You would think with advancements in voting technology, we wouldn’t have election officials reading tea leaves of voter intent to determine the outcome of a recount.
Yet, pregnant and hanging chads have merely evolved to smudges, X’s and dots. This short blog post by the L.A. Times gives ample illustration to the tussle in St. Paul, which will determine the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
I think it’s pretty obvious that Voter #1 wanted Coleman, Voter #2 wanted Franken and Voter #3 wanted the independent candidate Dean Barkley.
In the first case, you have the circle filled in and X’ed. A partisan poster said that the X meant it was crossing it out, but this is silly. They would’ve crossed out the name if they’d made that big of mistake. Obviously, they just fudged on how to fill out the bubble.
In the second case, the Franken bubble is completely filled in while Barkley has just a dot. Obviously, they wanted Franken.
In the third case, they smeared out the vote for Franken because they wanted Barkley. All very clear.
Of course, it kind of does give way too much subjectivity to these election officials.
This poster says it best:
Here is my call on these ballots.
1. This person filled in the oval, indicating that he had voted for Coleman in the last election; but then crossed it out with an X showing that he now wanted Coleman to be an eX-Senator. I interpret this as a vote for Franken.
2. This is a very shrewd “stealth” vote. The voter filled in the oval for Franken so that the voting machine would read it as a vote for Franken, all the while knowing that in a recount, the canvassing committee would eventually award it to his first choice, Barkley. A true pre-cog.
3. This person filled in the oval next to Barkley just to get the pen working, but when they went to vote for Franken, it had almost completely run out of ink. My call: Franken.