intent is pretty clear here.

9. Barkley - if he voted for Franken, he erased it. I think it's a stretch to argue the eraser mark is stronger than the normal fillin.

10. Barkley - Same reason as 8

11. Coleman - I think he was actually crossing out Franken. Strong case for rejecting the ballot though.

Obviously the lesson in all this is if you screw up on your paper ballot, get another one. And read the directions.

Does this mean that all of my votes for the lizard people won't be counted?

More discussion at Political Wrinkles

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/elections/5416-one-challenge-headed-state-so-far-plymouth.html

Are people still arguing about Lizard People? That one is clearly a Franken vote. You can tell by comparing it to the one above -- the voter wrote in "Lizard People" in the blank for the Pres/VP election and then *filled in the bubble*, but only wrote in "Lizard People" in the Senate race while only filling in the bubble for Franken.

Seems unambiguous to me -- the voter wanted Lizard People to be a *choice* for every election, but in the specific case of the Senate election chose Al Franken over the Lizard People.

May I suggest the issue here in NOT who gets which votes in the challenged ballots above. Instead, the issue really focuses attention on the basic truth that some individuals have NO business even attempting participatory democracy. If a grown adult cannot clearly and concisely identify and mark an election ballot they obviously have no business participating.

There is NO way the "arrow" is an arrow. It looks nothing like an arrow. Are we even looking at the same ballot?

This is just truly sad, that people cannot read the rules and vote correctly, we are truly becoming a nation of morons...

INTERESTING OBSERVATION: When there is a Coleman vote and an unmarked write-in vote the vote goes for reject the ballot; when there is a Franken vote and an unmarked write-in vote the vote is for Franken. Are the people participating here unbiased? Let us all hope the canvassing board shows more consistency than is shown here.

I find it somewhat confusing that nearly 1.5 million Minnesotans voted for a Saturday Night Live character.

Next thing you know they'll vote for a pro wrestler for governor or something.

To be consistent, any ballot that isn't properly filled out should be rejected. If you're too stupid to follow simple instructions, your vote or alleged vote should not count.

If you can not follow instructions your vote should not count. This is about equal opportunity being given not guaranteeing equal outcome. This country is America and we speak English. Free education is available to all through the 12th grade. Sufficient enough to be able to read and follow instructions. There are signs everywhere in the polling place in multiple languages. Any vote with 2 circles filled in should be rejected. Smuges are smudges and squiggles are squiggles. I think "Voter Intent" is being over thought a bit here.

Has anyone floated the idea that the Lizard People ballot is a Douglas Adams reference? Some of us are pretty convinced it is.

Not that being clever changes the ruling.

Paper with optical readers with verification software at the poling place.

That way any flaws or errors in the ballot can be detected and the ballot rejected and REDONE before the ballot goes in the box and the voter leaves the poling place.

Stage 1 - fill out the paper ballot with pen.

Stage 2 - walk your filled out ballot over to optical verification machine that identifies if the ballot is readable and if there are any errors, like over votes.

Stage 3 - If there are errors in the ballot, reject and destroy the bad ballot and return voter to stage 1, to redo a new clean ballot.
If ballot is good with no errors, ballot goes into ballot box.

This way only good clean ballots with no errors get into the system. Any problems are sorted out by the voter by redoing bad ballots. This would mean almost all votes are then countable by central optical readers since they were pre-screened at poling station.

Only one optical verifier needed per poling location, making it a lot less expensive than electronic voting where you need one machine for each voting booth.

Voter leaves poling location with more confidence that that their ballot is readable and won't be rejected.

Totals from poling place optical verifiers can be cross checked with the later numbers generated from the central optical readers when the county puts all the ballots through the central high speed optical reader.

I haven't read all the comments, but how can anyone vote differently for Ballot #7: The Oops, and Ballot #8: The Dot?

If we're looking at intent for these two, the intent looks the same to me. The persons started to fill out the bubble for one person, and finished voting for the other person.

