Talk:2008 United States Senate election in Minnesota/Archive 1

Archive 1

Note

I do not know how to sorce so please do so for me. 69.228.6.138 -comment moved here from article page by Onorem 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Prospects

Wetterling? Please, no thank you. Is there any source to cite for this idea? Appraiser 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed

As above all the people who said there not running. Politics rule

I am curious why you undid my edit to the Minnesota senate Election 2008. I they have said they are not running, y should we keep them. Politics rule

• Just because people say that they have no plans to run, doesn't mean that they aren't "potential candidates". The † indicates those people. No need to remove the names.--Appraiser 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

James Broom Wellstone

Why isn't he listed on here?? -Laikalynx (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Caucus

Is the Democratic candidate going to be chosen in the caucus today? Kuralyov (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that there would be a preference vote at the caucus, but at my precinct, the race was entirely ignored.--Appraiser (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the first paragraph of the article, the state primary election is Sept 9, 2008. Feb 5 was a caucus for the presidential delegates only.Mattfiller (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's actually slightly more complicated than that. The February 5 caucuses selected delegates to their county convention, who subsequently selected delegates to the state convention. The DFL State Convention will endorse a candidate on June 7 and the Republican State Convention will endorse a candidate on May 29. Most candidates respect the party's endorsement, and if they do not receive it, they drop out of the race. If this is the case, then the primaries will essentially mean nothing, because there will be one name on the ballot for each party's primary. However, it is also entirely possible for a candidate to not receive the party's endorsement, and still run in the primaries on September 9. Mark Dayton did this in 2000, and although he lost the endorsement, he won the nomination. What I'm trying to say is that for the Wikipedia article to simply say that the candidate is decided by the September 9 primaries is a total oversimplification of the process, which is greatly effected by the February 5 caucuses. I will therefore change it to reflect that. Brash (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Polls

Can we move the polls around... I mean put the most recent polling data on top instead of on bottom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.151.121 (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Runoff?

Are there runoffs for this election if no one gets 50%? 75.60.246.184 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The candidate with thte most votes wins.--Appraiser (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

:( 75.60.246.184 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if all of the people who voted for Dean Barkley knew that. Oops! KenFehling (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox images

Al Franken is the Democratic candidate. Walter Mondale was the candidate in 2002. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, much better. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That was my bad. I copypasta'd the infobox from the 2002 election, and forgot to change the image. Brash (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Polls

I've become pretty involved in the Minnesota election articles recently, but I'm not quite up on the Wikipedia standard procedure. Do we get rid of all of the polling on this article, do we condense it, or do we keep it? Because the polling isn't quite as important as the election itself. Perhaps I could make a graph of all the polls. Brash (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus-minus

What exactly does the "±" column represent in the table in the "Recount" section, and what is the source for the numbers? - dcljr (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather, it's how much the vote has changed for each party in this class of Senate election from the past election. Mike H. Fierce! 09:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of this column. It's not apparent what the +/- means, and if it means what the previous commenter guessed its a pretty useless bit of info, especially with a viable third party candidate thrown into the mix.--Cms479 (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Primary Election Results

Perhaps we could link the Secretary of State website to give complete primary results. But cluttering up this page with these irrelevant numbers, which are not found on any other Senate election wiki page, is just too much. I've moved the numbers here for posterity. Brash (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a running tally of the latest election results. This is a historical encyclopedia. Therefore, all candidates ought to be included not just interim winners. —Markles 15:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia policy does not apply. Primary elections in Minnesota hold much less weight than primary elections in other states, because nominees are selected by their respective parties months before the primaries by precinct caucuses. Most serious candidates drop out of the race after this party nomination. It should also be noted that no other Minnesota election articles include primary results. If you want to include primary election results on this page, please include them on every other Minnesota election article. Otherwise, please stop vandalizing this page by reposting this material. Brash (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just because it isn't done everywhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be done here. If you only want to post the winner, then you'd have to delete Dean Barkley. This is an inclusive encyclopedia. Information that is irrelevant should be omitted. What do you mean "Vandalize"? —Markles 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting my intentions. I do not wish to only post the winner. I want to make the most relevant information easily accessible. When people come to this page, they want to know what's going on in one of the last three contested Senate races in the country. They don't want to know how many votes Ole Savior got in the September primary. I'm not saying that shouldn't be on the page, I'm just saying it shouldn't be drowning out the relevant information such as info on the recount. Here, how about this? I'll reorganize the page without deleting any of the information you've deemed important. Tell me how you like it. Brash (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Then that's my fault for misunderstanding you. Rearrange it as you please. But keep all the information. Someday, say 10 years from now, this will be just a historical article. Let's keep it accurate and relevant. Thanks. —Markles 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Primary

2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate Primary Election (DFL Party)

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
Turnout			{{{votes}}}	{{{percentage}}}	{{{change}}}

Independence Party Primary

2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate Primary Election (Independence Party)

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
Turnout			{{{votes}}}	{{{percentage}}}	{{{change}}}

Republican Party Primary

2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate Primary Election (Republican Party)

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
		{{{candidate}}}
		{{{candidate}}}
Turnout			{{{votes}}}	{{{percentage}}}	{{{change}}}

References

Handling recount results in the infobox

After the recount is finished and results are certified by the State Canvassing Board, as I understand it, those new certified results will replace the Nov 4 results in the infobox. However, the IP's Dean Barkley will not have a post-recount vote total, as his votes are not being kept track of in the recount. With that in mind, here is my proposal: after the recount is over, Barkley's vote total in the infobox should reflect the Nov 4 results, but the percentage he received should reflect his share of votes out of the total number of ballots counted in the recount.

Other options are 1) keep Barkley's vote total and percentage in the infobox the same as it is now; 2) Replace Barkley in the infobox with "other candidates," which more accurately reflects how the ballots are being counted in the recount, 3) Remove Barkley from the infobox, leaving it just with Franken and Coleman. Post what you think. Brash (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The recount is sorting every unchallenged ballot into Coleman, Franken, or other. Not just other candidates, but everything that isn't a Colman or Franken vote, including undervotes, overvotes, mismarked balllots, etc. That does pose a problem for accurately giving the Barkley votes, which were a significant part of the story in this contest. I think the article should give an infobox of results before the recount and another of the final results after the recount and canvassing board rulings on challenged ballots. This article will be longer and somewhat more complex, but that's the only way I see to give accurate information. Jonathunder (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathunder. We need to be careful, too, to ignore the count as of December 6. I have been intimately involved with this process in Dakota County and can say with certainty that the challenge process was used by some of the partisan observers to manipulate the number of votes counted prior to the meeting of the canvassing board scheduled for 12/16/08. One challenger's MO was to immediately challenge the next ballot for the opposing party whenever a challenge was asserted against one of his own candidate's votes. The goal was to prevent any movement in the margin of preliminary victory. If you study the numbers of confirmed votes and challenges asserted, the pattern I observed seems plausible, statewide. My theory is that if a change occurs between the 12/6/08 numbers and the canvassing board's final result, charges of illegitimacy will be raised.--Appraiser (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, it might be a bit dubious to list the recount in its own infobox, though I had a similar inclination myself. While keeping track of the Nov 4 results, the Dec 5 numbers, and the Dec 16 count in the body of the article seems entirely appropriate, dumping that all into the infobox might be a little TMI, as the whole point of the infobox is the provide a summary of the information for those who just want to glean the basic facts. I think it might be best to, once the Franken and Coleman results are certified, we update the infobox numbers with those new numbers, leaving Barkley untouched. After all, the recount wasn't challenging Barkley's total, just Franken and Coleman's.

