Al Franken Heads to Washington

[SteamWake]

The funny thing about this 'election' is that Franken's opponent won outright.

Then on the demanded recounts Franken got more and more votes.

Very curious indeed.

Seeing as how Franke is a but... uhhh... unstable I think he will self destruct.

Already polling data is beginning to show that americans feel that the feds have become 'too liberal'. Wait untill some of these agendas really start to hit home to the average clueless dork then the stuff will really hit the fan.

Oh and the mortgage payments.. wasent Obama supposed to help with that?

[Buddahaid]

At least this government joker has qualifications.

Buddahaid

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

At least this government joker has qualifications.

Buddahaid

That got a laugh out of me.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

The funny thing about this 'election' is that Franken's opponent won outright.

Then on the demanded recounts Franken got more and more votes.

Very curious indeed.

Seeing as how Franke is a but... uhhh... unstable I think he will self destruct.

Already polling data is beginning to show that americans feel that the feds have become 'too liberal'. Wait untill some of these agendas really start to hit home to the average clueless dork then the stuff will really hit the fan.

Oh and the mortgage payments.. wasent Obama supposed to help with that?

This smells like the ghost of George Parr has his hands all over this...

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

The funny thing about this 'election' is that Franken's opponent won outright.

Then on the demanded recounts Franken got more and more votes.

Very curious indeed.

Not curious at all. The entire purpose of a recount is to re-do the count for the purpose of checking accuracy. The fact that the vote count changed is indicative that the decision for a recount was appropriate.

My major concern, and this is not limited to the MN election is the election officials attempting to determine voter intent. This is wrong!

A ballot is either valid or invalid. If a citizen is too stupid to to mark a ballot correctly then their vote should not count.

Putting election officials in the position of trying to determine voter intent is inappropriate. Voter intent is demonstrated by the ballot, not an interpretation of what the ballot may or may not indicate.

The various states have been setting a, in my opinion, very bad precedent with "voter intent" evaluations.

I am an election official in my state. In our elections at any time before the vote is scanned, the citizen can request a new ballot and we will void the old ballot. This is explained to every voter in person when they vote.

Mistakes are understandable. Especially in ballots using markers. If any citizen mistakenly makes any stray marks on their ballot, all they have to do is tell an election official and a new ballot will be issued. no embarrassment; no problems. There is a procedure for this.

In order to make our elections as fair as possible, we simply can't be putting election officials in the position of having to determine voter intent with mismarked ballots.

I may be a bit harsh but I feel that if a citizen is too stupid to operate a paper ballot they probably are too stupid to have their votes counted.

[SteamWake]

Have you seen some of those mismarked ballots?

I have and I agree that they should have been thrown out. But it seems that if there was any doubt it was given to Franken.. Im just saying.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

. Im just saying.

No you are spreading rumours. If you have evidence of election fraud then you needed to have sent it to the state election board.

Election officials are ordinary people working hard to make the democratic process work. Our elections are not perfect and there are ways of improving it. However to spread rumours that the election officials somehow violated their oaths is inappropriate unless you have evidence.

I have not met a single election official who did not take their oath seriously. I only wished the citizens realized that.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Platapus

No you are spreading rumours. If you have evidence of election fraud then you needed to have sent it to the state election board.

Election officials are ordinary people working hard to make the democratic process work. Our elections are not perfect and there are ways of improving it. However to spread rumours that the election officials somehow violated their oaths is inappropriate unless you have evidence.

I have not met a single election official who did not take their oath seriously. I only wished the citizens realized that.

Im just an ordinary citizen whom keeps up with the news. Unlike 90% of the rest of the citizens of this country.

We both know that even if I had proof positive of election fraud it would be laughed at and dismissed.

Im not saying anything about the election officials there job was long finished before this circus began.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

No you are spreading rumours. If you have evidence of election fraud then you needed to have sent it to the state election board.

Election officials are ordinary people working hard to make the democratic process work. Our elections are not perfect and there are ways of improving it. However to spread rumours that the election officials somehow violated their oaths is inappropriate unless you have evidence.

I have not met a single election official who did not take their oath seriously. I only wished the citizens realized that.

Have you seen the ballots in question, and the comparisons on what was accepted for Franken but rejected for Coleman? The reason I ask is because I think you'd be shocked at some of the comparisons.

[Tchocky]

I liked Franken's radio show (seems like nobody else did, mind), and he does seem to take this fairly seriously. I wonder how he'll do as a Senator

[Skybird]

Filibustering means that an elected minority is given a power as if it were no minority but equal in strength to the elected majority. But democratic elections are meant to create majorities and minorities, while the filibusters tries to reject and/or distort that. In other words it is an abuse of or a distortion of democratic basic principles. In europe, several nations have had pendants to the filibuster in their past (and some until today), in Germany'S Weimarer Republic they knew it under the name of "Obstruktion". In the reforming of Germany after WWII, it was wisely decided not to make this mistake again, and Bundestag and Bundesrat-speeches are limited in time therefore. Both houses should come to decisons by arguments, not by playing tricks and cheats and rethoric trench warfare (under ideal terms at least, of course party interests dominate their behavior anyway, and the filibister in the senate is used for party interests, too, and the interests of single senators regarding their voter potential at home).

If the US Senate now has a constellation where filibusters are not possible, this is a good thing, preventing the distortition of power structures that had been democratically voted for natuonwide by the people. While that small lead by that comedian in one state is an unlucky mishap, nevertheless it is a lead and by the rules of democratic elections it makes him the winner nevertheless. He just would be wise to avoid claiming that he represents a clear majority of people in his state. In fact he only won by the breadth of one hair. That is perfectly legal, but no reason to boast.