Ned Flounders wrote:
I'd say ballots 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8 should clearly go to Franken.
Ballots 9 and 10 should go to Barkley.
Ballot 2 shouldn't be rejected just because of a thumbprint.
Ballots 3, 7, and 11 should probably be rejected.
I think your assessment is dead-on.
What's so excruciating about this isn't the process, it's the ridiculously idiotic rationale behind some of these challenges. A handful of those are legitimate, but most of'em are just idiotic.
"He was underlining Al"? Are you serious with this?
A smudgy thumbprint (which could belong to anyone) is a distinguishing identification mark? OK, then tell me whose ballot it is. Now prove it.
You should ignore the fully-filled circle because there's a tiny dot next to Coleman's name? "What appear to be eraser marks" are a better indicator of voter intent than a clearly filled-in circle? It's unclear what the intent is of a ballot with a check mark next to the name and a circle around the only square directly opposite the same candidate's name? Auuughhh!
Is this the kind of logic we can expect either of these idiots to employ when weighing decisions in the Senate? God help us all, or at least the Minnesotans.
I imagine some of the parents of these lawyers sitting at home thinking, "This
is why I worked like a slave so my son could go to law school? Oy!"