The difference I see is that people must be voting their prejudices in wanting Franken to win. I'm just saying.

Clearly the readers of this site are Franken supporters, including MPR itself!! M. Bachman and the Lizard people are NOT running for senate!! Neither one are for god sake! How can you count a Franken vote with the Lizard people "write in" and then exclude a Coleman vote with the same skew to the ballot with Bachman as a "write in". Perhaps and individual made a personal connection with Al Franken to the Lizard people and thought it would be a funny way to express hi/her gesture? Or, perhaps and individual was only voting that day because he/she really supported Bachman and voted for Coleman because of party line but really wanted to hammer home the favor for Bachman?
The truth of the matter is that ALL of us have been filling in these types of documents from childhood, grade school tests, high school and college tests. How is it that all of the sudden, when we enter a voting booth, no one can seem to figure out how to do this correctly?? A vote is a vote and should be counted! However, every system has rules to abide by........this is how we keep order in our society. Every polling station has directions on HOW to fill in your ballot correctly. If you fail to follow these rules, then tough!!!! Regardless of who the vote is for. It's how are system works! How many folks on here took a test in college and just filled in, or scratched or, or decided to do whatever they wanted in regards to marking their answers on the test? Why? Because you get an "F" if you do. Try to complain to the teacher after that one!

Regarding two comments above: I voted differently for #7 and #8. In #7 ("the oops") it is plausible that the voter intended to fill in Franken's bubble, but only filled the bubble 75% of the way. Since Coleman's bubble is also filled in - that's a double-vote and therefore should be rejected.

In contrast, for #8 (the dot) there's only a single dot in Barkley's bubble, which could easily be just a stray mark. Given the huge disparity between the amount of pencil in Barkley's bubble vs. Franken's bubble, I say it definitely counts as a Franken vote.

Regarding Day 2 #2 ("the pencil") I say it's a vote for Franken. Some tinfoil-hat-brigade members will say ACORN or Mayor Daley's ghost or the Lizard People must have messed around with the ballot since the President's bubble was pen and the others were all pencil, but I say it's a heck of a lot more likely that the dude's pen ran out of ink so he finished the ballot in pencil.

Regarding #5: My mind says to reject it as a double-vote. My heart, though, says the vote should go to Lizard People. Reptilian-Americans have been too long denied their rights. I'm hot for cold-blooded!

One nice thing about this whole process - for the most part it's pretty clear-cut what the voter intended. It's not like Florida, where you get dimpled chads vs. 2-corner chads vs. etc. and you have absolutely no way of knowing what the voter intended, so it basically came down to which candidate's lawyer screamed the loudest.

Me thinks we all protest too much . . . the practical reality is the election is a TIE. The Recount must be completed by law, but I wonder if the canvasing board has the legal option to declare a TIE (and thus punt the decision to the U.S. Senate itself?). My opinion is that a virtual TIE at this point might as well be called an ACTUAL TIE, if it now boils down to nit-picking over lizards and smudgy finger prints - and worst of all, court battles ad nauseam. Let the canvasing board Certify a tie as the result. Landing on a margin of exactly zero might not happen, but all that's going on now is groping around in a very dark grey area. The U.S. Senate has appropriate say-so about its membership and can handle this in a dignified way.

Literacy & stupidity ought not bar one from voting. They should, as much as practicable, be addressed via the re-introduction of civics in the American public school curricula. Or at least watching School House Rock :)

I remember the first concept of voting I had in the 6th grade (Ford v. Carter). Our class 'voted' (Ford won). What would have been even better is doing it with ballots using the same technology as the real ones. Okay, so don't give 6th graders 'real' ballots, but at least ones with bubbles, like the Kids Vote project.

Perhaps a large (11 x 14) sheet of paper in the voting booth with large examples of "good" and "bad" bubble-fills.

And, yes, the voting machines we currently use do detect over-votes.