November 11-14, 2008

Nov 11 10:35 The Floor, Not The Ceiling?

Nov 12 04:08 Cluelessness Personified

Nov 13 03:46 Want Big Government? Expect The Tax Increases

Nov 12 16:57 Nonpartisan Mark Ritchie?

Nov 13 04:28 Vague and Generic Reaganism?
Nov 13 16:47 Franken's Undervote Strategy
Nov 13 21:35 Team Franken Lawyers Up

Nov 14 04:17 Whoppers & The SOB Who Won't Stop Telling Whoppers
Nov 14 15:45 It ISN'T The Funding, Stupid

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Prior Years: 2006 2007

The Floor, Not The Ceiling?

This post by James Pethokoukis should cause lots of alarm within the business community. Here's what Mr. Pethokoukis wrote:

I have been arguing that Barack Obama's tax hike plan represents a floor, not a ceiling. (And even that floor seems to fluctuate.) I recall that some House Democrats, like Charlie Rangel, were pushing a for a "millionaire" surtax during the last Congress.

Now this: My guy Dan Clifton, superanalyst at Strategas Research, has noticed that Speaker Pelosi is pushing for a permanent refundable tax credit on payroll taxes paid. Clifton thinks that tax credit could be paid for by a five percent surtax on higher income taxpayers. "While this achieves the same goal of raising the top tax rate, to achieve the permanent middle class tax cut, the 5 pct. surtax will fall on top of the higher income tax rates after the Bush tax cuts expire (39.6% + 5%)."

Raising taxes that much, especially early in his administration, would tell people that President-Elect Obama is an extremist. It would disintegrate his image as a centrist. Most importantly, it would deepen and lengthen the recession that we're in.

On the other hand, this might just play into who he is. He might be arrogant enough to think that he can do this with impunity. He'd certainly get away with this with the kool-aid drinkers. I don't think it'd fly with centrists and independents. In fact, it's quite possible that it'd cause the scales to fall away from the centrists' and independents' eyes.

We'll see how this plays out. This is what's posted on the tax issues page on Obama's campaign website:

Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.

It's obvious that the pre-election plan doesn't match up with the post-election plan, if indeed the 45% tax rate is what's planned.

Earlier this morning, I told King that I never trusted Obama's tax plan because I thought, like everything else, he was simply selling the American people a bill of goods he couldn't possibly deliver on.

Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:39 AM

Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 12-Nov-08 07:02 PM

I think the graduated rates during the Eisenhower administration were okay. The nation prospered. The standard of living was higher than now for almost all the families. We had the Korean war going on and could afford it. US Steel, General Motors, and the Oil Companies were big, as was General Electric.

Big Steel died off for multiple reasons. But the demise of firms were matched by new industries and new firms like Apple and Microsoft and Cisco. Entrepreneurial opportunity or activity was probably less then, in the Eisenhower years but I suggest it had nothing to do with taxes.

Trading markets, capital availability, and all were tighter and more club of Wall Street then in comparison to now because of electronic capabilities, the rise of venture capital as highly profitable with the one hit in five or one in nine being enough, etc.

I suggest that if we had Eisenhower rates, and capital liquidity we have now, there'd be little change - except globalizing capital and the rates at which herd behavior can move are unprecedented.

But changing tax rates would not cause the sky to fall, despite a thousand Chicken Littles saying it would. It would make government more responsible in providing social goods.

In fact, a Huey P. Long Share the Wealth, taxing wealth above a certain level of accumulation, would not result in disaster either.

Can you prove it would?

Cluelessness Personified

This David Brooks column proves just how clueless Mr. Brooks is with regards to conservatism. Here's what I'm referring to:

In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.

.....

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

Let's see if I've got this straight. Does Mr. Brooks think that The Traditionalists are rallying around Sarah Palin just to regain power? Does Mr. Brooks think that Gov. Palin isn't a reformer? Does Mr. Brooks intend on identifying the people making up The Reformers wing of the GOP?

Let's further state that this is a strawman argument. The Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin wing of the party believes in true reforms, not just Reform In Name Only (RINO). It's insane to think that Rush Limbaugh and Gov. Palin represent the status quo wing of the GOP.

Let's also stipulate that Ronald Reagan was more than just policies. To really know Reagan is to understand his underlying philosophies. Reagan's policies came from the belief that his policies should either make people more prosperous, more free or more safe. Reagan saw regulations as limiting people's freedom. Reagan saw taxes as preventing people from being free and from being prosperous. Reagan saw defeating the USSR as imperative to making America safe.

People that say that Reagan isn't relevant are essentially saying that there's no need for America to be free, prosperous or secure in our sovereignty. I stubbornly reject such foolishness just like I reject Mr. Brooks' strawman arguments.

Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:12 AM

Comment 1 by Janet at 12-Nov-08 09:05 AM

The sentence, P #3 - It's insane to think that Rush Limbaugh and Gov. Palin represent the status quo wing of the GOP. What are you saying here? Palin is not status quo?