Also, I agree that cutting out the horse race from the article is the best course of action, since both sides are just challenging the other's ballots tit for tat. It's just impossible to actually know who's ahead when there are that many nebulous ballots up in the air. Who knows, Coleman might come out ahead, but have a bevy of erroneous challenges get struck down by the canvassing board, putting Franken ahead. Or vice versa. Brash (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Article needs new importance rating

This article needs a new importance rating, as per WP:MINN's importance critera. The guidelines specify that any article with more than 1,000 hits per day deserves a top importance rating, and after the election, this article has had an average of 2,722 hits per day according to this. I'm not quite sure what the process would be to change an article's importance rating, so if anyone would like to go ahead and do something, I'm sure everyone would welcome it. Brash (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. I misread the guidelines. Articles with more than 1,000 hits a day are considered top importance. However, since this article is still a sort of niche, I suggest a high importance rating. Brash (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I just boldly increased the importance of this. I think that Mid or High importance would be appropriate. On a different subject, however, where does the article explain how voters vote in Minnesota? Do they use punch-card ballots, optical-scan ballots, or electronic ballots? If electronic, how do you recount them? Bwrs (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota law requires paper ballots. The great majority are optical-scan. Some areas, mostly rural, use only hand-counted ballots. The statewide recount is being done entirely by hand, with several people looking at every single ballot. The recount image in the article is quite typical of what is being done throughout the state. Jonathunder (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Recount

Brash- Despite your comment in the change history, I see no previous discussion about why you have deleted the information about the Presiding Officer of the US Senate potentially being the one who decides the election. Also, your comment in the Primary Election Results about people wanting to refer to the article for immediate relevant information directly contradicts your deleting the Presiding Officer information.

Please justify your actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LP-mn (talk • contribs) 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I directed you to the talk page to read the section "Senate's Decision in Election." I believe it justifies my actions pretty well. As for a contradiction in my justification for removing the primary election results and my justification for removing your undue speculation, I do not believe there is any contradiction. People are coming to this page to read about an election that happened and a recount that is ongoing. They are not coming here to read speculation, just as they are not coming here to read about the crowded and mostly irrelevant Minnesota primaries.

Now, while it is certainly appropriate to speculate about what may happen in the recount, your supposition that the Senate could reject the results of the election and order a revote is based on nothing but an unrelated Senate race in 1974, inapplicable Minnesota state law, and news articles that were written immediately after the election. In short, I think that you seem to be jumping the gun on this. Wait until a legal challenge is even being floated by the campaigns before you speculate that their legal challenges are going to bog down the election. Brash (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That picture of the contested ballot should be removed. Seriously now, with the senator area of the ballot covered up, one can't even see an example of what constitutes a dubious ballot. Without that, the value of the image is next to nil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.152.63 (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the image that was there earlier that showed the senate portion of the ballot was a better image to use. 69.150.180.205 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Both photos were taken by me. The Hennepin County elections director had ordered all election judges to cover up challeneged ballots so I, or the only other media there, KARE11-TV, couldn't take pictures of them. The only two decent pictures I got was the covered up ballot which is a clearer picture, and the non-covered up ballot, which is small and hard to read. I'll see if I can't crop the non-covered up ballot for this purposes of this article. Brash (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the new photo (69.150.180.205 was me; I forgot to login). The first one (apprent overvote for something like Lizard People) was the favorite at my office but I can see how that might not be encylopedic. Jon (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dems on the move has made some very substantial contributions, but I do not believe they are totally necessary, and some seem to be partisan in motivation. Their notation underneath the General Election table seems to be unnecessary, as it's explaining a feature on every election table. Also, their specification that the general election results are pre-recount is unnecessary, as of course they are pre-recount. I argue that the second contribution is partisan in motivation because it's trying to downplay the pre-recount results by emphasizing them as such. If no one has any objection, I'm going to integrate the substantial contributions into the rest of the article, and remove the less substantial and more partisan parts. Brash (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Brash, the changes don't feel particularly partisan to me. The changes may not all be strictly necessary, but I find the note under the election boox about Wellstone votes useful. It may be true that all election boxes are setup that way, but all people who read the boxes may not know that. Crumley (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to submit that, while emphasizing the pre-recount status of the general election results isn't in itself partisan, the ends by which these changes accomplishes is. What I mean to say is that contributors who insert "pre-recount" before every permutation of the Nov 4 election results are trying to emphasize Al Franken's gains in the recount, and downplay Norm Coleman's lead in the Nov 4 election results. If a conservative partisan were trying to downplay the importance of the recount and claim victory for Coleman, I would be encouraging a review of their contributions too. For full disclosure's sake, I'm a liberal DFLer. I'm not trying to offset someone else's partisan contributions with my own. I am honestly trying to be fair in this article, and I don't believe Dems on the move's contributions are fair.

In fact, there have been a lot of partisan contributions lately. One person changed the caption on one of the photos that I took, saying "Simply saying that this ballot was challenged by Franken is enough. We shouldn't say it was for or against anyone until the board reviews it. Even if the intention seems clear, it's not yet official." Here's the thing - the ballot was in a pile of ballots with a sign that said "COLEMAN CHALLENGED BY FRANKEN". The intention doesn't matter - the pile of votes it's in does. There are an increasing number of junk contributions like this, and it's tiring me out. Brash (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been an article published by Minnesota's Star Tribune, giving the new total vote counts with 100% of the precincts recounted. With all the ballots counted, Coleman is leading by 238 votes. There are still challenged ballots which could be counted, resulting in a change in the overall result, but this information is more up to date than that presently displayed in the Wiki-article (98% precincts reporting). I'll leave it to a more experienced editor to update. http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/msenco.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.162.175 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Recount totals

why is there such a big discrepancy between the secretary of state's recount vote total [1] and the vote total being reported by the star tribune [2]?? anyone know this? 74.131.56.36 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the Star Tribune shows 100% of the precincts reporting, while the state website still has 1 precinct left to count, 99.93% of the precincts reporting. That is how it looks to me. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The two sources have been following different methods, as explained in this Star-Trib article. In short, the MN SoS started the recount from zero; the newspaper started with the election returns and kept track of differences found in the recount. The methods will not converge until the challenged ballots are resolved. Jonathunder (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Strib is also using sources inside each campaign as well as best guesses regarding frivolous challenged ballots; that is, they are not counting what they can establish as frivolous challenges in the challenged ballot total. Notice that they do not report an exact number of challenged ballots. They also use many other methods to come up with numbers that are as different from other news organization's totals as possible which they do not reveal. It should be noted, however, that the Star Tribune's margin, while it has varied wildly from other organization's vote margins throughout the recount, has more or less converged with the SoS's margin (Strib's 192 vs. SoS's 195). Brash (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction tag placed

I can't reconcile the numbers currently in the info box with any of the numbers in tables further down (or in the article itself). So I have placed a contradict tag until it's resolved. Jon (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See the above discussions starting at "handling recount results in the infobox" for why there is an apparent contradiction in reported numbers. Jonathunder (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, about until a recent update; the info box had the state certified pre recount numbers. It now appears to have some sort of in progress count when the discussion there said it would stay until the recount was complete. Jon (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the infobox numbers to their Nov 4 totals. We'll update Franken's and Coleman's numbers in the infobox after the Canvassing Board certifies the recount. Incidentally, while Barkley's official vote total will not change, his percentage will - although the recount is not keeping track of Barkley's numbers, it is keeping track of the total number of votes cast, which means that Barkley's vote total in the infobox will have to be divided against the new turnout numbers. Brash (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Challenges

