Mark Ritchie explains to Dick Day why he's wrong
January 9
At a state senate hearing today about the Franken/Coleman recount, Dick Day marvelously expressed the conservative view that disenfranchising some voters is OK. It explains how they could see it as election theft to count absentee votes that were wrongly rejected. That's the breaks, too bad. Day was talking specifically about the standard for hand recounts of going by the intent of the voter. Had the machine decided of course, and wrongly rejected ballots not been counted, Coleman would have won. It's self-serving of them of course, but also their attitude that voting is a privilege, not a right, so if you don't get to vote, so what? If you can stop likely Democrats from voting, isn't that just the game?
The money moment from Day:
"If the stupidity is such, that there's Y's and arrows and X's, and whatever, why isn't it that we can put it in a machine, and if the machine can't read what somebody is trying to vote for, I personally don't care if they're disenfranchised or not and most of the people that I talk to don't really care because if you're educated and you can't fill an oval in, ... would it better if the machine can't read it, that's it. We just don't sit around and spend, and go through five or ten thousand ballots that somebody might wanted vote for somebody...I don't know. That seems to me just a huge waste of time, so explain to me why I'm wrong here on that."The Uptake has the video. Senate district 26 has the embarrassment. Mark Ritchie had the answer:
"Madame Chair, Senator Day, the founders of our nation and the writers of the Minnesota Constitution did not require that the citizens only be able to vote if they can comply with the demands of the machine manufacturers. My grandmother, sharp as a tack until the day she died, shook. She could not fill in a circle. So, if the proposal is that if you can't comply with the conditions of the manufacturer of machines, wonderful machines that give us great accuracy and great, very timely results in most respects, then you don't get to vote, then that's a dramatic change from the founders of the nation and the writers of the Minnesota Constitution. It is a proposal that I've heard from many people who've been disparaging --- if you cannot fill in a circle, that breaks my heart when I think about my grandmother, and that somebody's saying she should not be allowed to vote because the machine manufactured by a company in Taiwan cannot read her vote."Brilliant response. Maybe not the bit about Taiwan, but he personalized a core argument for the intent of the voter standard, that not everybody can mark the ballot properly, but that doesn't mean they're stupid or unfit to vote. Certainly it would be better if people with physical difficulties marking a ballot would exercise their right to ask election judges for help, but legally they don't have to, they may not know they have that right, and I can understand some people being to proud to admit they can't mark a ballot themselves. That shouldn't negate their vote. Maybe if they voted Republican then conservatives would care about protecting their right to vote, but maybe they vote Democratic because they know which party defends them and which tries to make voting harder. If anyone is in doubt, watch the video.
On a tangential note, Day's figure of five or ten thousand ballots, if that's the number the machines couldn't read, is pretty low out of 2.9 million ballots. Of course, Republicans keep telling their base that a switch of 450 ballots in a recount of 2.9 million is statistically impossible, so maybe numbers just aren't their thing.
In that same clip, Ritchie answered the question of why missing ballots get counted using the machine tally. That question was about the missing packet from one precinct in Minneapolis (if it was missing from an Republican-leaning precinct, would there still have been a controversy? I doubt it). Ballots have been missing in prior recounts, and the precedent has been that the election day tally is used if it's proven the ballots had existed. In this case, the precinct had more voters than votes, equal in number to the missing ballots, so the ballots definitely were cast on election day.
The Conspiracy Theory of Franken's Election Theft
January 6
Minnesota just had an impressively open recount. The standards were set by law before the recount rather than being fought over. It was mandated by law when the final election tally had a margin of less than .5%. Compare this to Ohio 2004 and Florida 2000, where there was a fight even to have a recount and it was never completed in either case, or Washington state 2004 where there was a machine recount before the hand recount, or even the recount after the New Hampshire primary last year, which was stopped when the money ran out.
Nonetheless Republicans have their tin foil hats firmly duct-taped to their heads. They are taking almost as an article of faith that Democrats always stole the election when they won, and they certainly claim this senate election was stolen, despite not only a lack of evidence, but evidence to the contrary.
So, how do we know the recount was fair?
- Most Minnesota Supreme Court justices were appointed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, possibly the most conservative governor Minnesota has ever had. Certainly the most conservative since the 1920's. To believe the Conspiracy Theory of Franken's Election Theft, you have to believe most justices are in the tank for the DFL, despite being appointed by the opposing party.
