WOW. Your opinion may change if you read a bit about this subject. Lets see, the absentee ballots were reviewed by the counties on election day. True, different people reviewed the ballots in each municipality so although the standards were exactly the same for all ballots, human implementation varied slightly county by county as would be expected for any human implemented endeavor. During the recount, the Franken team said, "Hmm, I think we missed some." So, the election board gave clarification to the municipalities, and all were checked again. (pass two). Then - the Coleman Camp didn't really want these in, so he asked the supreme court to provide guidance to the municipalities so that all would be checked fairly. The Supremes gave guidance and all were checked again. (pass 4). Then, in the election contest, Norm had the opportunity to submit all of the absentees to the court for review again (pass 5?). He choose not to do so. Instead he submitted about 4,800. During the election contest evidence was submitted to the court proving voter registration for only 700 of the absentee ballots in question. By the end of the contest, certain they would loose, the Coleman camp threw a hail mary pass, in their closing arguement, stating there could be an equal protection issue. Please. Enough with the, "I'm with Norm", this is ridiculous.

If all the ballots need to be recounted for this election, then they need to be recounted for all the elections, including president. Does anyone think that's practical or likely? Me neither. For that reason, and because this is the way MN has counted votes for decades, and because no one wants to negate all those elections and recount them (going back to when?), Al Franken's win has to stand.

Franken won, according to precedent setting election methods.

Coleman had an opportunity to have all absentee ballots reexamined, under the legal process known as the Rules of Civil Procedure. Under these rules, he first had to plead this in his notice of contest, he next had to identify the ballots in his interrogatory answers, and finally, he had to introduce them into evidence. He did none of this. What this process has demonstrated in the end is that Coleman has no shame. He continues to change his position every time it suits him, from don't count more ballots to count even the illegal ballots. At this point, it is clear that he has no chance of him winning. Even if a few more ballots could be found that should be counted, they would not be enough to put Coleman ahead. The only time he was right is when he said "If I were behind, I would drop out". I'm still waiting for him to make good on that.

Norm Coleman has through the process proved nothing more than he is a ruthless lawyer with absolutely no moral or ethical spine. Friendly man?

There are plenty of examples of people doing the right thing and conceding the race when it is in the best interests of the state and the nation. Governor Elmer L. Anderson did that with a much smaller margin in number of votes.

Remember, the recount was required by state law and it was not forced upon the people by the Franken campaign. This recount was one of the most closely examined, highly scrutinized, and impartial in the history of politics. No single party had control or could stack the judges and panels to effect an outcome unlike in your home state of Illinois and city of Chicago.

Coleman had the right to appeal and he lost.

No Adam Platt, you are absolutely wrong. Norm Coleman is not in the right.

I grant that many of the objections to my reasoning and Coleman's may prevail in court. My point is that in an election decided by 300 votes out of millions cast, where court testimony bore out that some absentees were cast without proper checks and others excluded due to carelessness on the part of public officials, why not try to get it right?

The universe of absentee ballots is small enough to do that. And then fix the law or the system.

Instead, if the court rejects Coleman's claim due to timing of arguments or inability to prove what is inside those ballots they won't open, we will get a fight with T-Paw over an election cert, followed by a Supreme Court appeal, and either they will tell MN to recount the absentees or they won't, but if no one does, we will be fighting over the legitimacy of this election for the next six years.

Why give the GOP the ammo?

If Coleman's team had actually attempted to prove any of their allegations at any point in the process, I might be tempted to agree with you. As it is, at every stage, the Coleman campaign has thrown out a lot of rhetoric...and no proof. They had their opportunity in the contest, and they simply failed to prove their case. Now, I believe Norm has every right to appeal to the MNSC, and every right to present his case there. But when he loses, I believe Norm must concede -- for the good of the state, and for the simple reason that he will have lost.