News came out tonight that all of the ballot challenges have been resolved, with numbers being made available by the Star Tribune. I've taken the Strib's numbers, added them to the Secretary of State's numbers, and removed the "ballot challenge" lines from the election box. These new numbers look a lot more like the Nov 4 numbers, only with Franken ahead by fifty some votes. Opinions? Comments? Brash (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think thats probably the best thing to do as the Star Tribune's numbers seem the most reliable we have from an independent source. - Galloglass 10:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Independence party Endorsement vs. Primary

Please note that though Dean Barkley won the Independence Party of Minnesota nomination, he did not win the Independence Party endorsement at their convention. That endorsement was won by Stephen Williams (Minnesota). Several times the endorsement has been mis-attributed to Barkley in the article. Crumley (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just one person who keeps making the changes. Apparently someone doesn't understand the difference between "endorsement" and "nomination" - in other states, the difference is moot, but this is Minnesota, land of convoluted political systems. Brash (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is at least two accounts, ShadowRyu, Rizalninoynapoleon, and in one case not logged in, but yes it seems pretty silly. I have attempted to deal with it by noting the primary winners as well. Feel free to undo it if you don't like the look, but hopefully that will stop this silliness. Crumley (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Poll table

...should include the margin of error. With the numbers being so close, not including it is misleading. 68.46.43.198 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is undoubtedly a good idea, and I doubt anyone would object is you added them.Crumley (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that we need to list every single poll taken in this election, anyway. For historical purposes, it may be best to summarize the poll trends, rather than list every single poll ad nauseum. Brash (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current poll data takes up more space in the middle of the article than is probably warranted, but I would hate to lose the data. It might be an improvement if the table was moved out the way to the footnotes, and the data was converted to a graph. Crumley (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I made all tables collapsable, so if you want to keep the data but don't want it displayed by default, you can be BOLD and change them to a collapsed state (by default, I mean). 68.196.104.31 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote wrong?

By all sources available, according to the latest recount of challenged ballots Franken is ahead by 46 votes. Why is Norm Coleman shown in the lead? Coolgamer (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the recount info below. Since the recount info is still influx, the pre-recount certified results are staying for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crumley (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically there were very roughly 2000 abscente ballots that appeared to the county boards that they might have been rejected by mistake that weren't included in the recount. (Some of the countries had already partually or in entirely corrected this so those need to be allocated to get back to an apples to apples comparison.) Jon (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Another election template for the recount

Could we have another election template for the Recount as it is between only Franken and Coleman? Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt anything, so I am not going to revert it, but it seems a little redundant to me. It is still just a continuation of the Nov 4 election, not a separate election like a primary. Though, for that matter we don't have separate picture templates for each of the primaries, and for me that seems like it would be more useful. At least the primaries had different people competing. Crumley (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Special Election

According to the 17th Amendment, when there is a vacancy in the Senate, the executive should call for a special election, or he may make a temporary appointment. Does this apply to this situation or is the recount no longer needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As yet a vacancy has not yet officially been declared by the Senate, and unless there is Tim Pawlenty cannot nominate anyone. See for example http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/12/23/no_winner_in_senate_race_until_2009/. When Maine had a similarly close election in 1974 (I think), the Senate didn't declare a vacancy till June. Crumley (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A vacancy would occur when a sitting Senator dies or leaves the office for other reasons. None of that has happened yet. For example, sitting Senator Wellstone died in a plane crash just before the 2002 election, and Governor Ventura appointed Dean Barkley to fill his spot in the Senate until the results of the 2002 election (between Coleman and Mondale [replacing Wellstone on the ballot]) took effect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And, yes, that's the same Dean Barkley who screwed this year's Senatorial election by running and splitting the vote. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not have another Nader argument. Third-parties have a right to run, too. Coolgamer (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, plus it is not clear which way the Barkley's absence would have tilted things. Everything that I have read said the second choice of Barkley voters was pretty evenly split. Crumley (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually a vacancy has occured. Coleman's Senate term expired January 3, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

While Coleman's term may have expired, that doesn't mean there is an official vacancy. And until there is an official vacancy, there will be no special election. Crumley (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for a fill-in as there was in 2002. And the point about Barkley is that no matter who won, 57 percent of Minnesota didn't want him. That's how Barkley screwed the process. Having the run to run doesn't mean you should. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh there is a vacancy, mind you of course it's temporary. The vacancy will be filled by either Coleman or Franken (when the election is resolved). Anyways, the current vacancy certainly 'does not' require a special election. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with GoodDay. Jon (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Shifting SOS references

Beware that the html references on the Minnesota Secretary of State page can change without clear notice. So, for example the Election results page currently says that it was last changed on 12/9/2008, but it contains the certified results from 1/5/2009. We had that page as with an access date in November as a reference for the November totals, but those November numbers weren't on there anymore. So I replaced that reference with a pdf reference from the SOS web site that had the November numbers.Crumley (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox to Contain Recount Results

The State Canvassing Board has just certified the election. As per the previous discussion (see: Handling the Recount Results in the Infobox), I am appending the infobox at the top of the page with the results from the recount. Al Franken's and Norm Coleman's numbers will now reflect their certified recount totals, and Dean Barkley's totals will remain the same; however, the percentage for Dean Barkley will reflect the total number of votes counted during the recount, not during the Nov 4 count, thus his percentage may go down a little. Brash (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did ya get permission from the Coleman campaign, first? GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean that seriously? I hope we do not ask any campaign for permission before improving the article. Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just being silly. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated the results further. Barkley's numbers (as well as those of the minor candidates) changed because of the absentee ballots counted Saturday. The numbers were read at the Canvassing Board meeting today. I couldn't find a decent html reference with them, so I used the video feed as a reference for now. Hopefully the SOS will have something up soon. The one number that they didn't read was the write-ins. I also made another election box under the previous running recount box. For now at least I think it is nice to have both, since they contain different info, though I expect that things will get moved around eventually. Crumley (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I removed this table (from the recount section). It didn't make any sense to mix two different counts. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In some sense those numbers do mix two counts, but those are the official January 5 numbers - see the references. The numbers in that table are the results that were certified by the canvassing board. While only Coleman and Franken gained or lost from the recount itself, the other candidates gained votes from the wrongly rejected absentee ballots that were counted on January 3. I agree that it is a little odd, but those are the real vote totals. Someone may want to double check the percentages, though.Crumley (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is nonsense even if percentages were updated. There's 33330 ballots accounted for in the first table but not the second. These 33330 ballots can be explained as some unknown combination "overvotes"+"undervotes"+"valid votes for candidates besides Coleman and Franken", but we'll never know since they were not counted. I think the recount should ONLY include what was recounted! Tom Ruen (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that those 33330 ballots are a problem, but those numbers are how the SOS is reporting the January 5 results. Your quarrel is with them, and not with me or that table! The results are properly referenced and official. If you want to make a note about your concerns on the page that seems like a good idea, but please leave the table. Crumley (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, MNSOS likes to be confusing. I added a statement to explain the difference in votes (Edit to improve as desired!)

(†) The 33,330 vote difference (2,920,667-2,887,337) between the recount and the final count grouping "All Other Ballots" as a combination of overvotes, undervotes, and valid votes for candidates besides Coleman and Franken.

Seems sensible to remove provisional count results table now? MikeHobday (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Franken's motion

To end the election contest, did it work or not?Saberwolf116 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no immediate ruling on it, and there has not been one yet, as far as I know. Crumley (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While the motion itself wasn't ruled upon, the effect of it not being ruled on by now is the same as if the motion had been dismissed, so no it didn't work. Jon (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For neutraility, how about a picture of a fivolos balot chalenge by franken as well?

