Link

I had someone send me this link and I'm kind of confused what the basis of this challenge is...am I missing something here or is this the dumbest ballot challenge in the history of mankind?

Anyways, from what I hear the totals have gone down for both by about 1200 votes or so due to challenges which will need to go to the canvassing board for final approval, but the actual change in the difference is only like +5 to Franken (this is probably out of date by now).

While I'm on the subject, here is by far my favorite ballot from the race so far:

Story

He went outside the line?

lol

I was thinking it might be a technical issue I didn't know about, but I'm starting to think it's just some guy being a dufus.

I don't see why one vote for Lizard People would invalidate the vote for Al Franken. Maybe the Lizard People are good at some areas of government but don't make for good senators?

I haven't been keeping track of this. I didn't know both of them lost a bunch of votes. I think Franken's gained more a couple hundred votes by now though. I forget how many.

^^ Yeah I agree on the Lizard People ballot, that should be a Franken vote, he didn't fill the circle and it's pretty clear he was joking =P

As for the state of the race, the most recent news story I can find says 78% of votes have been recounted and Coleman has challenged 1,600 with Franken in the mid 1500 range. For a total change of +46 to franken leaving him 210 behind still.

Anyways, here are some more ballots for those interested(some are repeats):

Link

Ballot #1: The Signature

The Franken campaign challenged this ballot, arguing the voter left an identifying mark on the ballot. (MPR has blacked-out the signature to respect the voter's privacy.) Minnesota law states: "If a ballot is marked by distinguishing characteristics in a manner making it evident that the voter intended to identify the ballot, the entire ballot is defective." (MPR Photo/Laura Yuen)

Ballot #2: The Bachmen

The Franken campaign challenged this ballot in Ramsey County where the voter appears to have written "Bachmen" — presumably a reference to U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann — in the write-in field. (Caroline Yang for MPR)

Ballot #3: The Pencil

The Coleman campaign questioned this Ramsey County ballot because while the oval for the Presidency was filled in with pen, the rest were filled in with pencil, calling into question whether the ballot had been properly duplicated. (Caroline Yang for MPR)

Ballot #4: The X Factor

The Franken campaign challenged this ballot in Ramsey County, arguing the voter drew an "X" in over the oval for Norm Coleman, signifying the voter's intent to cross-out the vote for Coleman. (Caroline Yang for MPR)

Ballot #5: The Autograph

The Franken campaign challenged this ballot, arguing the voter left an identifying mark (signature blurred for privacy) on the ballot. (Caroline Yang for MPR)

Ballot #6: The Arrow

The Coleman campaign challenged this ballot in Anoka county, arguing the voter drew an arrow pointing at Coleman's name after filling in the bubble next to Franken's name. (MPR Photo/Curtis Gilbert)

Ballot #7: The Thumbprint

The Franken campaign challenged this Anoka County ballot, arguing that the thumb print on it constitutes a distinguishing mark. If a voter signs a ballot or writes his Social Security Number on it, that ballot is invalid under Minnesota state law. The State Canvassing Board will need to determine whether this thumbprint has the same effect. (MPR Photo/Curtis Gilbert)

Ballot #8: Outside the lines

The ballot was challenged in Shorewood because the voter did not make the mark inside a bubble next to a candidate's name. (MPR Photo/Bill Alkofer)

Ballot #9: The NO ballot

This ballot was challenged in Dakota County because two ovals were filled in. Minnesota law says a ballot is valid is election officials can determine the voter's intent. (Image courtesy of Dakota County)

Ballot #10: Lizard People

This Beltrami County voter cast their ballot for Al Franken, but also put "Lizard People" as a write-in candidate, not only in the U.S. Senate race, but for several others. The county auditor/treasurer ruled that the vote should not be counted because it's considered an overvote. Representatives for Franken challenged that decision. (MPR Photo/Tom Robertson)

Ballot #11: The Checkmark

This Olmsted County voter placed a checkmark next to Al Franken's name and also circled one of the guide marks for the optical scanner. The Coleman campaign challenged the voter's intent. (MPR Photo/Sea Stachura)

Ballot #12: The Oops

This Olmsted County ballot has marks in both Coleman's and Franken's bubbles. Both campaigns challenged this ballot. (MPR Photo/Sea Stachura)

Ballot #13: The Dot

The Coleman campaign challenged this ballot, arguing the voter didn't intend to vote for Franken, because of the small dot inside the bubble next to Dean Barkley’s name. (MPR Photo/Curtis Gilbert)