- The canvassing board was appointed and chaired by Sec. of State Mark Ritchie, a DFLer. However, he was the only DFLer. There were two Republicans --- two of the supreme court justices appointed by Pawlenty, a district court judge appointed by Independence Party Gov. Jesse Ventura, and another district court judge who was elected in a nonpartisan election. So that's two Republicans, two independents, and only one Democrat. As one member, Judge Edward J. Cleary, points out in his response to a smearing editorial by the Wall Street Journal, "As to the Board as a whole, all of our major votes were unanimous." To believe the Conspiracy Theory of Franken's Election Theft, you have to believe the two independents and two Republicans went DFL all of a sudden. Or maybe Ritchie's rippling muscles scared them. And you have to believe they're lying when they say anything different.
- The recount was heavily witnessed, both at the local level and the state canvassing board. Both campaigns and had observers at every local count as did non-partisan groups. Every minute of state canvassing board proceedings was streamed live over the web. Every challenged ballot was visible to anyone who cared to watch. However, the Conspiracy Theory of Franken's Election Theft requires a belief that they managed to count some votes in secret, or make some up and no one noticed, and all the board members, plus loads of local officials from three parties, and all the campaigns' observers, are in on it.
This isn't just about the recount. It's about delegitimizing Franken. Once Franken actually takes office --- assuming Coleman doesn't get a Bush v. Gore gift from the federal courts --- Republicans will use this to hamper him as senator and to attack him should he run for reelection. Also don't think it's pure cynicism by the Republicans. The conservative base believes The Conspiracy Theory of Franken's Election Theft and will be hard to talk out of it. This recount will be used to motivate them like they've been motivated by charges of theft in the Washington gubernatorial recount in 2004. Left without opposition, they can persuade less recount-attentive people that something is wrong about Franken's election. So we in the reality-based community need to be active in blunting every falsehood they put out. The fight over the election's legitimacy is already in progress.
What a senatorial senator looks like
January 5
Al Franken has been the far more senatorial acting candidate through the recount. Coleman and his supporters have pushed (and may I stress CONTINUE to push) blatant falsehoods in hopes of delegitimizing Franken and the recount process, seeking to destroy Minnesota's reputation for efficient honest elections in hopes of winning in a PR battle what they couldn't win at the ballot box. Watch this video to see what a proper senator looks like.
Why I haven't blogged since November 18
January 5
My last post was on November 18. These photos show my bicycle helmet, which got into it's current state on November 19, when I was on the losing side of a bicycle/SUV accident:
This is the outside. The white is interior cushioning showing through the cracked shell:
And this is the inside, which shows the helmet cracked clear through:
I crossed Portland Av. at 6th St. in downtown Minneapolis when a driver on Portland ran the red light, and I didn't have time to stop or swerve before crashing into the side. Here's the point I very much want to get across: despite the condition of that helmet, I did not suffer a lasting head injury; I'm serious, not even a minor concussion. I had a headache unique among all headaches I've ever had in that it went evenly around my whole skull, but it was gone in a couple days.
I also suffered a shoulder separation which makes lengthy typing difficult, which is why I haven't blogged until now. With the Minnesota senate recount going on, that was tough. I did give in to the temptation to comment on news sites articles or blog posts, but this is my first go at something at all lengthy. There is a some catching up to do, so please keep reading.
Meanwhile, I repeat my point: thanks to the helmet, I came out without a head injury when I surely would have suffered something serious otherwise. I easily could have died. Please, please, please, wear a helmet when bicycling. Show these photos to anyone who thinks wearing a helmet makes them look dorky. Show them to the people who knocked Barack Obama for wearing one. Let them talk to me -- the live guy with the fully functioning brain, though we'll see how I do going through an intersection next time I'm on a bike. I'm wondering if I'll have a panic attack. I don't think so, but I can't know for sure. My shoulder isn't up to supporting me yet, not to mention there's a lot of ice on the streets after one of Minnesota's snowiest Decembers and a so far icy January.
Oh, right, the recount. Franken is ahead after counting the wrongly rejected absentee ballots, Coleman is going to the state supreme court to try a Hail Mary, and since that's unlikely, Franken wins unless Coleman goes to the federal courts and gets them to pull a Bush v. Gore.
I wouldn't rule that one out.