Would be simple enough. --74.243.5.207 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• And/or a ballot originally awarded to Coleman but successfully challenged by the Franken campaign. ~ 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This Article has Become a Mess

For those of you who have been keeping track of this article over the last two months, you may have noticed that it has become more and more of a mess. As it has expanded to accommodate every piece of news that has come down the pipeline, it has grown unwieldy and hard to read. There is no flow. It's become a hodge podge of information, with old information eclipsing new information in the article simply because that's the order in which it was written. I believe this article should be cleaned up, if not totally rewritten. Anyone on board for this daunting project? Brash (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's common for articles on current events. Probably the best we can hope for while news progresses is to keep it accurate and try to reword as we can for good flow. I have just done a bit of that. When the election contest is settled, we can do a wholesale revision. Jonathunder (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec, now it says Franken elected? When did this occur? GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? Jonathunder (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's got Franken's name 'bolded'. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be flippant, but "SOFIXIT" Jonathunder (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What's causing the bolding? Nothing that I can see in the {{Infobox Election}} part. I copied it into a sandbox and played with different parameters; and don't see what's causing the boldingTJRC (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the "ongoing=no" parameter is the culprit here. "ongoing=no" indicates the election is over, and 1) shows the vote tallies and 2) bolds the leader. We could change this to "ongoing=yes" and Franken's name would no longer be bolded, but the vote tallies would no longer be displayed. I vote for leaving it alone. There's nothing that says bolding indicates the winner; it could just as well indicate the current leader. TJRC (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Res to Jonathunder) I don't know how. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Templates can be tricky, and I didn't realize that's what was causing the bolding. Thanks, TJRC. Jonathunder (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, may I suggest breaking this article into two? One on the election proper, the other on the election contest? That might make more sense after a decision has been finally reached, however. Bdushaw (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Senate's Decision in Election

At issue is the below paragraph that has been removed twice now. It doesn't really add anything to the article, and upon its readdition to the article, the contributer didn't even bother to properly cut and paste the references. The contributer asked why this was removed, and I informed them that Wikipedia is not a place for rampant, baseless speculation. The referenced articles did not say that Minnesota would be subject to a Senate request for a revote, but said that close elections in the past have (specifically the 1974 New Hampshire election, which was won by a 2 vote margin). Furthermore, Minnesota state law, as referenced by the contributor, only states that if there is a content in the certification of the election, once the election is certified, then the results are taken to the presiding officer of the Senate, which happens no matter what - that is to say, the Senate always gets to approve elected candidates, in close or landslide elections alike. The Senate could, conceivably, deny membership to a duly and uncontroversially elected candidate. It wouldn't, but it could.

What I'm saying is that this is both speculation and totally irrelevant. Yes, perhaps the election will get so close that it the Senate asks for a revote, just like in 1974. Perhaps it even comes down to a tie, which Five Thirty Eight had speculated as a mathematical possibility, in which case Minnesota state statute 204C.34 specifies a coin toss. And if it happens, it will appear here on Wikipedia. But it hasn't, and there's no reason to expect it will. So pleace, keep this page clean of such trvia. Brash (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"There is an unlikely scenario where the United States Senate may decide who wins the election. As reported by Brian Bakst of the Associated Press, Minnesota statute, along with precedent in both earlier Minnesota races (1962, 1986, 2000, and 2008) as well as the 1974 New Hampshire race, mean that the U.S. Senate could choose to use its final authority to either accept or reject the results of the election and call for a new one."

Personally I would agree with those saying it doesn't belong in this article at this point because weather or not this race is challenged by whoever loses here is sepeculative. As to the Senate has never refused to seat those who clearly won the local elections though, as I recall both the US House and the US Senate refused to seat several members from states who had secceeded shortly after the US Civil War until the states met certain conditions. Jon (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The problem with using the 1974 New Hampshire elections as a justification for supposing that the Senate would ask for a revote is that the results weren't clear - the original count favored the Republican by a few votes, the recount favored the Democrat by a few votes, and the courts delivered the results of the first election to the Senate, totally ignoring the results of the recount. Perhaps if Al Franken were to win the recount, and Norm Coleman were to force the Minnesota courts into ignoring the recount results, and the state were to deliver the original results to the Senate would the Senate order a revote. But nothing like that is expected to happen, making this not only speculation, but undue speculation. I advise the original author of this paragraph to consider this. Brash (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The results were clear. The Republican candidate won by a margin of a few hundred votes. The "recount" was never completed. The canvassing board only recounted the ballots until they managed to find enough votes to declare the Democrat candidate the winner. This election is so full of blatant fraud that any rational observer would be able to see it. When the overwhelming majority of the "found" or "misplaced" ballots (including those with a time stamp for a different day) are for one candidate, it is statistically impossible for such an event to occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.162.175 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The preceding unsigned rant is completely irrational and inaccurate. For example, I don't know where he gets this nonsense about ballots 'for a different day' -- ballots are not time stamped at all. T-bonham (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

References

I deleted an image

I deleted an image that showed a challenged ballot by the Franken campaign, the challenged ballot was obviously for Coleman. It was indeed a pointless challenge, but both campaigns do it, and showing a pointless challenge (rather than a decent one) --- by the Democratic candidate ONLY, and none of Coleman's challenge, is bias designed to convince readers that the Democratic candidate is trying to steal the election. Its partisan, so i removed it Bluedem (talk) Bluedem —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC).

That's the most retarded thing I ever heard. I took this photograph and posted it here on Wikipedia. I am a Democrat, alhtough I voted for Barkley, I'm still not rooting for Norm. There is no bias. It simply is showing an example of a challenged ballot, and really illustrates how a bulk of the challenges were frivilous. There's no attempt to show that ANYONE is trying to steal the election. So why don't you calm down, and refrain from deleting the photograph again now that it's been reinserted? Brash (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with the anon contributors comments about the partisanship of the image. There should either be two challenged images or neither and without a balancing image it really has to go. - Galloglass 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We should show the best free image(s) we have of a challenged ballot and not allow partisan considerations to enter into which that may be. The one at an oblique angle does not illustrate as well as the one flat on. Jonathunder (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It illustrates nothing, it is so unclear. Will boldly delete. MikeHobday (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the one at an angle. It gives a better feel of what a ballot really looks like (especially if you click on it to get the bigger version) than the scan and crop head on image. It doesn't give enough context to give us any idea why it was challenged, but in 50 years a picture like that would give someone a much better idea of what the ballots were like. I say keep both images.Crumley (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I say we keep both images. It gives perspective and context, as one is a close up scanned image, and the other is a zoomed out photograph as it was being recounted. If someone aside from Crumley give a second, I plan on restoring this image. Brash (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I second Crumley; use both images. TJRC (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I uploaded photographs of a few ballots that were challenged. They are a little noisy, because I photographed them on he screen during canvassing board meetings. Wikimedia--Appraiser (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to reopen this can of worms, but I would like to add that as an independent observer (not even from the US) that the image does in fact bias the article. Even if it was completely unintentional. Wilson Harron (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is possible to read the captions this way, although the image itself is neither here nor there from my perspective. I have had ago at more neutral wording. AngoraFish 木 05:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done. TJRC (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

March 31 court ruling

Someone might want to add this bit of news to the article. They'll start counting the ballots tomorrow. Khoikhoi 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Contest results

