[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jan 7, 12:00*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 6:26*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:29*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:35*am, MiNe 109 *
wrote:
In article

m,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:17 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:54 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...in Minnesota is that Al Franken will be the next US
Senator.

Prove it.

Franken won more votes in a transparent and bipartisan
recount.

* We now know your idea of proof is anything you wish for.

Coleman should "step aside" or be labeled a hypocrite. LoL.

*Fair and accurate elections be damned.

This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet.

*Wow. *You really must have a grudge against the land of
frozen lakes.

You're making stuff up. Don't you hate it when people do that?

*For all I know you made this up.
"This is Minnesota's fairest and most accurate election yet."

Based on the number of votes corrected between voting and
certification.

*The inconsistent criteria applied in corrections is enough to void
the
whole process....as I expect the court to do if they are willing to
take
the time and do the right thing.

The number of votes in question are too small to affect the outcome.

OSAF. Here's a few more opinions on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../AR20090106028
27.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

This opinion is disconcerting.

"Franken should count himself lucky he's come out on top (a decision
that conceivably could be reversed in court), but his victory should
be thought of less as the discovery of the "true winner" of the
election than as the election administration equivalent of a fair coin
toss. "

That would imply Minnesota's voters are evenly divided. If you really
believe in democracy, consider that about 57% of voters didn't want
Coleman.

Stephen