One can only hope so (4.00 / 1)

I'm going to read your link now.

---

by: werner @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM CST

Of course... (0.00 / 0)

If he wins the recount and goes down, Pawlenty will still get to appoint a successor.  If that happens, does the successor get to finish the 6-year term, or just fill in until the next election in 2010?

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 09:24:49 AM CST

Until 2010 (0.00 / 0)

It's in the Constitution:

"...the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

---

by: Kal @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess Franken could get another shot if he loses then... (0.00 / 0)

If he gets through the Democratic primaries again, that is.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:02:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

and if he doesn't ship off back to NYC or Hollywood (0.00 / 0)

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 11:31:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the Senate should just order a re-vote (0.00 / 0)

Constitutionally, the Senate gets to determine the winner of elections. And there's precedent: I think they did this in 1974 in the NH Senate race, which was also a tie. And it seems especially justified, given the big third-party vote and the fact that the recount is almost certain to end up within the range of litigation.

---

by: Chachy @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:06:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

a poll the other day (0.00 / 0)

Suggested that the re-vote would be pretty much the same. A statistical tie for Coleman and Franken, and 15% for Barkley.
Of course, that was before the latest news on Coleman (which isn't so much news as a story that got harder to ignore), but I still don't get it. Barkley is much closer to Franken on issues, right?  

---

by: BlueinColorado @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Can you imagine Harry Reid (4.00 / 1)

taking such a bold, albeit eminently defensible, step?

---

by: wobbly @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:29:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

re-vote as runoff (4.00 / 1)

A lot of people viscerally dislike Franken, I gather. That's not surprising, because he's an interesting person, and it's nearly impossible to be an interesting public figure and also not have a lot of people dislike you - which is why most politicians are boring as potted beef.

But the question is, where would the Barkley voters go if it were a two-person runoff? At the end of the day, the large majority of people vote on the issues, so I would think a plurality would move to Franken, especially if Coleman's corruption issues continue to hang over his head.

---

by: Chachy @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 11:02:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Depends (0.00 / 0)

if the "issue" is a lack of alternative candidates to those blessed by the main stream parties, then I could see a whole bunch of Barkleyites sitting it out, or writing Barkley in.

Just to be clear: I donated to Franken and voted for him.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 12:27:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no doubt (0.00 / 0)

But I'm saying a plurality of Barkley voters would move to Franken - i.e., more would vote for Franken than would vote for Coleman.

---

by: Chachy @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 13:08:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't bet on it (4.00 / 1)

Turnout would not likely match that of the november election and who says Barkley or other alternatives would be included? Cast it as a "run-off" and pit Coleman against Franken

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 11:33:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

as wobbly suggests (0.00 / 0)

I think the chances of Reid taking that kind of step are slim to none. I was mostly struck by the fact that those 15%ers could be so completely indifferent to the actual business of the country that they would stick with a 'principled' and utterly useless vote.

---

by: BlueinColorado @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 12:10:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

useless is in the eye of the beholder (0.00 / 0)

Don't mis-read my comment as suggesting that I believe there will actually be a re-vote or a run-off. The point was to question the logic that IF such were to happen, the result would be as it was in November.

Did the run off vote in Georgia simply reiterate the vote in November? No. Why? One major reason is that there were no Obama coat-tails in the run-off.

I don't know that Barkley supporters would move to Franken, or Coleman. I suspect they might simply not vote. face it, if either Franken or Coleman had run a strong, positive campaign and not gotten bogged down in their tit for tat, you're being more negative than I, slug-fest, they could have won the election out-right.

Blaming Barkley for Franken's (or Coleman's) inability to win an election is to dodge the issue that they failed to connect with the voters and convince them that they should give their support to either candidate.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Spoken like a true Nader 2000 voter.. ;) (0.00 / 0)

Of course, I suppose Minnesota has a history of electing some independents...

Runoffs would be nice, though.  It'd actually be beneficial for 3rd parties... People would be free to vote for who they like because if their candidate loses, no big deal... just vote for the next guy you like.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 02:06:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You got me! (0.00 / 0)

I voted Nader in 2004. The reasoning was convoluted and it was a tough choice. Kerry took MN, anyway, so no big deal.

True, MN has an electoral system that is quite open to alternative parties. Indeed, the voting system and our civic culture are geared to support and entice participation. Unlike my experiences in Illinois, where the system includes some road-blocks to participation. That's probably why MN is always at the top (or near) in terms of turn-out. It's also one of the reasons I like living in MPLS, MN.