When the three judge panel finally submits their final ruling, I recommend that we add a new results table in the contest section and update the top results table. We should keep the other results tables as well - first count, recount, etc. to show the progression of the case. Crumley (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, as far it concernes certified results rather than some intermediate result as a consequence of a specific ruling. I would also propose to update the infobox on the top right and leave the winner open (no bold) as long as the contest is still going on. BjoernZ (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the judges are only certifying who has the most legally cast votes, they are not certifying the exact vote totals. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 13:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Secretary of State and the Governor will (have to) issue an election certificate as soon as all (state level?) legal appeals are exhausted. That is what the Minnesota Supreme Court decided in January, I believe. I would propose to enter these certified numbers as soon as they are known officially. BjoernZ (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but they have to certify the winner, they do not have to certify the exact number of votes each candidate received - that is sort of the issue Coleman is raising when he wants a revote. He is saying that there is no way to certify the exact number of votes for each candidate, therefore there needs to be a revote. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are probably not wrong. The election certificate as it will only certify the winner. However, I strongly suppose that this certificate has to be based on real numbers issued by the Secretary of State and/or the State Canvassing Board (just like the certified Nov 19 results and the Jan 5 recount results). So as soon as such an announcement is made the numbers can be included (as Crumley proposed). BjoernZ (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We could go with the numbers provided by the Star Tribune, as they are a WP:RS [3]. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 15:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, I hope this will not trigger an edit war with the Coleman fans. The position that the court ruling is official is certainly justifiable. BjoernZ (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The final numbers for Franken and Coleman are in the judges' ruling (see pt. 93 on page 15 and pt. 126 on page 21 of the ruling), which seems official enough to me at this point. I don't think that the SOS will have any reason to change those, unless the courts do. I have added boxes with the new results and updated the top box. If anyone finds an SOS reference for new numbers, please do add it. I don't think that this should cause an edit war - we haven't declared a final winner yet in the article. Crumley (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no harm in listing the current numbers from reliable sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Franken elected?

Al Franken has most probably won the election contest but he is not yet the senator-elect! Though I would appreciate such an outcome personally, I do not think that personal feelings should make part of an encyclopaedic article.

Any announcements insinuating that Al Franken is elected (already made several times by 82.4.220.242) are formally wrong (or just a personal opinion) and should no more be part of the article before the Minnesota Secretary of States issues an election certificate (probably after a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court?)

BjoernZ (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Franken most certainly is the Senator-elect. The State Canvassing Board certified that he received the most votes in the election. The Election Contest Court has ruled that he received the most legally cast votes and is entitled to the certificate of election. The fact that Coleman disagrees and wants to keep appealing doesn't make change that status. Lots of people disagreed that Bush won the 2000 election, that didn't make him not the President-elect. If Coleman wins his appeals, the article can always be updated then. Rillian (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Rillian, I just missed this (so please ignore my comment on your change). Still I think you are wrong. Bush was only President-elect after the US Supreme Court had decided Bush v. Gore (and Gore conceded). There is not yet a senator-elect because the election process is just not finished. I agree that the most probable outcome is the election of Al Franken but it is not yet an encyclopaedic fact; however, I won't engage in an edit war on this. BjoernZ (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

But the relevant court has finished and made its decision. While Coleman could appeal, he has not done so yet (and he may not). At this point, the election is over and Franken is the Senator-elect. If Coleman appeals and the MN Supreme Court takes the case, we can always change it back to "To Be Determined". Rillian (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have a different opinion if something which might change in principle is already an encyclopedic fact. In this respect, Norm Coleman was senator-elect from election night until Jan 5 when Al Franken took the lead. I don't think at all that this was the case, but Rillian may think differently. Up to someone else to arbitrate I would guess, see also discussion below. BjoernZ (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Arguably, Franken has been the Senator-elect since Election night. The preliminary returns were incorrect as demonstrated by the recount. The ECC has ruled that Franken was the recepient of the most votes from the votes cast in the Election, hence he has been the Senator-elect since Nov. 4. The benefit of Wikipedia is that the content can be easily changed as new information is made available, e.g. "Floyd Landis is the winner of the Tour de France" becomes "Floyd Landis was disqualified for doping". When Landis appealed the doping penalty, we didn't change the list of Tour de France winners to "To Be Determined" for that year. If and only if Coleman, appeals, I suggest we add an footnote to the Senator-elect status indicating that there is a case pending. Regards, Rillian (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I get your point, though I still would tend to be more conservative in reporting real facts. Just a footnote is also fine. Anyway, time and MN SC will solve the problem soon. BjoernZ (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I gotta disagree. Franken has not yet been certified as winner. That's the job of the Minnesota Secretary of State. The court's ruling is that he is entitled to the certification and did not award the certificate itself, and did not order the SoS to award the certificate. I want this election to be over; and I want Franken to be the winner. But right now that isn't the case. I disagree that we should temporarily include the erroneous information that Franken is the winner, and correct it if Coleman appeals. I know that in most cases, once the votes have been counted, it's appropriate to update the article, even before any official certification. But this isn't most cases.

We should not be in a hurry to get this overwith, and perhaps have to backtrack. There's nothing wrong with leaving it open. Until the SoS certifies, or Coleman concedes (expressly or by allowing the appellate clock to run out), the contest is still ongoing. TJRC (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So with all other Senatorial election articles we leave the "Senator-elect" field empty until the certificate of election has been issued and the time limit for all possible legal action has expired? I think not. I think we complete this field once it's clear who the Senator elect is, regardless of if there is still a chance that could change. Rillian (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct, you can see on November, only a few days after the election, and while votes were still being counted we had Senator elect Mark Udall and Senator elect Jeanne Shaheen and Senator elect Tom Udall and on and on. Al Franken is the Senator elect. Now that may change if Norm wins in court, but as of right now Al Franken is Senator elect. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"So with all other Senatorial election articles we leave the "Senator-elect" field empty until the certificate of election has been issued and the time limit for all possible legal action has expired?" No, of course not. I thought I preempted this straw-man argument, but let me repeat: I know that in most cases, once the votes have been counted, it's appropriate to update the article, even before any official certification. But this isn't most cases. TJRC (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it is my understand that senator elect is not a legally defined term, and there really hasn't been a case like this dealt with before on wikipedia or elsewhere. The state canvassing board, as well as the 3 judge panel, have both certified that Al Franken is the Senator Elect. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for having stirred up this hornets’ nest. Most probably Al Franken will be the fairly elected junior senator of MN. This fact is clearly stated in the core of the article and coincides with the opinion of the court. The only question is: Do we already call Al Franken “senator-elect” or do we wait for a decision of MN SC. As a matter of fact, there will be an appeal, Coleman has announced it and there is no reason to believe that he will not appeal. I believe that it is not to us (Wiki user) to pre-empt the outcome in this exceptional case. As an outsider I have developed a great respect for the way MN is handling this case fairly, impartially and openly (quite in contrast to the messy Florida case in 2000). Therefore, in this exceptional case our respect for the system should engender some restraint and we should leave it to the MN Supreme Court to establish an irrevocable encyclopaedic fact.BjoernZ (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a "matter of fact" that Coleman will appeal? Coleman is under intense pressure from Minnesota citizens, the media, and some members of his own party to not appeal. It's a costly undertaking with limited chance of success. Consequently, there is a non-zero probability that he won't appeal. Various parties sued over the 2004 presidential election results in Ohio and the case dragged on for years. Did we leave the 2004 President-elect as "To Be Determined" until it was resolved? Rillian (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Until he's either sworn into the Senate, or at least the way for that is verifiably cleared, he's not elected yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that until someone is sworn in they are not the Senator-elect? Is that what your statement is implying? There is a second half to you statement, "or at least the way for that is verifiably cleared", but the wording makes no sense. Could you re-state your opinions in a clear, coherent form? Thanks. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's cut the Gordian knot this way: if reliable sources call him "Senator-elect" we report this is what they say, without adding our own opinion. Jonathunder (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Star Tribune reports, "The panel concluded that Franken, a DFLer, "received the highest number of votes legally cast" in the election. Franken emerged from the trial with a 312-vote lead, the court ruled, and "is therefore entitled to receive the certificate of election." [4] TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am fine with calling Franken Senator-elect, but I thought we should have done that in January. The consensus at that time was that with legal challenges still in the works, we should wait (as the MSM media seems to be doing) till the election certificate is made out to him Senator-elect. At this point, we are one step further on in the legal challenges, but the election certificate is still not forthcoming until at least the MN Supreme Court has spoken. Nothing has really changed. Franken was also entitled to an election certificate in January, if Coleman hadn't appealed.