I thought Brooks' column was an early attempt to try to split Republicans - I don't trust Brooks.

Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-Nov-08 09:25 AM

I certainly don't think that Gov. Palin is status quo. She's the personification of 'outside the box'.

You're wise if you don't trust David Brooks.

Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 12-Nov-08 10:19 AM

You know the Star Tribune had an article about liberal democrats are eager to pass things which they thought have been blocked for years.

* They blocked real social security reform.

* Their idea of saving Detroit is first pass a lot of laws which kills Detroit's ability to make cars and a profit and than where the companies are about to fail give them maybe hundreds of billions of dollars. Their spokesperson is the person who is single handily killing Michigan's economy.

Walter Hanson

Minneapolis, MN

Want Big Government? Expect The Tax Increases

This year, poll after poll showed that wide margins of voters didn't approve of tax increases. Rep. Steve Gottwalt and Rep. Dan Severson told me that voters in the greater St. Cloud Area were fed up with taxes. Their constituents stated that emphatically when they were doorknocking. Steve and Dan weren't the only people who heard their constituents' anti-tax sentiments, either.

This begs the question of why people voted for the DFL. Part of it has to do with the DFL's superior ground game. In my opinion, though, the biggest reason for this disconnect is because conservatives didn't pound the message home that a vote for big government is a vote for tax increases. A slogan I saw at a Minneapolis Jimmy Johns sums this up perfectly:

The gap between more and enough never closes.

When's the last time you heard a DFL legislator say that funding is just right? Better question: Have you ever heard a DFL legislator say that funding for anything is just right? With their insatiable appetite for spending, the inescapable truth is that the DFL will forever try passing tax increases. It's instinctive . It's reflexive. The DFL's appetite for tax increases will never change. The only thing that can stop it is either a governor's veto, a House GOP majority in 2010 or GOP majorities in the House and Senate.

If MOBsters don't pound that message frequently, then we aren't doing our jobs as activists. If MOBsters don't adequately explain the consequences of big government policies, we won't persuade voters. That's something we can't afford.

Posted Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:47 AM

Comment 1 by CommonSenseRambler at 13-Nov-08 01:46 PM

Amen. You will never get a commitment from a taxraiser on what is enough. The only thing that keeps them from going totally haywire is the other party AND a depression, when they might admit that taxes went too high.

On second thought, they think government spending it the way to get our of recession/depressions, so never mind.

Nonpartisan Mark Ritchie?

GOP activists never bought into the notion that Minnesota SecState Mark Ritchie wasn't a hyperpartisan political hack. Thanks to this MSNBC video, we now have verifiable proof that Mr. Ritchie is a hyperpartisan political hack:

Cullen Sheehan quickly responded with this statement:

"When the Coleman campaign raises legitimate ballot security concerns, over instances such as 32 new ballots appearing in the car of a Minneapolis city official, Mr. Ritchie goes on a national media campaign characterizing our actions as political," Sheehan said in a statement.

"His accusation today that our campaign intends to win 'at any price' is offensive, demands an apology and simply underscores our concerns about his ability to act as an unbiased official in this recount. His statement is not reflective of the objective, non-partisan standards Minnesotans expect and deserve, and which Mr. Ritchie as Secretary of State is sworn to uphold. And we are concerned about the pattern we are seeing."

Mark Ritchie's long history of ultraliberal activism alone makes his objectivity suspect. His statement that Sen. Coleman's only concern was winning at all costs is just additional proof that he lacks objectivity.

Thus far, Minnesotans haven't seen the type of transparency needed. They haven't seen anything remotely resembling uniformity of procedures in securing the ballots. Unfortunately, we've seen altogether too much in terms of magically appearing ballots, all of which, miraculously, are going to Al Franken.

When the next Minnesota Legislative session opens, I hope that the House GOP caucus pushes hard to pass legislation that would mandate uniformity in handling ballots and that mandates total transparency.

The federal government mandates that each city develops a plan for handling various homeland security-related issues. Shouldn't it be a high priority for cities to develop and maintain a ballot chain of custody plan? It's painfully obvious that this type of plan doesn't currently exist in Minnesota.

Finally, as far as I can tell, Mark Ritchie hasn't lifted a finger to see if voters registered in Minnesota are registered elsewhere, too. Why hasn't he verified the integrity of Minnesota's voter registration lists? Shouldn't that be a priority with Mr. Ritchie?

Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:57 PM

Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 12-Nov-08 06:49 PM

Hello, Gary. You and others can help me on this. My ballot had in the upper right corner a pair of initials, and I presume that all ballots handed out at that precinct polling place had that, and one set was a GOP person and the other was a DFL person, or substitute on rare occasion for either, an IP person.

Then, any ballot not so marked is invalid. And they count people showing up, and ballots, and the two should equal the other. Give or take one or two, some idiot misplaces a ballot or something.

So only legitimate ballots are involved, and with black marking pens, it is hard to alter one.

It could be better, but what about those sites where they use only electronic voting, without any paper trail.

