MNpublius.com

Fivethirtyeight points out something very interesting:

According to the latest statistics compiled by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Norm Coleman’s campaign has thus far challenged 240 ballots in Minnesota’s recount process, whereas the Franken campaign has challenged 172 ballots, a 68-ballot gap. If the rate of challenges holds steady as the rest of the state’s ballots are re-counted, that would mean the Coleman campaign would send about 1,050 ballots to the state’s canvassing board as compared with roughly 750 from Franken.

So why has Coleman challenged so many more ballots? Nate has a theory:

Their incentive to do so might be as follows: whichever candidate leads at the end of the first phase of the recount process — before the canvassing board reviews any challenged ballots — will be able to claim some sort of moral highground. By being able to deduct ballots from their opponent’s total essentially at will, the campaigns increase the likelihood that they will in fact lead at the end of the first-phase count with each additional ballot that they challenge.

The incentives may be particularly powerful for the Coleman campaign, because Minnesota has a Democratic Secretary of State (although the five-person canvassing board he appointed appears to be divided roughly evenly across the political spectrum). If Coleman leads at the end of both the initial count (as he did) and the first phase of the recount process, but falls behind Franken after the canvassing board completes his review of the challenged ballots, he will probably attempt to complain later that Democratically-appointed canvassing board had “overturned the will of the people”. This might give him greater leverage to demand a second recount or even a re-vote in the event that he falls behind. It might also plausibly affect the mindset of the canvassing board when reviewing the challenged ballots.

Something to keep an eye on.