To hit another point mentioned above, the key difference between this case and a normal election is that there has been no concession by the party that was behind. Candidates normally become Senator-elect at the point that it is obvious that they won and their opponents concede. In this case (like Bush Gore), there likely won't be a concession till more courts weigh in. So Franken will likely only be Senator-elect for the short window of time between when he receives an election certificate and when he is sworn in. Crumley (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

To restate what Jonathunder said: Once reliable sources start calling him "Senator-elect", then we can start calling him "Senator-elect". I hope that's clear enough. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad compromise, as long as it's reflecting the general views of reliable sources. We shouldn't be waiting until the first one jumps the gun. Some additional thoughts, though:

TharsHammar wrote: The state canvassing board, as well as the 3 judge panel, have both certified that Al Franken is the Senator Elect. That's not quite correct. The canvassing board counted the votes and certified its vote count and recount (which were not final). Th canvassing board's determination was not final, and was subject to a contest, which indeed happened. The 3-judge panel counted additional disputed ballots and dismissed Coleman's contest; and included in its ruling that Franken was entitled to receive the certificate of election'. It did not issue that certificate itself (it probably does not have jurisdiction to do so), and did not order the SoS to do so (I'm completely unclear on whether it would have had jurisdiction, with the SoS not being a named party to the suit). What the 3-judge panel did was make its findings so that the SoS, absent any further proceedings, had a basis to issue the certificate. The 3-judge pane;'s findings are also not final, and are subject to a Minnesota Supreme Court appeal, which Coleman has indicated will occur.

More to the point, as a practical matter, Coleman has announced he's appealing, and has 10 days ([5]), i.e. until April 23, to do so. The SoS has said he will not issue the certificate until the state litigation process was completed. (Id.) So the proposal to add Franken as the winner now is really suggesting that we make the change now, and then most likely revert in another week back to limbo, assuming Coleman follows through and makes his appeal. Does that sort of oscillation make any sense?

Again, I want the election done and I want Franken to be declared the winner. But we shouldn't be making that determination before the SoS, who is the authority, does. TJRC (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

To your point "So the proposal to add Franken as the winner now is really suggesting that we make the change now, and then most likely revert in another week back to limbo, assuming Coleman follows through and makes his appeal. Does that sort of oscillation make any sense?" Yes, that sort of oscillation makes sense if it reflects the reality of the moment. This is a fluid situation, and as it stands now Franken is the winner. That may change to TBD if Coleman files his appeal, or it may change to Coleman if Coleman wins his appeal and picks up enough votes, but as of right now Franken is the winner. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Franken has won nothing until he's officially certified the winner. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an important group in favor of calling an election whenever results are available. As I already said: I get your point, but I respectfully disagree. In my point of view, such an attitude would cause undesirable oscillations in the factual content of Wikipedia. Indeed, it was this concern alone, which triggered me to start this discussion at all.

Let us be honest: Wikipedia could have called Norm Coleman senator-elect on November 5 (as some media wrongly did) or at latest, on November 18 when the State Canvassing Board certified the results. However, this was not done because a mandatory recount had to take place anyway, and, in retrospect, such a call would have been factually wrong. After the recount, Al Franken took the lead and was indeed declared senator-elect on Wikipedia for some time. However, the final consensus after a few days was that Al Franken could not be declared winner because Norm Coleman had filed an election contest. This contest is not finished yet, and MN state law explicitly forbids the issuance of an election certificate while the matter is still being contested [6].

For the sake of a correct Wikepedia at any time, we just have to be patient until a reliable source really calls the election (or until Norm Coleman concedes). BjoernZ (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully concur with BjoernZ , and would indeed go one step further and say that the designation "senator-elect" is factually wrong. Per the definition of the word, "elect" refers to the period between the determination of an election and swearing in. It is not a term that can correctly be used to describe a presumptive victor, something that is in any case interpretation and therefore best left to opinion columns and blog sites and not encyclopedias. As the election has not yet been finalized (ie an election certificate has not been issued) neither candidate can properly be called senator-elect by definition. AngoraFish 木 11:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the definition that you provided that implies finality. "selected, as for an office, but not yet inducted", that in no way implies that the decision is final and binding, but rather that the term refers to the current reality. The current reality is that the 3 judge panel, who has oversight over this election, has selected Al Franken as the Senator for Minnesota, based on interpretations of election law and the counting of votes. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Per The American Heritage Dictionary: "Elected but not yet installed. Often used in combination: the governor-elect." Per Webster's: "Chosen to an office, but not yet actually inducted into it; as, bishop elect; governor or mayor elect." Per WordNet: "elected but not yet installed in office; 'the president elect'". AngoraFish 木 05:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So, you recommending that the terms Senator-elect, President-elect, etc. not be used in Wikipedia? We should then update the label in the Senate election infobox used on this article and others from "Senator-elect" to "Winner". Rillian (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this comment is referring to me, but for the sake of assuming good faith - "senator-elect" would obviously apply to the period between an election being officially declared and that person being sworn in to their position. This may be a couple of months or more where the term would be appropriate. AngoraFish 木 05:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If we keep doing our own analysis of whether "Senator-elect" is true or what it means, this section will expand with a few thousand more bytes and we likely won't have consensus. So, let's do this instead: If the sources we have relied on so far use the term, we report that. If they don't, we don't. Jonathunder (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Go with what the reliable sources actually say, not what we think they should say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fully Agree, let’s call somebody XXX-elect if there are reliable sources doing so.

E.g. President-elect: A majority of Electoral-College votes can be safely projected; in general this happens long before Congress has counted the votes and declared a winner. (Though there is a subtle constitutional difference between (Vice-)President-designate and (Vice-)President-elect, let’s forget about this at this point).