The strongest paper-trail advocate in Congress is Rush Holt of NJ. The LWV have pushed paper trail consistently.

There's always purple thumb dye to keep folks from voting early and often.

And you do not exclude other party possible voters as Kiffmeyer wanted to do, or tamper with US Attorneys as Bushco did with Heffelfinger to push them into phony vote fraud crusades against the poor and easily intimidated.

Then in a situation as we have, each side watches the other and the officials and at the end the complaints are sorted out all at one time not peicemeal.

There's been no determination that an ultimate challenge of the situation you describe will or will not succeed. The Judge said [1] don't go peicemeal, and [2] there is a review process at the end of a recount so a district court before reaching that stage lacks jurisdiction.

That means ultimately, the panel, one from each camp plus a judge assigned by the court look at all the challenges, and reach answers.

It is like redistricting. Neither side agrees with the other, but the range of disagreement is narrowed and ultimately a judge or a panel decides.

Premature complaints only produce heat and no light.

Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 13-Nov-08 10:51 AM

After all the ballots are mixed together at these "counting centers," the question of which precinct produced only legitimate ballots is forever lost. The easiest way to cheat in the current system is still to "stuff the ballot box"-- called "finding ballots." So far we've found hundreds of them, all marked for Al Franken, just as they were found for the Democrat in Washington State. In a few precincts, there were more ballots cast than there were registered voters. Yet Mr. Ritchie proposes to skip over this singularly critical verification step and go directly to "counting every ballot" as if all ballots were valid. Instead of declaring his supreme nonpartisanship nonstop, how about he offers some EVIDENCE of it, along with some basic competence at the job he holds?

Vague and Generic Reaganism?

Reid Wilson's column on the GOP's path to reformation and relevance included something that I found extremely odd. Here's what caught my attention:

The soul-searching is nothing new for the Republican Party, an organization of individuals with a reputation for self-flagellation. And the party has largely settled on an answer, however vague and generic the concept of "Reaganism" may be.

There's nothing vague or generic about Reaganism. It's extremely flexible and scalable but vague or generic it isn't. I suspect it's more misunderstood than anything.

Last fall and winter, GOP presidential candidates tried claiming Reagan's mantle, each describing themselves as Reagan conservatives. Each time I'd hear Sen. McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee talk about being a Reagan conservative, I'd frown, then laugh at the notion.

Reaganism is just policies. There were criteria upon which Reagan's policies rested. That set of criteria was simple: If it didn't make us more prosperous, more secure or more free, then the legislation wasn't a priority. Reagan's vision of prosperity was rooted in libertarianism. Reagan shared that belief with Sen. Barry Goldwater.

Another reason why Reaganism is thought to be dead is because we haven't applied the underlying principles of Reaganism to today's issues. If we consistently applied those principles to today's problems, Reaganism would be just as relevant today as it's ever been.

It's vitally important to remember that the hole we're in isn't because people got fed up with government keeping taxes low. Voters didn't get upset that we've gone 2,620 days without another terrorist attack.

Voters did get tired of Republicans abandoning the principles of Reaganism. Voters stopped trusting Republicans because we bought into the Washington media's mantra that America craved more moderates.

What's needed most is large doses of common sense and more politicians with titanium spines. Accept the fact that conservatives won't be popular in DC. Wear their contempt of Reagan's conservatism as a badge of honor. Take the time to explain Reaganite conservatism.

If you explain Reaganite conservatism correctly, you'll be pleasantly surprised at how many people buy into it.

Posted Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:30 AM

Comment 1 by Gregg Prest at 13-Nov-08 12:27 PM

Reagan cut taxes because the top rate was nearly 70%! I would venture a guess today he would say 'what the hell are you doing talking still lower taxes!'. Rather, recent conservatism has led to unchecked greed, massive deficits and the loss of freedom in the name of the war on terror. Real people don't want conservative politicians with 'Titanium' spines but rather pragmatic people willing to get things done; like create affordable healthcare, extract us from Iraq and a regulated marketplace. I am tired of shout radio and the third of the people who have stolen our party and believe that people are uninformed and are conservative at their core. They are not. They are neither conservative or liberal but rather just want government to solve some problems that have been lingering for far too many years - many of those years while the party ran things (e.g. energy policy). We'll keep losing elections if we want to keep the 'not conservative enough' mantra going.

Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 14-Nov-08 07:53 PM

What a curious, almost incomprehensible view of the world!

"unchecked greed" was what built and sustains a free market economy. What caused the recent crash was government meddling in that marketplace-- regulating what they should not have regulated, and profiting personally from looking the other way at what they SHOULD have been regulating.

Massive deficits are caused by politicians trying to provide every little need, want and frivolous desire of mankind, and THAT is what is depriving us of our freedoms, far more than the targeted attempts to keep us safe from fanatical terrorists.

Real people, who lack titanium spines but have functioning brain cells, don't think it is the job of government to "give us" health care, and certainly don't believe they can make it more affordable. The government-regulated marketplace only makes those things worse. If Medicare, Medicaid and other government-paid health care were turned over to private companies, costs would drop by 50%, according to a Mayo study.