Ballot #14: The Eraser

The Franken campaign challenged this ballot. Even though the voter filled in the bubble next to Barkley's name, a Franken representative said what appear to be eraser marks over Franken's bubble indicated the voter intended to vote for Franken. (MPR Photo/Curtis Gilbert)

Ballot #15: The Confusion

The Coleman campaign kept this ballot from going into the 'Other' pile. They argued that while the voter filled in the bubble next to Dean Barkley, the voter had intended to vote for Coleman because of the small dot inside Coleman's bubble. (MPR Photo/Curtis Gilbert)

Ballot #16: The Underline

The Franken campaign challenged this ballot, arguing the voter intended to vote for Franken. "He was underlining Al," said Franken volunteer Jeff Lange, who made the challenge. (MPR Photo/Curtis Gilbert)

13, 14, 15 are silly challenges.

I'll give my real feeling on who the vote should be for and my technical interpretation for each:

1) Real: Coleman - Technical: Toss it out

Obvious they wanted to vote for Coleman but the rules apparently say no identifying marks.

2) Real: Coleman - Technical: Coleman Toss it

Same as the Lizard People, he filled in the Coleman bubble and wrote in a name. Neither guy is happy about voting for the person  but who they intended to vote for is, I think, fairly clear.

3) Real: Toss It - Technical: Toss It

Having the one bubble on the entire ballot in pen makes it pretty damn suspect to me...I wouldn't trust it. It makes no sense for only one bubble to be pen...

4) Real: Coleman - Technical: Coleman

There is no way to know if a voter intends an X as cancellation or a vote. Its a mark in the bubble, with no appearence of trying to assert that it wasn't a vote, so I say it is a vote.

5) Real: Coleman - Technical: Toss it

Again with the identifying mark. Obvious that they wanted to vote Coleman but the rules say toss it.

6) Real: Franken - Technical: Franken

This one is silly, this is a clear vote for Franken to me.  It looks more like a blotch than an arrow to me.

7) Real: Coleman - Technical: Coleman

A fingerprint is a terrible standard of identifying marks. Nearly every ballot is going to have it's voters fingerprint and being able to see it makes no difference to that. Nobody can tell at a glance whose print it is anyways so the fact that it is visible or invisible doesn't matter. If the fact that it is a unique mark matters then we could throw out a ton more ballots with even the slightest smudge...so I think this is a dangerous road to go down because then in the process of counting or recounting a vote could be smudged and subsequently disqualified.

8) Real: No Idea - Technical: Toss it

If he had made it inside the box I would give him credit, but that's way off and could easily be someone testing their pen/pencil before voting.

9) Real: Franken - Technical: Toss it

Very clear he wanted to vote franken, but as I understand it these get tossed. I disagree with tossing it though.

10) Real: Franken - Technical: Toss it

Same as #9, it's clear they wanted to vote for franken but the rules say toss it. Again I disagree with that ruling.

11) Real: Franken - Technical: Toss it

I'd give this one to Franken, there are two marks (one left, one right). Also note this one has a fingerprint smudge as well in the top right.

12) Real: Coleman - Technical: Toss it

Coleman's bubble is bigger! I would probably lean towards tossing it, but I think the intent was to vote Coleman...but I'm not confident enough to call it a vote.

13) Real: Franken - Technical: Franken

Clearly Franken. Period.

14) Real: Barkley - Technical: Barkley

Clearly Barkley. Period.

15) Real: Barkley - Technical: Barkley

This person has terrible writing skills, but they still make it clear they want to vote for Barkley.

16) Real: Toss it - Technical: Toss it

I think they are trying to cross out Franken's name and vote for Coleman, but nobody can tell me they are confident enough about this ballot to call it a vote. I do love the way half of the line is an underline and the other half is a cross-out =P

edit: @Steven,

I absolutely agree.

I'm glad that we agree on 13, 14, 15 but why do you say 2(Bachmann) should count and 10 (Lizardmen) shouldn't?

Both of those are threats to America. J/K

That was actually a mistake on my part.  I think both intended to vote for their respective filled bubbles but the technical rules say toss them both.  So if it were my call I would keep both based on the bubble marking, but by the rules apparently both get tossed.

Fixed it in the post.

edit: PS - I'm curious what you think about the thumbprint(7) and if you disagree with my thoughts on it.

Quick question. Is the U.S. similar to Canada in that if someone accidently spoils their ballot, they are entitled to receive another? I know it's always going to hit a fraction of the voting population, but what prevented any of these people from saying "oops, I made a mistake, can I have another ballot please?"