I hope everybody is happy with this and we can save further kilobytes of discussion. See you back on New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009? BjoernZ (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether the term is used in one or two reliable sources is only relevant if those sources are consistent with the rest of the commentary in other reliable sources. Anything else and we're simply endorsing reference shopping - that is, digging through a variety of reliable sources until one finds a source that conveniently supports one's POV. The fact that something appears in a couple of "reliable" sources does not absolve editors of the responsibility to apply common sense. I would very strongly suggest that the majority of reliable sources still reporting this case are very conspicuously avoiding describing Franken as "senator-elect". The suggestion above is inherently flawed since a source that doesn't use the term apparently doesn't disprove the applicability of the term, yet a source that does use it is apparently enough to justify use of the term here. AngoraFish 木 05:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A consensus of reliable sources with the editors' responsibility to weigh sources impartially.BjoernZ (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Implication for Senate Majority

Philwino(talk) recently added a paragraph "Many Democrats and also ..." to discuss the implication of Franken's election for possible Republican filibusters in the Senate. I am personally reluctant to revert the change directly without discussion. However, there should be some reliable references for this. Otherwise this paragraph is rather a personal POV than an encyclopedic fact and should be removed. BjoernZ (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that kind of discussion of motivation definitely needs some reference, and I think even with backing it doesn't belong in the lede. I tagged it "citation needed" and moved it to the bottom of the Election Contest section, but it is quite likely it should be removed. I doubt the truth of the statement itself. I think that Coleman just wants to win and he willing to keep going despite bad odds. Crumley (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have heard similar musing myself so I am going to look it up and see if I can see any Democratic Party figures making statements to that effect. Either from the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, or Senators and Representatives. I will post them here in a few. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Democratic activists are also energized, said longtime Franken friend Paul Begala, the consultant and commentator, because their party “is awfully close to giving this president the filibuster proof majority he needs. And I think that’s why the Republicans are fighting this beyond the bounds of reason. They have very little respect for democracy. They didn’t care that Bush got fewer votes than Gore.”[7]

Democrats, noting that Minnesota has gone 100 days without a second U.S. senator, accused the Republicans of stalling to keep Franken from becoming the party's crucial 59th Senate vote -- one shy of a filibuster-proof supermajority.

"Enough is enough," said Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, the Democratic National Committee chairman. "Former Senator Coleman's insistence on continuing his quixotic quest for this seat at best shows that he is putting his own political ambition ahead of the people, and worst that he is complicit in an effort by national Republicans to deny Al Franken this seat for as long as possible."[8]

But DC Republicans keep bankrolling Norm Coleman’s continued court challenges. For them, it’s worth the money to block the seating of Senator Franken. [9]

TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 15:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In principle, all TharsHammar writes is true and I personally agree. The RNC is certainly stimulating Norm Coleman to press on. However, again, we should be cautious to put a POV (or Tim Kaine's POV or John Cornyn's POV) as a fact. Other people have other opinions, if you want to accommodate all of them, Wikipedia risks to become a continuously changing forum rather than an serious encyclopaedia. This may be fine for a talk page but probably not for an article. So again, let's exercise some restraint. I could propose the following compromise (up to others to decide): Report something like: "As long as the seat is contested, MN has only one senator and the Democrats would need two Republicans votes to break a possible Senate filibuster a fact which may cause the Republican Party to stimulate Norm Coleman continuing with his legal challenges." The first part is an indisputable fact the second part should be supported by references, if you are honest you should also report that Norm Coleman himself disputes these speculations (Star Tribune interview). BjoernZ (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added some references which support some, although perhaps not all, of the claims in the added section. I did soften the language a little. It's a little too late in my local time-zone to fully think through how much weight the paragraph should be given in the article, or to respond to BjoernZ's well articulated argument. My gut reaction is that prima facie, commentary on whether the appeals are 'delaying tactics' seems relevant. AngoraFish 木 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph, as it currently stands [10] expresses fully that it is the POV of some Democrats and the POV of Norm Coleman. That is necessary for presenting this information. I was not suggesting that the allegations leveled by the Democrats are true (although I do personally think they are) rather I was providing sources that show it is true that some Democrats are asserting this. If you follow me what I am saying is that the sources show that X asserts Y, the sources do not show that Y is true, and the current revision has it properly formatted. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox photos

Is it ok to enlarge the photos of the three major candidates in the contested election? Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of polls

Phone polls are inaccurate because they neglect everybody who uses a cell phone exclusively and has no landline phone. Such people tend to be younger and more liberal. A very large percent of college students are in that category.76.85.197.106 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Pamela Howell?

Her name is mentioned in passing but yet nothing is mentioned as why she's been included. Maybe someone should expand on her information. --66.80.193.65 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

She is a Republican party officer in South Minneapolis, and served as an election judge in Precinct 12-08. She attempted to testify that some absentee ballots in this precinct were double-counted.

But there were problems with her testimony:

• First, she spent some time on the witness stand refusing to admit that she was a Republican, despite being elected as a Republican precinct officer for that precinct, and being listed as one of the Republican election judges.
• Months earlier, she had given a written summary of her testimony to the Coleman lawyers. They did not give a copy of this document to the Franken lawyers, which they are required to do under court discovery rules. (They claimed this was an 'inadvertent' error, which the Judges accepted.)
• She claimed not to have had further communication with the Coleman lawyers; the next day, the Court was shown copies of extensive emails between her and the Coleman lawyers.
• She admitted that during the lunchbreak, she had been coached by the Coleman lawyers, given a copy of her written summary from months earlier to review.
• Then Franken lawyers pointed out in these emails sections where she and a Coleman lawyer explicitly discussed their 'strategic intention' to conceal info about her testimony from the Franken lawyers. This directly contradicted their argument from the day before that this had been 'inadvertent'.

I think this last item was the straw that broke the back for the Judges.

They then dismissed her from the stand, and ordered all her testimony stricken from the record. Eventually, Coleman was ordered to pay $95,000 of the Franken court costs for this incident.

Even if her testimony had been accepted, there were problems with it. I live in that precinct, and voted there. She claimed that absentee ballots were double-counted, but the vote counts contradict that -- the number of ballots tallies with the count of absentee voters.

Secondly, what she claims to have happened doesn't work. In Minnesota, absentee ballots that are damaged in the mail or printed on different-sized paper are copied over onto a new ballot by 2 judges (one from each party) working together. Then that new ballot is fed through the counting machine, while the original one is marked and archived. She claims that by accident both the originals and the duplicates were fed through the counting machine, thus double-counting these absentee ballots.

But the reason those ballots were copied over in the first place is because they are damaged and won't feed through the counting machine. You couldn't feed the originals through the machine, they would each jam or be rejected or otherwise mess up the machine -- no election judge could do this accidentally. (It would be hard to do it, even on purpose -- it would be a noticeable mess at the counting machine!) It's really hard to believe that this could have happened the way she claims. And neither she or any of the other election judges reported any such problem that night -- she only 'remembered' it a couple of months later. The Franken lawyers probably would have called other election judges to challenge her testimony (except they couldn't, because the Coleman lawyers prevented them from knowing about her testimony until she was on the witness stand). —Preceding unsigned comment added by T-bonham (talk • contribs) 03:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Extra column in election box

Does anybody know if it is possible to add an extra column to an election box? (I am rather ignorant on technical questions). This would make it possible to reflect (absolute) changes between the initial count and the recount. BjoernZ (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't the place to ask about it. you should go to Template talk:Election box and start a topic there. Hopefully one of the maintainers there can help you out.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Data breach

