They still haven't seated Al Franken, and I am blaming the Democratic machine for not stepping in and throwing their weight behind him.  It seems that there isn't a resolution in sight, even though in the recount he won.  It seems that the repugs are going to make a challenge all the way to Supreme Court if Minnesota tries to seat him.  This lead by the Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee-Texas Senator John Cormyn.  Really, can we just get rid of Texas?



Texas Sen. John Cornyn is threatening “World War III� if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case through the federal courts.

Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, acknowledges that a federal challenge to November’s elections could take “years� to resolve. But he’s adamant that Coleman deserves that chance — even if it means Minnesota is short a senator for the duration.

A three-judge panel is expected to rule any day now on legal challenges to the November election.

www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20634.html

Quite ridiculous I'd say, but that's the repugs for you.

A republican from Texas.  Yep, that says everything.  Al Franken is being a bit more mature about this than Coleman.  I believe it was Coleman who said God wants him in the Senate.  I wonder if God is willing to put that in writing.

If the Democrats don't meet the Republicans--particularly the Southern bullies of the party--with an aggressive counterpunch, Franken might as well concede right now.  The Dems need to ask themselves if they really want power and if they're willing to do what it takes to get it. 

The GOP is still behaving like its in the majority and owns the White House.  They don't see themselves as part of a two-party political system.  They think they're on a mission from God, to paraphrase the Blues Brothers.  The Dems have to stop playing like it's 1979.  The terms of power have changed.
::)

Turn those machines back on. Turn those machines back on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gekaEzqj5g&feature=related



Cat

Why not just hold a special election?  If the results were really that close, then a second election should be held.

Plenty of states do this in the event of a small margin, and quite Frankenly ( ;) ) I think this is the sort of thing Minnesota needs.

Why not just hold a special election?  If the results were really that close, then a second election should be held.

Plenty of states do this in the event of a small margin, and quite Frankenly ( ;) ) I think this is the sort of thing Minnesota needs.


Why? 

Yes.  Why?  There was a count and a recount.  The margin is tight, but a tight margin was good enough to seat georgie porgie, it should be good enough to seat Franken

The fact that Al Franken could get over 40% of the vote in a statewide race; especially a state that isn't the axis of evil of Massachusetts, New York and California, is flabbergasting.  Even if he lost, it'd still be amazing.

Then again, Minnesota did put in Ventura as their governor.

The fact that Al Franken could get over 40% of the vote in a statewide race; especially a state that isn't the axis of evil of Massachusetts, New York and California, is flabbergasting.  Even if he lost, it'd still be amazing.

Then again, Minnesota did put in Ventura as their governor.
well, no one ever went broke underestimating etc. etc. i find the fact that americans elected bush, sorta, much more flabbergasting myself.

The fact that Al Franken could get over 40% of the vote in a statewide race; especially a state that isn't the axis of evil of Massachusetts, New York and California, is flabbergasting.  Even if he lost, it'd still be amazing.

Then again, Minnesota did put in Ventura as their governor.


Ventura was actually a pretty good Governor.  His only problem is that both parties attacked him relentlessly.

Quite ridiculous I'd say, but that's the repugs for you.


Note that the Dems were threatening the same thing about seating Roland Burris, a Senator who was legally appointed by a seated governor of the State of Illinois.

Quite frankly, both the Dems and repubs have it all wrong with this "we have the right to not seat a Senator" business.  There is NO statute that allows the Senate to deny admittance to a legally determined Senator.

Now, there ARE rules that allow the Senate to vote for expulsion of a seated member but that is a horse of a different color.

Yes.  Why?  There was a count and a recount.  The margin is tight, but a tight margin was good enough to seat georgie porgie, it should be good enough to seat Franken


Let me give an example.  In Georgia, they have a rule where any Congressional election where the victor wins by less than 51% of the vote must have a runoff election.

In the case of the Franken-Coleman election, this is relevant because a third party candidate (Dean Barkley) managed to receive 15% of the vote.  If Minnesota followed Georgia's rules, they would run a second election without Barkley.  Since Barkley mostly took votes from the left rather than the right, Franken would likely win this runoff anyway.

