Who Said The Election's Over? How You Can Still Vote
Your vote won't count, but you can still join the festival of electoral fun that's continuing even now in Minnesota, where the U.S. Senate race pitting the comedian Al Franken against incumbent Norm Coleman remains unresolved. The contest is so close that a few hundred disputed ballots may well make the difference by the time the state Canvassing Board is done resolving questions later this month (probably by the 19th). But don't leave the judging to the judges--join in yourself.
You can see many of the disputed ballots here or here. And both the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and Minnesota Public Radio allow readers to cast their votes on which scrawls, erasures, uncertain markings and awkward changes of heart add up to a real, discernible intent to cast a ballot for one candidate or another.
On this ballot, did the voter intend to select Coleman, or did he initially vote for Coleman and then think better of it and "X" out the selection?
To me, it seems obvious that this was not an "X-ing" out because the voter didn't replace the Coleman choice with a different selection. Eighty percent of readers agree with me on this one.
But it gets tougher.
Did this joker really want to "X" out Franken and instead go with his favorite write-in candidate, "Lizard People?" If so, where's the X for the write-in? Or was this voter just sprinkling his love for the Lizard People all around his ballot?
Readers agree that the intent to vote for Lizard People just isn't proven. But while a majority of readers say give the vote to Franken, I say toss the ballot. The voter has injected way too much doubt into the process--whether the intent was to make a joke or add a bit of commentary, the voter deserves to be taken about as seriously as he took the choice of senator--that is, not at all.
And finally it gets tougher still:
Was this confused soul trying to cross out his initial choice of Franken to switch to Coleman, or, as the Franken campaign rather less than honestly argues, was this an effort to underline the voter's great passion for Franken (which couldn't have been so great seeing as how he filled in the oval for Coleman as well)?
Wouldn't the confused voter also have X-ed out the filled-in oval for Franken if he really wanted his vote to count for Coleman? Not necessarily--the crossout of Franken's name might have struck the voter as sufficient. This does not seem as confused a situation as the last one, but it's hard to say with any certainty what the voter wanted. Readers split on this one, with 38 percent giving the vote to Coleman, but a pretty substantial majority of 58 percent saying if the marks don't compute, you must give the ballot the boot. I agree: By virtue of stupidity or lack of care, this voter has forfeited his right to a say in this race. Can the ballot.
The remarkable and encouraging thing about the reader judgments on both of those sites is that readers are apparently coming to this task much the way citizens behave as jurors--putting aside personal prejudices and concentrating on the merits of the issues at hand. How can we know this? First, there's no real pattern of decisions being made for one candidate or the other--something of a rarity in the highly partisan world of online political reader comments. Even more persuasive, the "right" decision--that is, the one that a politically neutral party would come to in the more clear cut of the disputed ballots--is most often arrived at by huge margins, pretty good evidence that readers are setting aside their personal views.
So, does that mean that the Minnesota canvassing board will do the right thing, whatever that turns out to be? Probably. Should all the disputed ballots be put to an online plebiscite of citizens? That would be pretty cool, but not very manageable or practical. In this country, we pick representatives to do most of the work of government for us, so Minnesota's duly selected canvassing board will make the final decisions, but how about setting up a system where the people get to play an advisory role? There's wisdom in the collective choices of the crowd--that's a key lesson of the Internet revolution--so why not have a state-run site that lets voters weigh in, with their decisions being given some advisory, though not conclusive, weight?
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Posted by: SoMD1 | December 1, 2008 1:57 PM
Posted by: pxl4 | December 1, 2008 5:05 PM
Posted by: alamaison | December 2, 2008 6:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.