KSTP sponsored a SurveyUSA poll that found that 56% of Minnesotans, a solid majority, think that the recount was fair to both candidates.
Perhaps as a result of that impression, 49% of Minnesotans disagree with Norm’s decision to contest the election and 44% - both pluralities - think that he should concede.
As I predicted, public support for Norm Coleman collapsed when he decided to embrace hypocrisy and take this election into court.
SurveyUSA hasn’t released their write up or the poll’s crosstabs yet. We’ll link to it as soon as they do.
So now SurveyUSA and KSTP produce credible polls? Good to know!
Hey A.O.
In less than two hundred words, please describe what the phrase “both pluralities” implies.
What IS it with these self-promoters?
If only Norm & that Palin-woman would elope & go away. Disappear for awhile.
So we could consider missing them!
The moment I saw this post was going to quote a KSTP SUSA poll I knew it wouldn’t be long B4 someone was going to comment ‘ala ACO…
It’s the message, not the messenger wool head.
Did anyone notice that Rep. Laura Brod and Sen. Ann Rest are pitching the (limited) idea of runoff elections for close cases like this? Yikes! There is a reason why so few states have actual run-off elections: they are costly at the statewide level, and the participation level drops off dramatically for that second election. I understand that Rep Brod is angling for the Sec. of State’s position, but what is Sen Rest’s motivation here?
ACO,
SurveyUSA and KSTP are heavily slanted conservative, so the survey is probably still biased in that direction. I would stand by this characterization of SUSA. It just means that Minnesotans are even more in favor of Norm conceding than the survey alludes to. So, yes, SUSA over represents conservative ideas and candidates. I think Norm is probably overrepresented in these results as well.
Having been involved in the recount process myself, and watching quite a bit of live video feed, I see no real credible reasons why anyone would question the legitimacy of this recount process. Yes, it sucks to lose, but the conspiracy theories that Coleman supporter’s are throwing out are worthy of a novel…perhaps Vince Flynn could weave them into another best seller?
So, I read the linked article and this is what I see:
Al Franken LESS LIKED than Norm.
Al Franken MORE DISLIKED than Norm.
(and you didn’t feel that was newsworthy, eh?)
And, llmost half the people DO NOT BELIEVE the recount was fair to both parties.
MRW
I heard the recount has cost somewhwere between 2 - 4 million dollars. So, what do you think a runoff would cost. Yes, the numbers would fall off big time in a runoff. So, here’s my question. If we had a runoff, who do you think would win? Be honest!
Really? — if you read the linked article and did the math, you would have seen that no more than 43% (allowing only a minimal margin for error, and no undecideds/no opinions) did not think the recount was fair to both parties. How do you get “almost half” from that?
After you answer that one, you might try your hand at “why it matters now that one candidate is disliked more than the other.”
Let’s see - 100-56 equals 44, which is about 86% of 50, which is ALMOST half. Figured that all out by myself even through I went to a Guv’mint school.
As for the dislike/like issue - It was a major piece of the article, yet the headline on the post focused on the recount percentage. It matters now becuase before he even trys to sit in the Senate, only about a third of the people like Al. I am sure it will be in the 20’s in no time, and I am guessing he is on track to get down to the teens or below where the Democrat controlled Senate resides (although I doubt he will get to the 9% of another good Dem called Blago)
And Really, you might ALSO take a moment to ponder whether the 43% represents disaffected Republican supporters who will NEVER feel it was fair given their candidate lost.
Perhaps rather than pointing to a poll as the arbitor of whether the recount was justly done, you should refer to the decisions of the (mostly) Republican appointed Supreme Court, of the repeateed agreement by the canddiates that certain aspects were more than fair, and that the only aspects which one party objected to, are those which simply didn’t come out in their favor. In short, it appears you’d call it ‘unfair’ unless (apparently) everything had fallen Coleman’s way.
Hardly fair, but cleary your desired outcome.
The term is ‘Sour Grapes’ - you know, what the right called Paul O’Neill’s book, or Ricahrd Clarke’s book, or (ad infinitum) every other person who disagreed with BushCo over the past 8 years - the only difference being, given that there was a fair hearing, and fair evaluation of Norm’s complaints, in this case, it really IS sour grapes, whereas in those cases, it was pure political invective intended to disguise incompetence.