Still, the principle resembles instant runoff voting.  Under IRV, you write down 2 choices for your vote -- the candidate you like the most, and then the candidate you prefer second most.  This legitimizes third party candidates and makes it much easier for politics to evolve into a multi-party system, because your actual vote eventually goes to one of the two candidates with the most votes overall.

Here's an example...

Let's say Minnesota agrees to the Georgia system.   Franken and Coleman square off again, and most of the Barkley voters side with Franken, giving him the win by a much greater margin than before.  This makes it more likely that future elections are more palatable for other candidates like Barkley because voters will know that no candidate can win by a plurality, so votiing for Barkley doesn't make it more likely for Coleman to win.

I'd be willing to bet that many Franken voters probably preferred Barkley, but they may have hated Coleman so much that they didn't want to risk Coleman winning, so they voted for Franken instead (being the more likely candidate to win than Barkley).

Without runoff elections or runoff voting, we're locked into a 2-party system.  This is why we often vote for the lesser of 2 evils and neglect 3rd party candidates even if we might agree with them more.

My argument is that a victory by plurality is not a victory at all and really just a mathematical loophole in democracy.

The thing with the system in Georgia (and most southern states); a run-off election between the top two vote-getters if no candidate gets a 50%+1 majority, is that it heavily favors republicans.  Republicans are much more likely to show up to vote a second time.

Look at the election for U.S. Senate in Georgia this past year.

General Election, November 4, 2008

Saxby Chambliss: 1,867,090 votes (49.8%)
Jim Martin: 1,757,419 votes (48.8%)
Allen Buckley: 128,002 votes (3.4%)

Pretty close, right?

Run-off election, December 2, 2008

Saxby Chambliss: 1,228,033 votes (57.4%)
Jim Martin: 909,923 votes (42.6%)

See the difference?  Republican Chambliss lost 639,057 votes while democrat Martin lost 847,496 votes from the general to the run-off.

My point is, in a run-off, I strongly think Coleman would win since the polls showed the third party candidate in Minnesota (Dean Barkley) pulling votes evenly from both Coleman and Franken.

The thing with the system in Georgia (and most southern states); a run-off election between the top two vote-getters if no candidate gets a 50%+1 majority, is that it heavily favors republicans.  Republicans are much more likely to show up to vote a second time.

Look at the election for U.S. Senate in Georgia this past year.

General Election, November 4, 2008

Saxby Chambliss: 1,867,090 votes (49.8%)
Jim Martin: 1,757,419 votes (48.8%)
Allen Buckley: 128,002 votes (3.4%)

Pretty close, right?

Run-off election, December 2, 2008

Saxby Chambliss: 1,228,033 votes (57.4%)
Jim Martin: 909,923 votes (42.6%)

See the difference?  Republican Chambliss lost 639,057 votes while democrat Martin lost 847,496 votes from the general to the run-off.

My point is, in a run-off, I strongly think Coleman would win since the polls showed the third party candidate in Minnesota (Dean Barkley) pulling votes evenly from both Coleman and Franken.


Interesting points...  Well, my assumption was based on the fact that Barkley was sought after by the Democratic party as a candidate before.  I've yet to see much Republican support for Barkley, but if you could provide some source material for that, that would be cool.

Still, your suggestion that Republicans are more likely to show up a second time is interesting.  Even if that is true, I still prefer runoffs.  If Democrats decide not to show up a second time, that's really their own fault.

Still, your suggestion that Republicans are more likely to show up a second time is interesting.  Even if that is true, I still prefer runoffs.  If Democrats decide not to show up a second time, that's really their own fault.


I fully agree.

I remember reading a story back in early 2008 about some guy up in Maryland winning a republican primary with like 32% of the vote and thinking how absurd that sounded; "winning" with 32%.

Let me give an example.  In Georgia, they have a rule where any Congressional election where the victor wins by less than 51% of the vote must have a runoff election.

In the case of the Franken-Coleman election, this is relevant because a third party candidate (Dean Barkley) managed to receive 15% of the vote.  If Minnesota followed Georgia's rules, they would run a second election without Barkley.  Since Barkley mostly took votes from the left rather than the right, Franken would likely win this runoff anyway.