Next year, we will begin (assuming the MSP-dominated state legislature doesn't put the kibosh on it) a pilot program for Instant Run-off Elections in my home town of Minneapolis. The Senate election mess has brought the issue to the forefront once again. It was being debated on public radio as I drove into work this morning.  When the IRV (or some other proportional voting method) couples with the existing support for alternative parties, Minneapolis will be a multi-party city.  Hopefully, a positive example in the city will promote adoption of a state-wide system in the near future, but I'm not holding my breath. The MSPs have a monopoly on political power and patronage that they are very unlikely to relinquish without a fight. That's why it's called the Two Party Tyranny, after all:)

 

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 08:03:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Personally, I think the 2-party system works fine... (0.00 / 0)

Especially when there are no runoffs.  Theoretically, an "independent" candidate should run in a primary, imo.  This could even go for Nader, though he'd obviously stand no chance at all now (but that's hardly a change from his current position).  Breaking the "Two Party Tyranny" doesn't seem like much of a useful "end" to me.  Instead, if you have problems with certain issues a candidate for a party is taking, then you should run against that person in a primary or against them in the other party (meaning you have to run a primary campaign in that party).

Now, I suppose you could say that the party establishment could just make it impossible for you to win... but, I feel like McCain and Huckabee (and to a lesser extent Paul) sort of bucked their party establishment this year (even though McCain did try and shift his positions on just about everything to line himself up more with party doctrine, he was still not very well liked by his party).  If your party is doing unpopular things, run against it.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 12:19:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We are gonna have to agree to disagree (0.00 / 0)

I think.  I want more parties because I want a broader array of choices in every election and for every race.

Your last comment pertains only to the Presidential race, but executive offices are not the most egregious example of two party dominance.  Its the legislatures.

Look at the Democratic party in the US congress for example. The "left wing" Democrats are forever lining up to support the party line, then getting tossed aside. If the MSPs were REAL coalitions comprised of independent parties instead of "big tents", such loyalties would not be expected, or so easily coersed. The "progressive" dems would do better, IMHO, were they to represent a Progressive Party, rather than simply a sub-group of one MSP. (of course, I'm not addressing the structural road-blocks to a multi-party system, but I don't want to get too long-winded). Basically, if the progressives were a party instead of a "wing", then sticking to their principles and casting votes accordingly would be seen as sticking to the party line, as opposed to bucking the party line.

Furthermore, multiple parties would also expand the entire political spectrum because its the "fringes" in each MSP that define the extremes. I suspect that the left fringe of a Progressive Party would be more extreme than the left fringe of the current Democratic Party. Same on the right, which would make it easier to identify, attack and defeat extremist right wingers, IMHO. A more expansive political spectrum would, I think, bring more of my fellow citizens into the political process. Ultimately, its about dispersing political power rather than concentrating it.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 14:41:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Any chance there will be a Senator Franken taking office instead of Coleman? (0.00 / 0)

Nah.

I guess this is separate from who wins the recount.

---

by: werner @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 09:42:51 AM CST

Outsourcing journalism to the FBI. (0.00 / 0)

Trusting a centralized law enforcement agency to clean up corruption for us is structurally unwise.  We the people, the blogs, the MSM, and the political class should have been doing this job.  

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 11:40:40 AM CST

The only news (0.00 / 0)

here is the FBI's involvement. All this was known before the election and downplayed (according to an acquaintance in St Paul) by the Star-Trib, following their endorsement of "moderate, independent" Norm Coleman. I'm fuzzy on the details, but apparently the Strib announced a year or so ago that they were going to consciously screen their op/eds (and their news?) for any bias that would offend conservative readers. And I'm pretty sure that I'm exaggerating very slightly.

---

by: BlueinColorado @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I meant on the larger scale, not this particular smaller scale. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I also had heard the allegations about Coleman before we all heard about the FBI's involvement recently.  Still, as a society we are relying too much on the FBI to clean up corruption for us, and not enough on ourselves: voters, bloggers, journalists, amateur investigators, political observers, political professionals, editorial professionals.  Law enforcement has been behind a whole lot of political corruption exposes lately, and that's kindof unfortunate I think.  At the very least we should not rely on them to be solely responsible for this stuff.  

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 14:01:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]