Really?
Norm and Al’s approve/disaprove numbers are nearly exactly the same in the poll. Perhaps you should try college statistics.
CMan:
Honestly? I have no idea who would win a runoff since we have never had that experience here.
Now for the recount costs, we need to make sure that we separate the cost to the taxpayers: canvassing board expenses, the local elections officials, etc.; and what it cost the campaigns: such as (big time) legal fees and such. $2-4 million might be the aggregate, but does that represent the “people’s cost”? Anyone on here have any hard figures?
So long as this state allows for plurality victories, we run the risk of having this happen.
Should we be concerned if we have a second election and the turnout numbers drop significantly? Personally, I do. But that is just me.
The cost to the taxpayers for the recount was estimated at $80K. Of course with all of Coleman’s litigious shytweaseling, the costs for the SC deliberations do add to that.
In the AP’s article (http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_11411067) about Rep. Brod & Sen Rest’s proposal, this figure was noted:
There is one big drawback to a runoff: The public’s cost of holding a new election would be at least a few million dollars. The Senate recount cost about $200,000, state officials say.
“Should we be concerned if we have a second election and the turnout numbers drop significantly? Personally, I do. But that is just me.”
I think it is safe to say that half of the voters would not return for a runoff. Presidential elections bring people out of the woodwork. Many would have no energy to make the effort to come out again on both sides, but I have to believe in would favor Coleman.
i like how all GOPers are firecely supporting a runoff just for this election, even though they know that with a runoff, their stranglehold on the governor’s seat would have been gone in 2002.
and trying to change the rules for an election after it’s already happened is just silly.
“trying to change the rules” has been the GOP meme, however, they prefer changing rules when no one’s looking (which is usually after the fact)
SPS and LW
I am not asking to change the rules for this election. I would like to see it considered for future elections to avoid another close election where one party has the upper hand.
Cman
By “Upper hand” do you mean more votes?
I hope we go to a run off system. Yes it costs a lot of money, but how much is 6 years of representation in the Senate worth? When they are voting on billions of dollar bailouts and other projects the cost billions more.
No matter who gets seated in the Senate 58% of Minnesotans voted for someone else. It is worth that extra money to get someone the people want. Make our candidates cross that 50% threshold if you ask me.
I want this race to be over and for the state to have representation in Washington. If that means that we send Al Freakin Franken to the Senate, so be it.
Doesn’t mean I think the count is accurate at this point or that we will ever know the truth. But at some point you gotta move on.
Godspeed to Senator* Franken of Minnesota.
Thank you for that, makes sense to me. However, was money needlessly spent in the GA senate race on a runoff? The law there states you must break the 50% barrier and neither did. It was 49.8 to 46.8 which triggering the runoff. The election was close, but I think close but wide enough to call.
Instant runnoff voting, All the bang without the bucks!
I do not favor using a run-off, especially for close races, but also for the purpose of a majority election. IRV could solve the non-majority problem, but it has to pass constitutional muster and I’m not sure it ever will.
But a run-off in cases of close races is a horrible idea. If voters are so evenly split that the race is that close, can you imagine the horror of being subjected to several more weeks of advertising? The cost for the state (actually, the counties) is prohibitive. And not as many voters participate in a run-off election.
A hand recount is better, even though, as we see, it is painstaking and also costly. But we can be thankful a statewide recount doesn’t happen very often.
Just to be clear, what are the constitutional issues that get in the way of IRV?
I see nothing in the US Constitution against it, but are there such issues in the Minnesota Constitution?
Any statistician can tell you that this election was a tie. It is impossible to count millions of votes to an accuracy of a few hundred one way or the other.
We use a coin flip for a tie of equal votes. To be realistic, a coin flip could be used any time the vote difference is within the margin of error.
My preference would be a wrestling match. I’d like to see Al kick Norms whiny ass.
BobT - “It is impossible to count millions of votes to an accuracy of a few hundred one way or the other. We use a coin flip for a tie of equal votes.”