You may be right about labels, because what is needed is people who have some common sense to apply to government, rather than expecting more government to solve the problems that government itself creates.

Franken's Undervote Strategy

It's now apparent that Al Franken will pursue an undervote strategy to win the election. Such a strategy should be immediately rejected for several reasons. Amanda Carpenter's Townhall column exposes that myth:

Al Franken's campaign has been telling reporters that any vote for Barack Obama should count for a vote for Franken in his now-deadlocked recount with incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman. Franken calls it an "undervote," meaning if a ballot is checked for Obama, but is "mistakingly" left blank for the Senate race, it should go to him. He may want to abandon this logic. The polling data in the run-up to the election shows otherwise.

His nasty brandy of campaigning against Coleman in state of "Minnesota nice" put him anywhere between 12 and 15 points BEHIND Obama . The Minnesota Star-Tribune (the "Strib" as they call it, rhymes with "Trig") found only 68% of those who said they would vote for Obama were planning to vote for Franken in a survey conducted October 29-31, days before the election.

I talked with several liberals in Central Minnesota who told me that they couldn't vote for Franken because he's such a total jerk. Most of these good liberals said that they'd be casting their votes for Dean Barkley. A small percentage said that they'd be voting for Sen. Coleman even though they didn't particularly like Sen. Coleman.

Some longtime DFL activists said they wouldn't vote for anyone because they'd "never vote for a Republican" but they simply couldn't vote for Al Franken. Most of the people in this group said that they were upset that Franken would refer to Paul Wellstone as his friend, saying that Wellstone was a saint while believing that Franken more closely resembled the guy with a pitchfork and the pointy ears. (No, I'm not referring to Spock.)

Before the election, conservatives joked about Franken's worst nightmare being yards with an Obama sign and a Barkley or Coleman sign in it. Let's also not forget that Al Franken had a miserable time in the primary. Most of the time, the endorsed candidate vanquishes the primary challenger with 85-95 percent of the vote. Al Franken won with 65 percent of the vote, with Priscilla Lord-Faris getting just short of 30 percent in the Sept. 9 primary. Al Franken even lost 4 counties. Here's are some statistics I posted immediately following the primary:

Let's first look at the race from the perspective from the St. Cloud area. Here's what the SecState's website shows for Benton County:
Al Franken got 859 votes, which equates into 55.96% of the vote.

Priscilla Lord-Faris got 551 votes, which equates into 35.9% of the vote.
Here's the final tally from Stearns County:
Al Franken got 2,148 votes, which equates into 55.43% of the vote.

Priscilla Lord-Faris got 1,553 votes, which equates into 40.08% of the vote.
Here's the final tally in Sherburne County:
Al Franken got 1,219 votes, which equates into 60.65% of the vote.

Priscilla Lord-Faris got 712 votes, which equates into 35.42% of the vote.

This is proof that lots of DFL activists were disgusted with Mr. Franken. Why else would only 1 person show up for a Franken event in St. Cloud? Everyone remembers that. That story was highlighted on the Drudge page for a couple days. The LA Times wrote an article about it. Now we're supposed to forget that event and assume that people who would've run through walls for Obama and who hated Franken really intended to vote for Franken even though the ballots weren't marked? I think not.

Yesterday, Mark Ritchie told MSNBC that the Coleman campaign's "goal was to win at any price", something that the Coleman campaign immediately rejected. It's apparent that Mr. Franken's campaign is willing to do anything to win this election. It's apparent because they're attempting to convince election judges that they know the voter's intent was to vote for Mr. Franken even though the ballots aren't marked as such.

I just spoke with someone in the Minnesota Secretary of State's office about the types of ballots available in Minnesota. I did this to verify that the forms weren't confusing. (I did this as verification, not as an investigation.) The gentleman I spoke with said that they employed two ballot types.

One type of ballot has an oval alongside the candidate's name. To vote for a candidate on such a ballot, the voter is required to fill in the oval.

The other ballot type is a connect the arrow type. As you can see, this isn't a confusing system. In fact, it's one of the most straightforward ballots in the nation.

My point is this: It's impossible to convince thinking people that a ballot that's marked for President-Elect Obama but isn't marked for Al Franken is really a vote for Mr. Franken.

Mr. Franken, it's time to stop the attempted theft of this election. It's time that Mr. Franken let the results speak for themselves.

Posted Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:50 PM

Comment 1 by Bill Bunke at 13-Nov-08 05:57 PM

This post quotes Amanda Carpenter:

"Al Franken's campaign has been telling reporters that any vote for Barack Obama should count for a vote for Franken ".

Is this supported by any news story that a reporter has filed and is available for anyone to see? This sounds like an empty comment if there is no true source.

What is the truth here?

Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Nov-08 06:11 PM

As I pointed out, the ballots are painfully simple to fill out. It isn't credible to think that any statistically significant number of people screwed up that badly.

