Franken somehow manages to find the votes
When a statewide race is close enough, nobody will suggest that a recount is not in order. Unfortunately- though the Florida courts in 2000 were selectively cognisant of this fact- recounts are, if anything, often easier to manipulate with fraudulent intent than the original canvass.
Experience teaches that when a Democrat is on the losing end of a close race, it is virtually inevitable that overlooked, uncounted votes should suddenly be discovered, that counted votes should be lost before the recount can be conducted, and that compelling reasons will be found for counting votes previously disqualified for reasonable causes- and quite possibly disqualifying votes previously counted. In Florida in 2000, Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris had (the cherished Democratic myth to the contrary) no practical control over the initial count. The counties in which supporters of Al Gore claimed irregularities were uniformly Democratic counties in which practical control was exercised by local Democratic election officials. The scapegoating of Harris for the alleged theft of the 2000 Presidential election never made much logical sense. But then, manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome rarely do.
The recently concluded recount in the Minnesota Senate race, on the other hand, was under the firm control of the Secretary of State. In this case, it was Democrat Mark Ritchie- "the most progressive secretary of state in the nation," as one left-leaning observer called him. And it is hardly a surprise that Norm Coleman's apparent, narrow victory in the race has been overturned as the result of that recount, and that Democrat Al Franken has emerged as the narrow winner under circumstances which can't help but raise eyebrows among those who remember the mantra of the 2000 Gore campaign in Florida: the appeal that "all the votes be counted."
If the Coleman campaign is right, some of the votes- cast for Franken- were counted more than once in the recount, while other Coleman ballots which should have been counted were thrown out for no adequate reason. While a legal battle seems likely to continue for some time, the Minnesota Board of Elections has certified Franken as the victor by a margin of 225 votes out of about two and a half million cast.
Neither party has a monopoly on either electoral virtue or electoral vice. Republicans and Democrats alike cheat in elections, and always have. Not all Republicans cheat. Not all Democrats cheat. While the only study I recall having seen on the topic- conducted in 2004- concluded that Democrats were statistically more likely to cheat in that particular election than Republicans, it is nothing less than silly to suggest that, in the last analysis, either party is either more corrupt or more virtuous than the other.
But given the partisan divisions in this country, it is inevitable that the normal doubt which arises when an election night result is overturned by a recount conducted under circumstances favoring the candidate who eventually wins, in the face of what his opponent regards as gross irregularities, should morph into the conviction on the part of the loser that the election was stolen. And when- as is so often the case today for people on both sides of the political divide- people have so completely lost their sense of proportion that they have convinced themselves that those on the other side are utterly and completely evil, and that only those on the other side ever commit vote fraud. That this view should be as prominent especially on the left as it seems to be is not a healthy sign for American democracy.
When Republicans cheat in elections, they tend to disenfranchise people. When Democrats cheat in elections, votes which should not have been counted (usually either because they were cast illegally, or because the people who supposedly cast them never really existed) end up getting counted- sometimes more than once. Probably more common than outright fraud in both parties is the manifestation of an attitude a congressman once famously displayed when informed that the case involving a seat to which both candidates attempted to submit credentials of election was "a case of two damned scoundrels."
"Yes," he replied. "But which is our damned scoundrel?" Especially in dubious cases, partisan advantage rather than regard for the people's will can often tip the balance when it comes to which of two damned scoundrels- or even two honorable men caught up in a closely-contested campaign where the legitimate winner is in real doubt- ends up on top. And it would be naive to suggest that, except perhaps in the most clear-cut cases, partisan advantage does not usually end up determining which way even honorable people view ambivalent evidence.
The battle for the Minnesota Senate seat isn't over yet. The Coleman campaign will take it to the courts. But it seems certain that whoever ends up being seated- and all the odds seem at present to favor Franken, especially given the Democrats' strong control over the Senate which is, after all, the final judge of its own elections- will serve under a cloud.
And if the apparent result holds up, the State of Minnesota- once the laughingstock of the nation for electing Jesse Ventura as its governor- will now have to suffer the ignominy of being represented in Washington by a nasty, self-righteous, not-very-funny comedian whose untruthful books about those he disagrees with politically have contributed at least as much as the writings of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the others on the Right he disparages to the atmosphere of ugly hate and partisan rancor which so blights our politics.
Roland Burris, appointed by soon-to-be-impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill President-elect Obama's Senate seat, may or may not eventually be seated; there have been indications of late that Harry Reid and the Democratic caucus may accept his credentials after all. But Burris will not be the only new senator to take office under a cloud. If the apparent result holds, Franken will, too.
That cloud will consist, to be sure, of the result of a recount concerning whose integrity there are serious questions. But more than that, he will take office under the cloud of being Al Franken- one of the people most responsible for the poisoning of American politics over the past eight years.