Adam:
Why not try to get it right!?!? This question presumes that it is presently wrong, and that no one has tried to remedy the situation. The election count has been looked over many times, from every possible angle. Coleman has had top lawyers going for broke at every turn. The present Franken lead is NOT the result of the courts simply not trying. The 3 judge panel bent over backward to allow Coleman to make his case. The current count IS as right as humanly possible while following MN election law.

Adam, you're absolutely right on this one. This whole situation is a disgrace to the state.

The entire absentee ballot situation should be revisited. Before the election, I was walking through the Government Center on my way to work and a girl in front of me was telling her friend that she got two votes this year, because she was voting in her hometown and here at college--and she was proud of that.

I think the Coleman-Franken situation would be best solved with another election without the third-party guy. Then the true will of the people would be known. But that doesn't solve the absentee problems going forward.

Tami - You're smokin' crack. Another election? Right. And you want to prohibit a candidate, any candidate from filing and running? Yeah, check the state and federal constitutions on the right of any state to prohibit candidates from running in a standing elections. Think before you open your mouth. Or take a high school civics class.

Adam, so glad you're able to be open on this issue. It means a lot to see a journalist trying to look at the whole issue instead of bullying the public from a biased point of view. I voted for Barkley, a Minnesotan. I think we should send Coleman and Franken back to New York where they belong.

RIchard, you're so kind. Your attitude invites such wonderful open dialogue about possible solutions. Wouldn't it be nice if we could listen without reacting and consider opinions opposite ours without judging the other person an idiot?

I may not see eye to eye with Adam or his responders but I read them nonetheless and respect their views even when I disagree. I also try to respond, rather than react. Perhaps you might consider it.

Have a nice day.

Thank you Tami for all your kind words and sweet disposition. And thank you for a semantic wordplay, making that fine distinction between RESPOND and REACT. How thoughtful. How brilliantly insightful.

And also, the idea of ideas and thoughts being opposite and listen to the opposite, you should be writing Hallmark cards and speaking breathily into "food for thought" self-improvement videos. You could be inspiration for a whole generation that grew up on the McLaughlin Report and Matt Drudge.

Now, when are you going to take high school civics class over again? 'cause obviously you failed, Oops, did I break the rules? Obviously, if I am going to become expertly two-faced, I'm going to need a lot of practice. Where is Miss Manners when you need her?

My only comment is that we have a voting system that runs each ballot through a machine to count the votes to determine the winner. Because the final count was close, they give it to a bunch of politically biased people to recount, or make an opinionated guess of voters intent, and magically come up with a new winner by a few hundred votes making the original count over 500 or more incorrect. I think we should leave the vote counting to the unbiased machines.

An "opinionated guess"? Voters aren't writing persuasive essays, Pat, they're filling in a friggin' circle. Have you ever voted before?

Machines can, and frequently do, make errors. There was bi-partisan and non-partisan oversight and involvement in the recount process. If there was even a hint of political bias involved, the victimized party would have made a huge stink about it in the press.

The only magic involved was the vanishing of Minnesota's second Senator.

An "opinionated guess"? Voters aren't writing persuasive essays, Pat, they're filling in a friggin' circle. Have you ever voted before?

Machines can, and frequently do, make errors. There was bi-partisan and non-partisan oversight and involvement in the recount process. If there was even a hint of political bias involved, the victimized party would have made a huge stink about it in the press.

The only magic involved was the vanishing of Minnesota's second Senator.

An "opinionated guess"? Voters aren't writing persuasive essays, Pat, they're filling in a friggin' circle. Have you ever voted before?

Machines can, and frequently do, make errors. There was bi-partisan and non-partisan oversight and involvement in the recount process. If there was even a hint of political bias involved, the victimized party would have made a huge stink about it in the press.

The only magic involved was the vanishing of Minnesota's second Senator.

It is a wonderful article,I like it!Welcome to read following news: cheap uggs

Voters aren't writing persuasive essays, Pat, they're filling in a friggin' circle. Have you ever voted

The two girls MengXi Chen is "lucky", because even from Taiwan, is also the companions for the first time on this beautiful island.