Nonetheless, the 'voter intent argument' is irrelevant. Why should people be allowed to divine the voters' intent on undervotes but overvotes are immediately rejected? Shouldn't the voter be responsible for filling the ballots out correctly?

Comment 3 by jason bird at 13-Nov-08 09:15 PM

What's really funny is that Lord Faris with almost 75,000 votes in the primary was never asked by fellow Democrat Franken for help or an endorsement in the general election. Both Coleman and Barkley (Independent candidate) asked for her endorsement.Lord Faris and her staff scripted a very positive ad endorsing Franken but were never asked to help. Her support would have cerainly moved at least a few thousand Democratic votes back into the Franken column and he would have won without even a recount.Same reason he didn't ask is the reason he'd make an ineffective Senator--he can't work with anybody who disagrees with him or opposes him.

Comment 4 by Bill Bunke at 13-Nov-08 09:49 PM

Gary,

Since you brought the subject up, what percent of the approx. 2.9 million ballots cast is needed to show statistical signficance? The current margin of 200 some votes is about .01% of the total.

As to voter intent, for a manual recount; isn't the goal to have polling place staff examine the ballot to see if it is clearly marked for one candidate or the other? It may be comforting to assume that every one of nearly 3 million ballots has been cast so a machine can recognize it, but this is unlikely to happen every time.

However, if the law does not require an exact machine scan, should we ignore a ballot having a check mark, "X", circled name, or other clear marking for a single candidate?

How can the law deny a ballot where the voter intent is clear?

Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 13-Nov-08 10:24 PM

isn't the goal to have polling place staff examine the ballot to see if it is clearly marked for one candidate or the other?

No it isn't. The poll worker's job is to verify that the ballot doesn't contain overvotes, where the voter votes for more than one candidate in the same race.

It isn't the poll worker's job to make sure that each race is marked off because, according to Minnesota state statute, voters are allowed to not vote for a specific race.

If a voter wants to vote for every Democrat on the ballot, then it's that voter's responsibility to make certain that they've voted for every Democrat on the ballot.

If a voter wants to vote for every Republican on the ballot, then it's that voter's responsibility to make certain that they've voted for every Republican on the ballot.

At some point, personal responsibility must be part of the equation. At this point, the Franken campaign is essentially arguing that personal responsibility isn't part of the electoral equation.

Comment 6 by Bill Bunke at 14-Nov-08 12:10 AM

Gary,

I can see my mistake; when I referred to a manual recount, I misused "polling place staff", where I should have referred to the canvassing board. You are correct that a "poll worker" has no role to play regarding ballot examination or voter intent. Sorry about that.

Oddly enough, I never mentioned that anyone was responsible for enforcing that each office had to have a vote cast for it on every ballot (that is if I understand your comment "make sure that each race is marked off"). I had said that a ballot examination could "see if it is clearly marked for one candidate or the other". Seeing is not mandating.

I'm still wondering how you would consider a recount ensures voter intent as specified in 204c.22 (state statutes, i think).

I'm also waiting for a response on statistical significance.

Care to reply to these, or would that not be appropriate?

Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-08 12:26 AM

Gary,

I can see my mistake; when I referred to a manual recount, I misused "polling place staff", where I should have referred to the canvassing board. You are correct that a "poll worker" has no role to play regarding ballot examination or voter intent. Sorry about that.

That's an easy mistake to make. There's nothing to worry about as far as I'm concerned.

Intent

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.

How do you determine intent? I'd think that that's a high hurdle for several reasons.

1) Lots of people that voted for President-Elect Obama also voted for Sen. Coleman or Dean Barkley.

2) Many people that voted for President-Elect Obama didn't vote for anyone for US Senate candidate.

1,573,323 people voted for the Obama-Biden ticket while only 1,211,359 voted for Al Franken. Sen. Coleman got 1,211,565 votes while Dean Barkley got 437,389 votes.

At best, you can attempt to divine the voter's intent but that's about it. Frankly, I don't see the importance of that provision.

Comment 8 by Bill Bunke at 14-Nov-08 12:57 AM

Gary,

Thanks for your kind words.

As far as your excerpt from 204c.22, the document as a whole covers up to 6 pages, with sample ballot images. Your excerpt doesn't do justice to the wide-ranging ciscumstances that can be used to determine if voter intent is or is not present.

In the end, this will (rightly) be based not on on the set of statistics you offer, but by what the ballot actually shows the voters actions reveal (in all their complexity).

As far as I know, whether or not any of us can see "the importance of that provision", it is part of MN election law and should play its intended role in election operations.

I am getting the feeling you are talking past my comments, as many points I've tried to raise have not been responded to.

The initial post that asked if there was any proof from a reporter which quotes the Franken camp in the manner suggested by Amanda Carpenter. I would submit that voter intent [204c.22] would not allow that to happen [Subd. 14. No votes for certain offices].

In response to this post, you referred to voters responsibility "for filling the ballots out correctly". I'm not sure correctly as a term has legal standing; perhaps "in accordance with state law" would be a better fit.