And Minnesota will once again find itself under a cloud as well, as a state whose selection of Franken- be it by ever so small and even questionable a margin- does no great credit to its reputation for wisdom, reason, or decency.
Experience teaches that when a Democrat is on the losing end of a close race, it is virtually inevitable that overlooked, uncounted votes should suddenly be discovered, that counted votes should be lost before the recount can be conducted, and that compelling reasons will be found for counting votes previously disqualified for reasonable causes- and quite possibly disqualifying votes previously counted. In Florida in 2000, Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris had (the cherished Democratic myth to the contrary) no practical control over the initial count. The counties in which supporters of Al Gore claimed irregularities were uniformly Democratic counties in which practical control was exercised by local Democratic election officials. The scapegoating of Harris for the alleged theft of the 2000 Presidential election never made much logical sense. But then, manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome rarely do.
The recently concluded recount in the Minnesota Senate race, on the other hand, was under the firm control of the Secretary of State. In this case, it was Democrat Mark Ritchie- "the most progressive secretary of state in the nation," as one left-leaning observer called him. And it is hardly a surprise that Norm Coleman's apparent, narrow victory in the race has been overturned as the result of that recount, and that Democrat Al Franken has emerged as the narrow winner under circumstances which can't help but raise eyebrows among those who remember the mantra of the 2000 Gore campaign in Florida: the appeal that "all the votes be counted."
If the Coleman campaign is right, some of the votes- cast for Franken- were counted more than once in the recount, while other Coleman ballots which should have been counted were thrown out for no adequate reason. While a legal battle seems likely to continue for some time, the Minnesota Board of Elections has certified Franken as the victor by a margin of 225 votes out of about two and a half million cast.
Neither party has a monopoly on either electoral virtue or electoral vice. Republicans and Democrats alike cheat in elections, and always have. Not all Republicans cheat. Not all Democrats cheat. While the only study I recall having seen on the topic- conducted in 2004- concluded that Democrats were statistically more likely to cheat in that particular election than Republicans, it is nothing less than silly to suggest that, in the last analysis, either party is either more corrupt or more virtuous than the other.
But given the partisan divisions in this country, it is inevitable that the normal doubt which arises when an election night result is overturned by a recount conducted under circumstances favoring the candidate who eventually wins, in the face of what his opponent regards as gross irregularities, should morph into the conviction on the part of the loser that the election was stolen. And when- as is so often the case today for people on both sides of the political divide- people have so completely lost their sense of proportion that they have convinced themselves that those on the other side are utterly and completely evil, and that only those on the other side ever commit vote fraud. That this view should be as prominent especially on the left as it seems to be is not a healthy sign for American democracy.
When Republicans cheat in elections, they tend to disenfranchise people. When Democrats cheat in elections, votes which should not have been counted (usually either because they were cast illegally, or because the people who supposedly cast them never really existed) end up getting counted- sometimes more than once. Probably more common than outright fraud in both parties is the manifestation of an attitude a congressman once famously displayed when informed that the case involving a seat to which both candidates attempted to submit credentials of election was "a case of two damned scoundrels."
"Yes," he replied. "But which is our damned scoundrel?" Especially in dubious cases, partisan advantage rather than regard for the people's will can often tip the balance when it comes to which of two damned scoundrels- or even two honorable men caught up in a closely-contested campaign where the legitimate winner is in real doubt- ends up on top. And it would be naive to suggest that, except perhaps in the most clear-cut cases, partisan advantage does not usually end up determining which way even honorable people view ambivalent evidence.
The battle for the Minnesota Senate seat isn't over yet. The Coleman campaign will take it to the courts. But it seems certain that whoever ends up being seated- and all the odds seem at present to favor Franken, especially given the Democrats' strong control over the Senate which is, after all, the final judge of its own elections- will serve under a cloud.
And if the apparent result holds up, the State of Minnesota- once the laughingstock of the nation for electing Jesse Ventura as its governor- will now have to suffer the ignominy of being represented in Washington by a nasty, self-righteous, not-very-funny comedian whose untruthful books about those he disagrees with politically have contributed at least as much as the writings of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the others on the Right he disparages to the atmosphere of ugly hate and partisan rancor which so blights our politics.
Roland Burris, appointed by soon-to-be-impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill President-elect Obama's Senate seat, may or may not eventually be seated; there have been indications of late that Harry Reid and the Democratic caucus may accept his credentials after all. But Burris will not be the only new senator to take office under a cloud. If the apparent result holds, Franken will, too.
That cloud will consist, to be sure, of the result of a recount concerning whose integrity there are serious questions. But more than that, he will take office under the cloud of being Al Franken- one of the people most responsible for the poisoning of American politics over the past eight years.
And Minnesota will once again find itself under a cloud as well, as a state whose selection of Franken- be it by ever so small and even questionable a margin- does no great credit to its reputation for wisdom, reason, or decency.
Comments