|
|
| Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota (400325) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 6 09:58:15 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Tue Jan 6 09:16:19 2009. The thinking is that many of the poll workers didn't stamp things as "DUPLICATE" so that when it came time to do the recount they couldn't tell which were the duplicates and which were the originals. So they counted both.It's not a good system, even if they had stamped all duplicates. The problem lies not in stamping duplicates but in marking "damaged" ballots. So long as they are not properly segregated there's always the possibility of duplicate counting. Moreover, unless there's a clear correspondence between "damaged" and "duplicate" ballots, there's always a source for confusion. Each original ballot should have had a unique serial number on it. Duplicates for the damaged ballots should have copied that serial number. Then on a recount, a check is made that no serial number occurs more than once. Similarly, a check is made to make sure that all the serial numbers are accounted for, so as to avoid the possibility of "misplaced" ballots. |
|
|
|