So, how 'bout that voter fraud, eh?

[leftysergeant]

No. These votes were from voting booths.



No, democrat election officials are claiming these are votes from the 4th.

Good God! Could it be that a defective voting device was sent to a Democratic district? The horror!

 

[jj]

So, since BAC has alleged a felony, I wonder if he's done his duty and formally reported it under oath to the responsible agency.

In at least some states, citizens are obligated to do so when the see a felony.

 

[boloboffin]

So, since BAC has alleged a felony, I wonder if he's done his duty and formally reported it under oath to the responsible agency.

In at least some states, citizens are obligated to do so when the see a felony.

He's got a week of not much else to do.

P.S. The "32 ballots riding around in a car for several days" story is a lie, a lie, a lie.

 

[gdnp]

ROTFLOL!

By the way, the other votes for the precinct where these extra 100 votes were discovered was NOT 100% in favor of Obama and Franken. democrats won the vote in that precinct by only a ratio of 2 to 1 (http://electionresults.sos.state.mn...s.asp?M=P&Precincts=69SAINT LOUIS_0820&LD=05A ). So the probability that a 100 additional votes would show up that are 100% for democrats is so remote as to defy all logic and common sense.

I'm a bit confused, BAC. looking at the results in your link, in this precinct the presidential vote was thus:

Republican JOHN MCCAIN AND SARAH PALIN 229 27.69
Democratic-Farmer-Labor BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN 569 68.80

and the senate vote was thus:

Independence DEAN BARKLEY 95 11.52
Republican NORM COLEMAN 211 25.58
Democratic-Farmer-Labor AL FRANKEN 506 61.33

So Obama beat McCain 69 to 28 percent, and Franken beat Coleman 61 to 26 percent, a slightly lower ratio.

If exactly 100 votes changed on the recertification, I would speculate that this was secondary to the precinct erroneously reporting 406 Franken votes instead of 506, that being the most likely explanation for a difference of exactly 100 votes and all in the favor of Franken. Do you have another? For example, Democratic cheats thought the best way to help Franken was to print up exactly 100 bogus Franken ballots and slip them in, hoping no one would notice?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The campaign Coleman is putting out there which claims something fishy in the mandatory recount really makes the guy look like sour grapes. The computational error regarding Franken's extra 100 votes is not exactly hard to verify. Clearly Coleman would rather start a false rumor than make sure the vote count is accurate.

 

[gdnp]

As with all politicians, he would rather have a vote count that he wins than an accurate one. Had Gore been leading in the initial Florida counts he would have been the one stalling and Bush would have been calling for every vote (in the Republican counties) to be tabulated.

 

[BeAChooser]

If exactly 100 votes changed on the recertification, I would speculate that this was secondary to the precinct erroneously reporting 406 Franken votes instead of 506, that being the most likely explanation for a difference of exactly 100 votes and all in the favor of Franken. Do you have another?

Why is that the most likely explanation?

When the Coleman campaign asked for a copy of the tape documenting the ballots cast on election night. St. Louis County provided a tape that includes the newly-added 100 votes, but it was dated November 2. Odd.

Precinct 1 in Mountain Iron, according to the Minnesota Secretary of State's web site, uses an optical scanner. So the results should have been uploaded electronically to St. Louis County. Have you seen an explanation why local officials called in the results instead? I haven't.

The tape that was printed off the optical scanner after the polls closed on November 4 should have been signed by the election judges, both a Republican and a Democrat. That's state law. But apparently it wasn't. Again odd.

And isn't it odd that the "newly discovered ballots" are so predominantly for Franken in a state where half the vote went to Coleman. One would think statistics would suggest that outcome to be highly unlikely. Even in that precinct, a third of the votes when to McCain. Why didn't a third of these "found" votes go to Coleman. I really doubt that McCain voters voted for Franken.

Almost all of the new votes came from just 3 precincts out of 4130. That too is a little odd. Don't you think?

Equally odd is that the new ballets improved Franken's totals dramatically more than Obama's in those precincts ... by a factor of more than 2 over Obama's gains. Statistics would suggest that factor should be close to 1 ... unless voters would like Franken more than Obama. But that's really hard to believe. Don't you think?

So when do you begin to get suspicious about this precinct, gdnp?

 

[gdnp]

Why is that the most likely explanation?

Because it is the simplest?

When the Coleman campaign asked for a copy of the tape documenting the ballots cast on election night. St. Louis County provided a tape that includes the newly-added 100 votes, but it was dated November 2. Odd.

Yep. Your point?

Precinct 1 in Mountain Iron, according to the Minnesota Secretary of State's web site, uses an optical scanner. So the results should have been uploaded electronically to St. Louis County. Have you seen an explanation why local officials called in the results instead? I haven't.

You don't say. No, I haven't. But it certainly would help explain how their totals could be off by exactly 100 votes, don't you think?

The tape that was printed off the optical scanner after the polls closed on November 4 should have been signed by the election judges, both a Republican and a Democrat. That's state law. But apparently it wasn't. Again odd.

Yep. If what you say is true, it is certainly an anomaly that needs explanation. One would think that one would ask the election judges. I suppose they might have disappeared without a trace, but it probably would have been reported.

And isn't it odd that the "newly discovered ballots" are so predominantly for Franken in a state where half the vote went to Coleman. One would think statistics would suggest that outcome to be highly unlikely. Even in that precinct, a third of the votes when to McCain. Why didn't a third of these "found" votes go to Coleman. I really doubt that McCain voters voted for Franken.

Were the presidential votes on the "found" ballots for McCain or Obama? If they were for Obama and Franken, then either the predominance of the ballots were for Franken by coincidence, or someone falsified a bunch of ballots for Franken, or someone attempted to prevent a bunch of ballots for Franken from being counted. Having no psychic powers, I cannot currently differentiate between these possibilities.

Almost all of the new votes came from just 3 precincts out of 4130. That too is a little odd. Don't you think?

Not if three precincts had faulty machines and 4127 precincts had correctly functioning machines.

Equally odd is that the new ballets improved Franken's totals dramatically more than Obama's in those precincts ... by a factor of more than 2 over Obama's gains. Statistics would suggest that factor should be close to 1 ... unless voters would like Franken more than Obama. But that's really hard to believe. Don't you think?

Actually I really don't know. Maybe Minnesota has many racist Democrats.

So when do you begin to get suspicious about this precinct, gdnp?

When a highly partisan JREF member known to post exaggerations and half-truths and enamored with Democratic party conspiracy theories says so. When independent observers analyzing the situation declare there is grounds for suspicion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why is that the most likely explanation? ....

Um.. Because that's what the district that made the tally error reported. I'm sure they had the tally showing the error.