Over the weekend, the Pioneer Press specifically debunked this emerging right-wing myth in a Q and A piece on the recount:
Q So Coleman had a lead. There was a recount. And now Franken has a lead. Did Franken or the Democrats steal this election?
A No. Although some partisans have thrown around the idea that someone is trying to steal the election, the vast majority of the recount was done in the open by local election officials.
Many of the major issues in the race were decided unanimously by the state canvassing board. The board is made up of two state Supreme Court justices, both appointed by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty; two Ramsey County judges, one appointed by former Independence Party Gov. Jesse Ventura and the other widely believed to be a Democrat but completely inactive in politics for decades; and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a Democrat.
At the Coleman campaign’s request, the Minnesota Supreme Court also weighed in on the recount several times. The court made its decisions without the two Pawlenty-appointed justices on the canvassing board but still had a majority of Republican-appointed justices.
We can’t let partisan warriors on the right destroy Minnesota’s reputation of superb elections (high turnout, fair process, etc…) just because they don’t like who won.
Nobody stole anything, I agree.
But as Kerosene Hat said on another post, this margin is so statistically insignificant that you might as well flip a coin on the winner. I’d love to have this election decide by, say, half of a percent so we can all feel better about having a clear outcome. But we’re over 10,000 votes away from that.
Here is what I suggest: We give Amy Klobuchar this seat for 6 more years since she already has loads of clear support and popularity. Then we give this 4-year term to Franken and vote on it again in 2012.
By all means lets just change laws and make sh*t up as we go. There was a meticulous non partisan recount. Franken won. That’s it. Based on the polls most people feel OK about the outcome, so watch it when you say things like “we can all feel better”.
Unless of course by “we” you mean all the Coleman supporters.
The process is clear. Franken won. Coleman lost. Lets get on to fixing our nation.
BTW - I love the red herring phrase “statically insignificant”, always used without support of statical data.
The Law: The one with the most votes wins. (NO mention of “the one with the most statistically significant votes wins”!!!)
Great post — great quote from the Pioneer Press, too!
The benchmark isn’t a statistically significant margin, Dan. The benchmark is a plurality plus 1. Franken won. The recount was open and consistent.
Suck it up, and move on. We’ve got a nation to fix.
From a purely high school mathematics standpoint, the margin of 255 out of 2.5 million is truly statistically insignificant. That being said, we have a process, one that is playing itself out — perhaps more slowly than I or others would like, but playing out nonetheless.
There have been some intriguing proposals made in recent days to improve our elections since this has begun. Some good (loosening up absentee ballot rules), some not (a true recount election).
One that might merit some focus is proving a provisional certificate of election pending legal challenges. Would that make it better? Perhaps. So what would be the counter to that idea?
To be clear, at the end of the day, I say seat someone and seat it soon. As of today, that would be Mr. Franken.
I think Minnesota has many, many, many people who would be better suited to serve us in the Senate than Franken, and I think knowing who ultimately had more people vote for them that night in November will never be known. But for the good of MN constituents who are short a Senator today, we need to send someone to DC.
MRW
Bulls**t. Show me your high school math.
MRW-
Here let me help you…Is the winning margin a small number? Why, yes it is (This would be your high school math)
Is is statistically insignificant? No it is not.
Atilla:
Here is my h.s. math (with the correct numbers, not the ones I used above):
225 / 2,900,000 = .00008
Sure qualifies to me. But let’s also remember that statistically insignificant has, in the end, no bearing in this matter. It was just an attempt to make a point. This is all I’m going to say on this subject as it seems it is not worth trying to discuss.
MRW, OK sorry if I got riled up. Nothing personal. Being a scientist, I get really peeved when people toss around the term “statistically insignificant” without any basis. What you show above is simple math, not statistics.
Should I have used “mathematically infinitesimal” instead?