That signficant dropoff bolsters the case for IRV in place of conventional runoffs.

Norm certainly would like to have the election held once again. If there's anything consistent in American politics it's that holding an election a second time will result in a substantial decline in Democratic turnout. It will consistently favor conservatives. One doesn't have to look further than the U.S. Senate race in Alabama, 2008.

Saxby Chambliss: 1,864,015 (1st Round) 1,228,033 (2nd Round)

Dropoff, general to runoff: 635,982

Jim Martin: 1,753,030 (1st Round) 909,923 (2nd Round)

Dropoff: 843,107

Difference, Republican vs. Democratic dropoff 207,125.

Percentage Chambliss: 49.8% (1st Round) 57.4% (2nd Round)

Martin: 46.8% (1st Round) 42.6% (2nd Round)

While a run-off would have made sense, it was - and is - not possible under current MN election law. Until the state makes a change to the law, there can be no do-over.

Certainly there is a precedent to a do-over in an election that cannot be otherwise decided. Look at 2000 in Florida. Didn't they do that one over? Oops, I guess I was wrong. It was decided in the US Supreme Court, partially appointed by the father of the Republican candidate.

I guess do-overs are only considered when it is the Democrat who is winning.

If you can't win honestly, go whining to the SC!

As much as I dislike Norm Coleman, I am in total agreement with him about needing to set aside the election and call a new one. As I have consistently advocated since the 2000 debacle, any election that is decided by a margin less than the statistical margin of error should be repeated. And in order to forestall the debate over what that margin is, I'd draw the line at 2% of votes cast.

The time for a do-over was last year, as no candidate won a majority of votes. If Minnesota provided a runoff election between the top two vote-getters, this would have been resolved a lot quicker. Or better yet, they could use Instant Runoff Voting so people wouldn't even need to make a return trip to the polls.

Of course, this is assuming--pretty safely, I think--that the margin of preference between Coleman and Franken would not be so razor-thin among those whose first choice was Barkley, and therefore could make victory decisive (for Franken, most likely, but that's beside the point).

Is there any polling data about how the candidates stand now? I would imagine that some may have soured on Coleman at this point.

I was told by the right wing noise machine that it was Al Franken who was attempting to legislate a victory. Were they lying to us?

which I made on an earlier thread, is that Coleman was fined $7500 by the Court, 3 days' worth of Court time for the Pam Howell witness tampering.

From the panel: "In the event this sanction fails to deter future conduct on the part of [Coleman's] counsel, the court will not hesitate to impose harsher sanctions, up to and including dismissal [of the case]."

And, I think it's worth noting that after all Coleman's testimony was complete, Franken had an (unofficial) lead of 258. That's right. Five weeks of testimony from Coleman's legal team netted Coleman's opponent 33 votes.

Time well spent, no?

for the update.

I hope to hear more from WarRoom as Team Franken presents their case.

Norm Coleman is only in it for the good of Norm Coleman.

Al Franken is actually the one who's in it for Al Franken.

Moondoggy, you've just hit upon the perfect solution to the whole problem. Strip 'em both naked, give 'em two matches, a pocket knife and a piece of flint and drop 'em both in the middle of the great north woods. Whichever one makes it out first is the winner. And as a bonus, they get a FREE extra session if they come out carrying the scalp of the other.

When you run out of bullets, just throw your gun!

He lost the first time, and he's really gonna lose the second time.

As a current Minnesota resident, it disgusts me to see the lengths to which Coleman will go all in the name of preserving his old senate seat. Every time things aren't going his way, he immediately changes his strategy to the next thing that looks most likely to make him the winner. Franken has been consistent and courteous throughout the entire process. Given the fact that he ought to be casting his vote as a Senator already, he has been remarkably patient.

But I, for one, am getting impatient with Coleman for his egotism and self-serving nature. Were it not for his legal tapdancing and his attempts to keep his own political career afloat, Minnesota would be saving thousands of taxpayer dollars on the recount and on court costs, and we would also have our full representation in Washington now.

"when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates -- and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast" is clearly a reference to the 2000 Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore (which was NOT to be used as precedent for any other case!)

Even worse, the very premise of the statement upon which the "do-over" request is based is false. Coleman's legal team has spent five weeks flailing around seeking to claim that there were illegal votes, which they FAILED to prove. They didn't even attempt to prove that there were votes where the intent of the voter could not be determined (no Florida-type "hanging chads" here in Minnesota).

Near the end they brought in a very questionable witness who was torn apart by Franken's team on cross examination when she admitted to having multiple conversations with the Coleman team about which Coleman's team did not inform the Franken team and which amounted to her being "coached."

Indeed, if the occurrence to which she testified were actually true, she ignored her sworn duty (as head election judge) to fill out an "incident report" regarding what happened, but only contacted Republican political party officials with her concerns (and even her claim to have done THAT was not corroborated by any other witnesses).

The witness's testimony was then struck from the record, but she returned as a witness the next day and, under further cross-examination revealed FAR MORE improper contact with the Coleman team than they had previously admitted, after which her testimony was again struck from the record. Finally the Coleman team was fined $7,500 for wasting the court's time with the whole mess.

In the end, all the Coleman team succeeded in doing was bringing in some improperly rejected absentee ballots (which they, themselves, had, during the recount, demanded be rejected). Those votes added more to FRANKEN's total.

So a do-over would require that the judges now reverse themselves on every major issue examined in the "election contest" trial so far.

I suppose we can't blame the Coleman team for trying?! No doubt the right-wing "stolen election" wingnut base will appreciate the effort and continue to think Acorn has the three-judge panel in their pockets. (and what color is the sky in that alternate universe today?)