Unanswered comments also include:

- exact machine scan not required?

- deny a ballot w/clear intent?

- seeing is not mandatory?

- statistical significance?

BTW, I now realize you were the author of the blog entry. Too bad the author's name is not visible (or did I miss that along the way)?

p.s. Carpenters use of "undervote" is not an accurate definition or reference.

According to the AP:

[ballots that showed a presidential vote but no Senate vote are called the "undervote."]

Comment 9 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-08 03:50 AM

As far as I know, whether or not any of us can see "the importance of that provision", it is part of MN election law and should play its intended role in election operations.

I don't disagree that that provision "should play its intended role in election operations." I'm simply wondering how it can be objectively & verifiably applied.

In response to this post, you referred to voters responsibility "for filling the ballots out correctly". I'm not sure correctly as a term has legal standing; perhaps "in accordance with state law" would be a better fit.

Either phrase works for me, though I agree that your phrasing is the better phrasing.

exact machine scan not required?

If that's what the law requires, then that's the procedure that must be followed. If the law doesn't require it, then it shouldn't be followed.

deny a ballot w/clear intent?

Clear is a subjective term. If you gave a specific example, I might respond more specifically.

Comment 10 by Mike Alexander at 14-Nov-08 08:57 AM

Gary asks

Shouldn't the voter be responsible for filling the ballots out correctly?

If a voter circles a candidate's name that is a valid vote. Any 19th century vote counter would see that as a valid vote. The fact that our 21st century electronic vote counters are too stupid to see this is no excuse excuse to disenfranchise voters.

And this is why we have recounts. If an election is not close, the small number of people who put circles around the candidates names or place and X or a check by the name or who use their own pen to fill in the oval will not affect the results. But when candidates are separated by a margin of less than 0.01%, such votes can matter and so are counted.

Comment 11 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-08 09:19 AM

The fact that our 21st century electronic vote counters are too stupid to see this is no excuse excuse to disenfranchise voters.

Enough with abusing the D-word. Disenfranchisement only happens if the person is denied a ballot entirely. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

What you call disenfranchisement is what most people call human error.

I could be a bit lenient if the instructions weren't clear. In Minnesota, they're exceptionally straightforward. Furthermore, the voter gets these instructions before they're handed a ballot.

If people don't follow the rules, their vote should be rejected.

Comment 12 by Ralph Kramden at 14-Nov-08 09:21 AM

Does Amanda Carpenter have any evidence that "Al Franken's campaign has been telling reporters that any vote for Barack Obama should count for a vote for Franken"?

Do you?

She provides no cite at all as far as I can tell. I think she and you are just making things up.

Comment 13 by Bill Bunke at 14-Nov-08 09:53 AM

Gary,

Regarding disenfranchise(ment); I'm not sure denial of a ballot is the appropriate way to describe this.

Research shows this described as "deprive of voting rights". Although this includes denial of a ballot, at a more detailed level, a right to vote would include counting the voters intent (204c.22) in any race on the ballot.

This also would apply to the "deny a ballot w/clear intent" we were discussing.

Comment 14 by Ralph Kramden at 14-Nov-08 10:39 AM

Gary says: "I could be a bit lenient if the instructions weren't clear. In Minnesota, they're exceptionally straightforward. Furthermore, the voter gets these instructions before they're handed a ballot.

If people don't follow the rules, their vote should be rejected."

Gary, Minnesota state law concerning voter intent is also very clear. On what basis do you suggest the law be ignored?

"Minnesota law requires that every effort be made to accurately count all votes on a ballot. This means that a ballot or vote must not be rejected for a technicality if it is possible to decide what the voter intended, even though the voter may have made a mistake or the ballot is damaged."

(Ref: http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/recount_guide_2008.pdf?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs section 13.0)

Comment 15 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-08 11:00 AM

"Minnesota law requires that every effort be made to accurately count all votes on a ballot. This means that a ballot or vote must not be rejected for a technicality if it is possible to decide what the voter intended, even though the voter may have made a mistake or the ballot is damaged."

If that's what the law says, then I'm perefectly willing to abide by that law.

Comment 16 by Matthew Avitabile at 14-Nov-08 11:46 AM

Um... stealing the election? It's politics, remember?

http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/franken-stealing-election-in-minnesota.html

Comment 17 by Bill Bunke at 14-Nov-08 01:13 PM

Matthew,

After following the link(s) you provide, I'm disappointed. These are a mixture of opinion (WSJ), debunked "stories" (32 votes in car), and other unsubstantiated stuff that really don't help understand the situation.

The implications and assumptions made based on vote audits and the aggregate affect on vote totals is not an accurate portrayal of the statistical nature of this. Anecdotal evidence does not have to follow the law of averages when small quantities are involved.

The oft quoted "100 votes for Franken" has been clearly debunked; a person wrote down 24 instead of 124 for Franken. The total votes for the race had the 100 votes there, they just were not shown for Franken.

Passing off opinion as fact diminshes the value of a post.

