« MUST READ FROM MINNPOST: “AS WALZ’S STAR RISES, DFLERS WONDER: WHAT ABOUT A RUN FOR GOVERNOR?” | Home | COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE MEDIA ADVISORY: “COLEMAN FOR SENATE SENIOR COUNSEL TO PROVIDE RECOUNT UPDATE” »
TEAM FRANKEN CHALLENGING VOTES FOR THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES
By Michael B. Brodkorb | November 24, 2008
A ballot challenged by Team Franken with a vote for Charles Aldrich. Picture source: Election Journal.
According to the blog, Election Journal, Team Franken is now challenging votes for third party candidates for the U.S. Senate:
“Al Franken’s campaign appears to have given the order to step up the challenges in Minnesota. One observer in Ramsey County (St. Paul) became so aggressive she started challenging votes for third party candidates.” Source: Election Journal, November 24, 2008
Can someone explain this strategy to me – Why challenge votes for third party candidates? One theory could be that Team Franken wants to challenge the entire election process in Minnesota and they need to create as many problems as possible. Thoughts? Leave a comment.
Topics: Uncategorized | 18 Comments »
18 Responses to “TEAM FRANKEN CHALLENGING VOTES FOR THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Team Franken has been desperate from start to finish and their volunteers have been just as bad.
My question- how do you challenge a ballot when the vote is clearly marked?!
November 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
That all depends on the meaning of “is” in “is clearly marked”.
It’s called the Clinton election method…all the rage within the party of Scrubs these days.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
This is the kick the elephant strategy. For a while, the elephant ignores the irritation, but sooner or later it will react negatively and the kicker can accuse it of bad behavior. Here, Franken just keeps raising new “issues” hoping that one or more will eventually stick.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
And this is coming from people who wail and moan about how the election judges were going to steal the election by saying that a vote for Obama and a blank Senate vote should be counted for Franken.
And then they come back and challange any ballot that has votes for McCain and Franken, as if to imply that voter intent was clearly mistaken, and Coleman deserves these entirely filled in votes for Franken.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Team Franken is going to challenge enough ballots to come out on top prior to the challenges going to the canvassing board, so as to claim some sort of spurious moral high ground. The talking points will then start screaming that “Franken won the recount” so that after the challenges show Coleman the winner, Franken can claim the election was stolen. Expect the challenges to go through the roof in the last days of the recount, as team Franken scrambles to come out ahead. Pathetic.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Calm down people. I don’t know about this particular challenge; it makes no sense to me on the face of it but there may be something else funny about the ballot; we just don’t know.
But remember, many of the Coleman challenges are equally puzzling! I have seen several of them myself last week. Both camps have identical orders from their campaigns – if in doubt, challenge!
This particular challenge could be a silly or frivolous one or it could be a well meaning but overly zealous observer. Or, there could be a legitimate issue with ballot. But “questionable” challenges are not exclusive to either Franken or Coleman.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Favorable explanation: “Your job is to challenge any ballots that look invalid; we don’t care who they’re for.”
Unfavorable explanation : “We need to get enough challenges in advance of the lawsuits to cloud the waters.”
Most likely explanation: some tired person/people did some stuff.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Michael,
What do you know about the canvassers in Stearns county looking at the back of the ballots?
What could possibly be on the back of the ballot that would need to be checked?
November 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Mon: easy — a signature, which would render it invalid, for example.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
So Franken’s looking to invalidate ballots?
Do more Coleman voters tend to sign their ballots than Franken’s?
This makes no sense.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
MoN: Of course Franken’s looking to invalidate ballots; they’re looking to invalidate the ones in the Coleman column. And vice versa.
All signed ballots are, by law, invalid; it’s legit to challenge them.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Is there any reason to believe that more Coleman votes will get thrown out than Franken’s by looking at the back of the ballot?
If not, then this tactic makes no sense for Franken to pursue.
It just adds to the number of contested ballots.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
MoN: the Franken campaign doesn’t control what ballots the Coleman campaign challenges, and vice versa. Neither side would be wise to let illegit ballots for the other side slide by, as close as it is.
So: Franken worker sees Coleman ballot; why wouldn’t they want to look at the flip side?
November 24th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Colemans camp has challenged 150 more ballots than Frankens camp…so Colemans lead is actually 50 votes…with 2/3 of Minneapolis to go yet…not looking good
November 24th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Depends entirely on relative bogusness of challenges. There’s no doubt that some challenges on both sides are. If — and I do say and mean if — there’s more bogus ones from Franken side, Coleman’s likely to win.
Normally, of course, bogosity isn’t relevant; normally, elections aren’t this close.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
challenged ballots are rarely if ever overturned
November 25th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I think the Franken team wants to disenfranchise as many voters as possible other then themselves. Maybe also they don’t want to look biased by contesting other races other than their own.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I mean the Franken team instead of contesting only Coleman votes may want to seem less biased by challanging other races as well.