Especially when you don’t want an accurate vote. As to the coin flip, I’m sure the Coleman camp, had it known, would have welcomed a coin flip. It would have improved his odds dramatically.
CMan - I’m not sure who you are accusing of not wanting an accurate vote. It was Coleman who called for the counting to stop when he was ahead. He actively tried to block the counting of valid absentee votes, and ridiculed Franken for asking for a forensic search for the 133 lost ballots.
Coleman has been pretending to be the winner since the first night, and gaming the recount by making lots of baseless challenges, so he could claim to be ahead. Then, his baseless challenges are rejected, and the wingers scream that the judges were biased.
The 133 missing ballots may have been accidentally lost, but if any suspicions are to be raised, it seems more likely that a Coleman supporter stole them than the winger allegation that they never existed.
Interesting Poll done for DailyKos by Research 2000. People think Franken should be provisionally seated in the US Senate 47% to 37%. 63% of people think the recount was fair to both Coleman and Franken. Net Favorability rating Franken +4 , Coleman -17. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/10/133747/921/913/682505
I’m seeing BobT’s point. This race will forever be statistically inconclusive, regardless of who ultimately gets seated.
BobT: How do you define “margin of error” in an election with hand counting. In my opinion, the term “margin of error” is used exclusively in polling.
An election is a poll with a 100% sample size. There is still a MOE because there is no method of perfectly counting the votes. I thought Coleman’s margin before the recount was to small to be meaningful and feel the same way about Franken’s current margin. Given the number of places errors could have been made, ballots lost, accounting errors, etc a difference of .008% is in no way statistically meaningful. That doesn’t even account for the variations based on things like ballot design.
The vote was for all meaningful purposes a tie. Who ends up Senator will be determined by a process no more related to the will of the people then a flip of a coin. Anybody who tries to make more of it than that is either an idiot or….well I guess they are all idiots they only differ in that some are dishonest on purpose, others out of ignorance.
This election just demonstrates the need for IRV.
In the case of the Minnesota general election, the number of voters (2.9 million) was damn near the number of registered voters (3.19 million) this virtually eliminates any “margin of error”
Sorry, guys. I must reiterate my opinion that Really? and other republican trolls need to attend a college statistics course.
This was NOT a tie.
The sample size (those who voted in the senate election) was 90% of the population (registered voters) The “margin of error” is essentially non existent.
This was NOT a tie.
“The sample size (those who voted in the senate election) was 90% of the population (registered voters) The “margin of error” is essentially non existent.
This was NOT a tie.”
????? I know I’m just a country bumpkin, but I’m not following that one at all.
I have taken more than one graduate level statistics course lojasmo and your logic is flawed. The errors are not happening in the calculations of the data but in the original data gathering. The lost ballots from the Minneapolis precinct, the variations in how ballots were counted across the state, the thousands of votes that were determined or tossed out based on the opinion of a few people sitting on the canvassing board. Even ballot design can make a difference in vote totals more significant then .008%.
The calculations done based on imprecisely collected data will imprecise,no matter how much of the data you have. The vote was a tie as far as our ability to collect the data. Franken’s win will still be valid as our system had a method for determining a legitimate winner even if we can never know who received a plurality of voter support.
When the sample size approaches the population size, the “margin of error” becomes nearly nonexistent. The term “margin of error” is used improperly in this context.
K.H. You are reciting Coleman lawyer talking points. If ALL the rejected absentee ballots were counted, Franken’s lead would likely increase tenfold.
lojasmo,
I alos used Franken talking points. All of them show different points were errors could be made. You are right that Franken’s lead might go up, the fact that you acknowledge that shows that the current count and a perfect count of voter intent are different. The difference between those two numbers is bigger than the current official margin. The perfect count might give Franken a bigger lead, it might not. Our inability to count more accurately will keep us from knowing. That fact makes the count of votes during the election a functional tie.
I for one would like to see someone’s lead go up tenfold, even if it isn’t my candidate. For the good of the state, I’d rather have a conclusive victor than indefinate uncertainty over who really won. Even if that victor is the other guy.