Comment 18 by sam spade at 15-Nov-08 01:21 AM

check the YouTube at Franken takes vote fraud advice from old Chicago Machine

Comment 19 by Bill Bunke at 15-Nov-08 01:14 PM

Sam,Sam,Sam,

Other than the word Franken in your post, there is no connection to him be found in the video clip. If you've got something to say, do so with relevant facts.

Otherwise your voice is irrelevant.

Team Franken Lawyers Up

This Strib article proves that this recount isn't about a simple recount aimed at finding out the truth. This is proof that Al Franken will do anything to win this election. If attorneys are needed to intimidate people monitoring the recount, then that's what they'll apparently do.

The latest twist in Minnesota's U.S. Senate recount came this morning, when the Al Franken campaign hit Ramsey County with a lawsuit, seeking the names of would-be voters whose absentee ballots were rejected.

The DFLer's campaign hopes to force counties across the state to cough up the lists of rejected voters who, if later found eligible, could tip the balance in the closest Senate race in the country, between Franken and Republican incumbent U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman.

The courts should reject this lawsuit immediately. There's nothing more sacred than the right to casting a secret ballot. This would give Franken and the DFL the ability to intimidate voters. This isn't shocking considering that Franken supports EFCA, which would give unions the right to intimidate workers into organizing a union.

The connection is that Franken isn't the least bit hesitant to use strong-arm tactics because getting Franken elected is the only thing that matters to him and like-minded DFLers.

Franken Counsel Marc Elias even used this provocative verbiage to make his case:

"The only way we can ensure people were not disenfranchised is to check the lists," Elias said.

This is fearmongering at its worst. Dictionary.com's definition of disenfranchisement is straightforward:

to deprive of voting rights

What proof does Mr. Elias have that any voters were deprived of the right to vote? Will he supply the court and the Coleman campaign sworn affidavits of voters who were denied the right to vote? If he can't provide those affidavits to the authorities, then his allegations are just that: allegations. In a court of law, unsubstantiated allegations are routinely ignored.

I'd further site the fact that criminal convictions that are based solely on unsubstantiated allegations are set aside, either by the trial judge or by the appellate court.

Let's understand that incorrectly filling out a ballot isn't disenfranchisement. Voters have the affirmative responsibility to fill their ballots out correctly. Overballots are routinely, and correctly, rejected because they weren't filled out properly. Why should undervotes be treated differently than overvotes?

Minnesota Election Law is exceptionally clear on filling out a ballot:

204C.13 RECEIVING AND MARKING BALLOTS .

Subd. 3. Marking ballots. The voter shall mark each ballot in the following manner:

(a) A mark (X) shall be placed in the square opposite the printed name of each candidate for whom the individual desires to vote, and in the square before the "YES" or "NO" if the individual desires to vote for or against a question.

(b) The voter may write in other names on the lines provided under the printed names of the candidates, except that no names shall be written in on primary ballots.

(c) At a state primary an individual may vote for candidates of only one major political party on the partisan primary ballot. If a partisan primary ballot contains votes for the candidates of more than one major political party, the ballot is totally defective and no vote on the ballot shall be counted.

(d) An individual who spoils a ballot may return it to the election judges and receive another .

Let's summarize things:

1) The ballot is straightforward and easy to fill out correctly.

2) If people don't want to vote for any of the candidates in the US Senate race, that's their right.

3) The ballots in question are absentee ballots. Since the ballots in question were partially filled out, that means that these voters weren't denied the right to vote. Therefore, these voters weren't disenfranchised.

4) If these voters who voted absentee thought that they'd filled their ballots out incorrectly, they could've returned that ballot for a new ballot.(All "spoiled" ballots are immediately shredded to guarantee that they aren't counted.

Based on this summarization, isn't it fair to conclude that people whose ballots didn't include a vote for Sen. Coleman, Al Franken or Dean Barkley chose to not vote for anyone in the US Senate race?

Posted Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:40 PM

No comments.

Whoppers & The SOB Who Won't Stop Telling Whoppers

I've never trusted Al Franken to tell the truth. After reading this article , my level of distrust of Mr. Franken is at an all-time low. This all started with Team Franken filing a lawsuit in Ramsey County alleging that an 84-year-old woman from Beltrami County had her ballot rejected because of a signature matchup problem:

An 84-year-old Beltrami County woman, whose election ballot was rejected, helped convince Al Franken's campaign to go to court seeking the names of all Minnesotans whose ballots were not counted last week.

Franken campaign officials said the woman, a nursing home resident, told a campaign volunteer that her signature had changed due to a stroke after she first signed her voter registration forms. Her signature on absentee ballot paperwork did not match her signature for this election, so election officials rejected the ballot.

That example is being used as why the U.S. Senate candidate, a Democrat, wants to know about every rejected ballot.

There's just one problem with this allegation but it's a biggie:

" Beltrami County does not have one ballot that was rejected because signatures didn't match and the Franken campaign was clearly told that ," County Auditor-Treasurer Kay Mack said. "I don't know where they are getting that from."