How about including information on the data breach from the coleman campaign website. They basically forgot to buy a lock for their door and then left it open. Also whoever adds this information in should note that Norm's campaign was required under MN law to notify all peoples whose personal information was compromised ASAP, and he failed to for a month and a half until wikileaks emailed them out of kindness. News stories on it Coleman warns donors after purported data breach and Coleman donor data breach in January and the best news article is Breaking Colemman's unsecured donor database revealed on wikileaks. TharsHammar (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should be covered. The Wikileaks article is here. JamesMLane t c 08:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The incident is essentially trivia. I can't see how this informs one's understanding of the Senate election in any way whatsoever regardless of whether it has been covered by newspapers. Also has shades of POV as it's essentially just a dig at Coleman. AngoraFish 木 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is far from trivial. Norm Coleman publicly said he believes a federal crime was committed and that his campaign gave information on the incident to the FBI. Others have said the Coleman campaign or its web host did not comply with laws by failing to secure the data. Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire article as it stands is concerned entirely with nominations, polling, outcomes and machinations of the subsequent court case. While I think the article would be improved with some coverage of the ups and downs of the campaign itself and surrounding circumstances, in the absence of more extensive coverage of those details, simply dropping this one issue into the article without such context would in my view constitute undue weight, particularly in the absence of any actual charges being laid. AngoraFish 木 23:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also has shades of POV as it's essentially just a dig at Coleman. I can't think of a way of looking at (i.e., spinning) the matter such that it doesn't reflect poorly on the campaign, if not Coleman himself. This is one instance in which reality does have a liberal bias. --anon. 71.183.139.60 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It is now five years after this breach occurred and I have only just now learned of it, from a comment left on an unrelated post on a blog about IT security. (Granted, I am not a Minnesotan.) I am disappointed that there is no mention of it either in this Wikipedia article or the one about Norm Coleman. I see AngoraFish's point that "The entire article as it stands..." and the other article does include a section (which seems to me to have a pro-Coleman bias) on the Deep Marine Technology allegation, but the (very brief) discussion about this matter on that article's talk pages is now archived. --anon. 71.183.139.60 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081209084815/http://www.sos.state.mn.us:80/docs/postpercanvassingreport1117250p.pdf to http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/postpercanvassingreport1117250p.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090117160333/http://www.sos.state.mn.us:80/docs/cf_2008recountsummary_8.pdf to http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/cf_2008recountsummary_8.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418213143/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/42932907.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/42932907.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160109100428/http://kstp.com/article/stories/s510995.shtml?cat=1 to http://kstp.com/article/stories/s510995.shtml?cat=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324191810/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/34181604.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/34181604.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324191527/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36225984.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36225984.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081222140600/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD955RO000 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD955RO000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081227212730/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/36630979.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyU to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36630979.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyU
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324191758/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36043514.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36043514.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090122224356/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/37477344.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37477344.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090130040128/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h1cWQhju_9-FCzu4-avUlhBH69OQD95RRVTO0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h1cWQhju_9-FCzu4-avUlhBH69OQD95RRVTO0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324191721/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37148069.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37148069.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324191921/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37656934.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37656934.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090121121706/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/37722979.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37722979.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219163202/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/39574697.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvckD_V_jEyhD%3AUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaUU to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/39574697.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvckD_V_jEyhD:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090222174345/http://www.chron.com:80/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/6263062.html to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/6263062.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090316004759/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/41152662.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/41152662.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090403062853/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/42221767.html? to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/42221767.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090410083110/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/42588822.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/42588822.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090423103445/http://blogs.usatoday.com:80/onpolitics/2009/04/coleman-appeals.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/04/coleman-appeals.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090425053119/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/43429282.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/43429282.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090122121556/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/36296064.html?page=2&c=y to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36296064.html?page=2&c=y
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090203065930/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/36436799.html? to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36436799.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110524050744/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003014318&cpage=1 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003014318&cpage=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121025141339/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_re_us/minnesota_senate/print;_ylt=AjPT1Gekf_DyJp1skG9DKKxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTB1MjgxN2UzBHBvcwMxNARzZWMDdG9vbHMtdG9wBHNsawNwcmludA-- to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_re_us/minnesota_senate/print;_ylt=AjPT1Gekf_DyJp1skG9DKKxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTB1MjgxN2UzBHBvcwMxNARzZWMDdG9vbHMtdG9wBHNsawNwcmludA--
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110607055307/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/47594802.htm to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/47594802.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110607050328/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/43113327.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/43113327.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ww3.startribune.com/bigquestionblog/?p=1062
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101028234525/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120172055/http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/senate/raceratings_2008-10-09_12-20-35.php to http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/senate/raceratings_2008-10-09_12-20-35.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090125130248/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_co/senate_franken to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_co/senate_franken/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081226082736/http://www.mncourts.gov:80/?page=3409 to http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=3409
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080624052440/http://rasmussenreports.com:80/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_senate to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_senate/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081026112908/http://www.bigtenpoll.org:80/results20081023/minnesota.html to http://www.bigtenpoll.org/results20081023/minnesota.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081024111215/http://www.startribune.com:80/politics/national/senate/31384059.html? to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/31384059.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.grandforksherald.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D92N9P080
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080514183802/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_senate to http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_senate
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080309104357/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/election_2008_minnesota_senate to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/election_2008_minnesota_senate
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080910015723/http://myprivateballot.com/uploadedfiles/CO%20-%20ME%20-%20MN%20-%20Card%20Check%20Memo%200328%20_3_.pdf to http://myprivateballot.com/uploadedfiles/CO%20-%20ME%20-%20MN%20-%20Card%20Check%20Memo%200328%20_3_.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090710213852/http://www.mncourts.gov:80/opinions/sc/current/OPA090697-6030.pdf to http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/current/OPA090697-6030.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081122032930/http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp to http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090131023125/http://www.mncourts.gov:80/district/2/?page=3408 to http://www.mncourts.gov/district/2/?page=3408
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081226082736/http://www.mncourts.gov:80/?page=3409 to http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=3409
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081206165401/http://www.votimus.com:80/user/Election.aspx?ElecId=956&rt=us_hotraces&fa=us_mn to http://www.votimus.com/user/Election.aspx?ElecId=956&rt=us_hotraces&fa=us_mn
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080916201404/http://www.cqpolitics.com:80/wmspage.cfm?docID=senate-MN to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=senate-MN
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080509132408/http://www.pollster.com/08-MN-Sen-GE-CvF.php to http://www.pollster.com/08-MN-Sen-GE-CvF.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100730081823/http://www.upress.umn.edu:80/Books/W/weiner_notflorida.html to http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/W/weiner_notflorida.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120032829/http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=all&P=A&Races=%27%27 to http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=all&P=A&Races=%27%27

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36225984.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c%3A%3AD3aDhUxWoW_oD%3AEaDUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaUU
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/cf_2008recountsummary_8.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36630979.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c%3A%3AD3aDhUxWoW_oD%3AEaDUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyU
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36043514.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O%3ADW3ckUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37722979.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c%3A%3AD3aDhUxWoW_oD%3AEaDUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/41152662.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O%3ADW3ckUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaUycaEacyU
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/42221767.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924133742/http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x4141.xml?ReleaseID=1216 to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x4141.xml?ReleaseID=1216
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828042136/http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x4141.xml?ReleaseID=1195 to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x4141.xml?ReleaseID=1195
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206094851/http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x4141.xml?ReleaseID=1188%2F to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x4141.xml?ReleaseID=1188%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615152542/http://www.mngreens.org/node/201 to http://www.mngreens.org/node/201
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ww3.startribune.com/bigquestionblog/?p=1062
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114193353/http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20080909/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=all to http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20080909/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=all
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718052715/http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/in_boost_to_franken_minnesota.php to http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/in_boost_to_franken_minnesota.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218130057/http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/franken_gets_big_win_at_canvas.php to http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/franken_gets_big_win_at_canvas.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121144412/http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/recount_summary_with_ab.pdf to http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/recount_summary_with_ab.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://erstarnews.com/content/view/8025/211/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206094851/http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x4141.xml?ReleaseID=1188%2F to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x4141.xml?ReleaseID=1188%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarify Survey USA polls

For the purposes of retaining information, I have no problem with the SurveyUSA polls showing preferences based on potential candidates before the DFL nominee was decided. However, it is not clear what these polls are supposed to be representing. For example, the polls go as late as May 2008, while there are polls Coleman v. Franken that exist before that. Can someone associated with this page make it clear that these were old polls for potential candidates before Franken's primary win? Preceding unsigned comment added by Radmod (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)