The issue is this:

If there are more ballots counted than voters, there's a problem.

If you use one set of standards in one place, and another in a different place, you're playing politics.

What does not make sense, and what no one has explained, is why you would use the hand count in some instances, and the machine count in other instances.

That all said, I think that the best solution to this is ultimately a political one: allow the people whom you think are crazy to rant about this. Then, change the law so that close elections are decided through a second election, not a recount. The latter is much more subject to manipulation - and, even when not manipulated, a great deal of distrust - than the former.

Roxeanne,

Thanks for your comment. I am always glad to see you here.

For the first issue, there is no such thing as precincts that have more votes than registered voters. I don't know where you got the idea that there were more ballots counted than there were voters, but that is not something I have heard from anyone, including the Coleman campaign. There are many precincts that have more votes than they had on election night, because they counted voted that were legally cast, but improperly marked such that the vote was legal, and the intent of the voter was clear, but the machine could not read them. Those voters were disenfranchised in the election. They were re-enfranchised by the re-count. Those ballots benefitted both candidates....but probably benefitted Franken more due to the unusually high number of first-time Democratic voters.

It is also not unusual for the tally to go up due to absentee ballots. This will also bring the total of votes far above that of those on election night, as most people who vote absentee only do it once or twice in a life-time and though the process is not complicated, it is VERY touchy. If you file your absentee vote improperly, it is rejected, and your vote is not counted.

There are always a few absentee ballots that are legally cast, but improperly rejected due to misunderstandings or clerical errors. This number of votes is usually within the margin of error, not considered statistically significant, and usually is not addressed unless there is a re-count.

The mandatory, legally required re-count requires that these votes be counted. So a bi-partisan team went through and determined the absentee ballots that had been improperly rejected. These were then counted.

The case of the machine re-count being bigger than the hand count HAS been explained. It's just that Republicans don't like the explanations. The voting machines are heavily supervised and secured by poll workers and judges from both sides. There are also often extra observers from each party at the polling stations on election night.

When the ballot is fed into the box, it is read, and simultaneously stowed in a secure inner chamber of the machine. Nobody at the polling place has access to this chamber.

Therefore...whatever is in the machine of voting night is extremely secure.

While it also seems unlikely that any funny business could have been done during or prior to the re-count, that is the time when it is MOST possible, as the machines spent a great deal of time unsupervised in a store-house.

Therefore, if the hand-count number is different than the machine count, and that difference cannot be explained by any part of the re-count process...and if is a singular anomaly, then the law of parsimony suggests that the machine count is more accurate, and that some sort of funny business occurred in the interim between election night and the re-count.

There are many rational and sensible to explain why a count might go UP in a re-count...but none that would explain why it would go down, except that someone somewhere did a dirty between election night and the recount. It was probably not Frankin supporters that snuck in and stole 133 of Franken's votes out of the ballot box. The list of suspects is probably pretty small: Coleman supporters who have the means to enter the ballot boxes of that particular precinct without leaving signs of forced entry. How that reflects poorly on Franken, I'n still waiting to hear.

The people who are crazy ARE ranting about it, so the first part of your final point is obviously an area of agreement...but I'm sure that you agree that it is within my rights to mock them. Hell, we even give crazy people public money to come into the schools and rant about Jesus…as well as just the fact that Michele Bachmann won re-election. We do NOTHING to silence crazy people in Minnesota. 

As to the second election, here's why I would oppose it:

1) The votes have been cast. This is just to ensure that they have been counted accurately. Nobody is being disenfranchised...in fact, MORE people are enfranchised by the recount process, as their votes would not have counted simply due to clerical errors if there had been no re-count. More people would be disenfranchised by a second election, because it would take even longer than a re-count to get it all set up and running, and in the mean time, Minnesota would have to operate even longer on only one Senator...so half the state would be disenfranchised on a national level for that length of time.

2) The vote is unlikely to go differently, and we'd have to either have another re-count or have yet another election. The vast majority of the state can't stand either one of these two. Coleman is an unrepentant slime ball with an ego and a sense of entitlement the size of this state, and a complete inability to take even a consistent stand on whether he is a Republican or a Democrat. Franken is off-putting as a personality, and difficult to take seriously. If there is a political solution to this, it would have to entail going back to the primaries for different candidates.

3) The cost. I thought Republicans were all about saving tax-payer money? Recounting the vote is much, much cheaper than securing and staffing the polling places. Many of our polling places are churches and schools. It would put an undue burden on them to have to have to give up another night to the polls...nights they could be conducting their own business, or renting out the space for money.

4) As Michele Bachmann (R) bragged on national television, we have the "workingest" state in the country. We have a higher percentage of people working two or three jobs than anyone else (according to Bachmann). We also have people working averaging a much higher work-week than anyone else (according to Bachmann). Try this if you are ever in Minnesota at a party full of college graduates; say in your most bragging voice "I worked two jobs and carried a full credit load and made the dean's list every quarter" the answer will be an overwhelming "Who didn't?"

Minnesotans work their asses off. It is an extremely competitive and productive business environment. Companies that don't get a 50 hour work week out of their employees lose out to those who do. The lower your economic statues, the less likely you are to have time off to go vote, and the less likely you are to have an employer who will give you time to go vote, and the less likely you are to be able to sacrifice a work shift to go vote. They might do it once per year (and clearly, they did this year), but to ask them to do it again when the economic landscape is so tough?

This is somewhat of a bi-partizan issue, as the working class poor tend to be Democratic in the urban centers, and Republican in outstate Minnesota. Having to return to the polls would be difficult for both groups, and result in lost wages, to needlessly repeat a vote.

It is clear to me why the Republicans are pushing for a new election. Bossman can get time off whenever he wants.

There are other reasons, but that is my favorite, cause I get to once again bring up Her Weirdnesses quote that basically boils down to "We have the most exploited workforce in the country! Yeay us!"

Most people don't complain about working...especially in the winter. You can keep your thermostat turned WAYYY down for more of the day save money at home and stay warm at work.

Roxeanne,

A couple of final points about this.

1) The votes Coleman is sueing to add are absentee ballots that were properly rejected according to rules established to prevent voter fraud. thos ballots were examined prior to the election, and found to be legally improper. They were then re-examined during the recount process, and were once again found to be legally improper.

Once again, I'm not certain how this is supposed to reflect badly on Franken.

2) The 133 votes that Coleman wants taken away from Franken due to the one machine where the electronic count appears to be more reliable than the hand-count, if added to the number of illegal ballots Coleman wants counted, is STILL not enough for him to win....so even if the Republicans are given the benefit of the doubt, and the illegal ballots are not an attempt at Republican fraud, and even iff the missing Franken ballots were not stolen by Republicans...

...Franken STILL has more properly cast votes than Coleman...but supposedly Franken is "stealing" the election.

sigh.