I'm confident it wasn't discovered in a face-to-face interview with this seasoned citizen. If that's the case, then Franken's case just took a major credibility hit. Mr. Elias' credibility took a big hit, too. In fact, Mr. Elias might be in deep ethical trouble if he had prior knowledge that this allegation was unsubstantiated.

Hypothetically speaking, if Mr. Elias didn't know that this was an unsubstantiated allegation, then the next logical question I'd want answered would be who fed him this unsubstantiated allegation? Hypothetically speaking, if a Franken staffer knowingly fed Mr. Elias an unsubstantiated allegation, then the Franken staffer is in serious legal jeopardy.

I'd welcome a lawyer's input into what the various legal possibilities are. I don't know all the laws on the books but I know that knowingly filing a false police report is a serious no-no. I can't imagine that filing a case in Ramsey County based on an event that didn't happen isn't serious trouble.

Posted Friday, November 14, 2008 4:17 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 14-Nov-08 09:33 AM

Who is "Mr. Elias"? Am I to assume he is Franken's attorney?

Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-08 09:54 AM

Yes, he's chief counsel for Team Franken. I thought that was in the article.

Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 14-Nov-08 01:37 PM

Just like Franken thought this woman existed. Or that he could get away with making her up. :-)

Comment 4 by Ralph Kramden at 14-Nov-08 03:18 PM

"knowingly filing a false police report"? When was a police report filed? Where do you get that from?

Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-08 03:49 PM

knowingly filing a false police report"? When was a police report filed? Where do you get that from?

Pay atttention, Dipshit. It was an analogy.

Comment 6 by Ralph Kramden at 14-Nov-08 03:55 PM

Now now, Gary - try to keep the ad hominem to a minimum - it doesn't help your argument. If the Franken team had reason to believe that the event happened when they filed the suit, I don't see that there would be a problem. It's not clear to me that Kay Mack's statement (about there being no rejected signature ballots) preceded the filing of the suit.

It ISN'T The Funding, Stupid

Hours after the I-35 Bridge collapsed, El Tinklenberg was on TV blaming Carol Molnau and the 'No New Taxes Crowd' for the bridge's collapse. The NTSB's report ends that myth:

WASHINGTON -- Federal investigators probing the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis said Thursday that the structure was heavily loaded with construction equipment -- equivalent to the weight of a 747 airplane -- hours before a set of improperly designed joints failed catastrophically.

The added weight, combined with errors in the original design of the so-called gussett plates, appeared to produce the breaking point in the Aug. 1, 2007, disaster that killed 13 people and injured 145.

The bridge's age, the investigators told the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), had nothing to do with the collapse. The board is expected to issue a final accident report today, at the end of a two-day hearing.

I can't offer better proof that the DFL will use anything as justification for tax increases. Before the victims were even evacuated from the rubble, failed Transportation Commissioner El Tinklenberg was blaming the collapse on transportation policy. Mr. Tinklenberg would be well-advised to gather pertinent information before launching into a diatribe based on opinion.

Mr. Tinklenberg's statements were purely political. The NTSB's report was based on verifiable facts gathered during the course of a painstaking, detailed investigation that went where the information took the investigators.

It's significant that the NTSB found that the original design, coupled with the excessive weight of equipment on the bridge, is what caused the collapse. It's more significant that the NTSB's investigators said that the bridge's age wasn't a factor in the bridge's collapse.

Here's something that El Tinklenberg said in announcing his candidacy against Michele Bachmann:

"All of us knew that we could no longer tolerate sitting by while so many things were happening in our country that were the result of a kind of inattention that we were facing in our infrastructure," he said at a Capitol news conference, flanked by about three dozen supporters including red-shirted union workers.

Mr. Tinklenberg said that we couldn't sit idly by as our infrastructure deteriorated but he was the Transportation Commissioner that advocated for shrinking revenues by dramatically cutting license tab fees. Also, I didn't hear Mr. Tinklenberg criticize Jim Oberstar when Rep. Oberstar diverted the Highway Trust Fund into building bike trails instead of maintaining bridges and building roads.

I also didn't hear Mr. Tinklenberg criticize Rep. Oberstsar for his abuse of the earmark system, which contributed to the depletion of the Highway Trust Fund.

There are two morals to this saga:

1) We have more than adequate funding for transportation infrastructure if the money isn't pissed away on re-election projects.

2) The I-35 Bridge collapsed because of design flaws and overloading of the bridge that fatal day.

Neither of those inarguable facts are things that Democrats will admit. That's really beside the point, though, since we can point the spotlight on the NTSB's report.

Posted Friday, November 14, 2008 3:47 PM

Comment 1 by Chad A Quigley at 15-Nov-08 07:29 AM

Do you think the state democrats will repeal the $6.6 billion transportation tax increase now that the full report has been public and shows no link to any kind of republican under funding?

Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-08 10:35 AM

I believe that the DFL will repeal a tax increase the day they break out the skates in hell.

Search This Blog

LFR 15 YEARS!