Still, the principle resembles instant runoff voting.  Under IRV, you write down 2 choices for your vote -- the candidate you like the most, and then the candidate you prefer second most.  This legitimizes third party candidates and makes it much easier for politics to evolve into a multi-party system, because your actual vote eventually goes to one of the two candidates with the most votes overall.

Here's an example...

Let's say Minnesota agrees to the Georgia system.   Franken and Coleman square off again, and most of the Barkley voters side with Franken, giving him the win by a much greater margin than before.  This makes it more likely that future elections are more palatable for other candidates like Barkley because voters will know that no candidate can win by a plurality, so votiing for Barkley doesn't make it more likely for Coleman to win.






But Minnesota isn't Georgia, and probably doesn't care to be.  Right now they are being run without adequate representation and it would be in their best interest to decide this as quickly as possible.  If they don't understand that I am sure they understand the cost of another election.  Put it in dollar terms and you will see the people rise up and ask for an answer.

This does give good argument for Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV).




Cat

But Minnesota isn't Georgia, and probably doesn't care to be.  Right now they are being run without adequate representation and it would be in their best interest to decide this as quickly as possible.  If they don't understand that I am sure they understand the cost of another election.  Put it in dollar terms and you will see the people rise up and ask for an answer.


I don't know.  People seem relatively complacent about the costs of these bailouts.

I don't know.  People seem relatively complacent about the costs of these bailouts.

We're Americans.  We're used to being robbed.
::)

We're Americans.  We're used to being robbed.
::)


lol...  +1 for that...

That is so true on multiple levels.

Weel, it seems that a Minnesota court has confirmed him.  Let's see what happens next

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090414/ts_nm/us_usa_senate_minnesota;_ylt=AlceZnjV6Lw6IA5zZQ.DUzhZ.3QA

MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) – A Minnesota court panel ruled on Monday that Democrat Al Franken beat Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in the long-fought contest for a U.S. Senate seat and said the comic turned politician should be certified as the winner.

The contest, however, is far from over. Coleman has already said he would appeal the widely anticipated ruling to the Minnesota Supreme Court and possibly to federal courts.

It may be months before the U.S. Senate knows if Democrats will control a crucial 59th seat in the body, strengthening their chances of putting together a controlling 60-vote bloc to cut off debate.

::)

they know they've lost, they're just trying to postpone giving the democrats another senate seat as long as they can. i think it's time to file a counter-suit; after all, they're preventing a duly-elected public representative from governing. and they should seat franken while everybody deals with coleman's endless appeals. they're just dragging this thing out deliberately.

It is time for the electorate to go to the capitol and storm the battlements

It is time for the electorate to go to the capitol and storm the battlements
TEABAG NORM COLEMAN!  >:(

Norm needs to give it up.  The election was over in November.  Just throw Franken on a plane to D.C. and let him do what he was elected for.  Never seen a more spoiled rotten brat than Coleman.

Well, if a Democrat ever behaves like a sore loser, the GOP won't have a leg to stand on now.

Good going Norm...

They still haven't seated Al Franken, and I am blaming the Democratic machine for not stepping in and throwing their weight behind him.  It seems that there isn't a resolution in sight, even though in the recount he won.  It seems that the repugs are going to make a challenge all the way to Supreme Court if Minnesota tries to seat him.  This lead by the Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee-Texas Senator John Cormyn.  Really, can we just get rid of Texas?


Texas Sen. John Cornyn is threatening “World War III� if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case through the federal courts.

Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, acknowledges that a federal challenge to November’s elections could take “years� to resolve. But he’s adamant that Coleman deserves that chance — even if it means Minnesota is short a senator for the duration.

A three-judge panel is expected to rule any day now on legal challenges to the November election.

www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20634.html
What does some senator from Texas have to do with a senate race in Minessota?

What does some senator from Texas have to do with a senate race in Minessota?



That is the million dollar question. He is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.




Cat

TEABAG NORM COLEMAN!  >:(


Stop giving Barney Frank ideas!