Not all the ballots are in. But once they are all counted, and if the final margin is close (which I think it will be), then I believe there will be a recount.
Joe Chemo on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
Not all the ballots are in. But once they are all counted, and if the final margin is close (which I think it will be), then I believe there will be a recount.
Only if Stevens wants one. There are no automatic recounts in Alaska. If it's within 0.5% (probably around 1500 votes) then the state will cover the cost, otherwise Stevens would have to pay for it himself.
Now chances are he will want one, but the likelihood of him winning a recount at that point is somewhere between slim and none.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Not all the ballots are in. But once they are all counted, and if the final margin is close (which I think it will be), then I believe there will be a recount.
Only if Stevens wants one. There are no automatic recounts in Alaska. If it's within 0.5% (probably around 1500 votes) then the state will cover the cost, otherwise Stevens would have to pay for it himself.
Now chances are he will want one, but the likelihood of him winning a recount at that point is somewhere between slim and none.
We can't discount the possibility of Stevens pulling ahead via recount in a predominantly red state while at the same time trumpeting the inevitable victory of Al Franken via recount in a predominantly blue one.
The truth of the matter is we have no idea, at this time, where either of these races is going to fall.
We'd just prefer to have a Filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
I think it's kind of funny that two people born in New York are running for a spot in the Minnesota Senate.
Al actually mentioned that when he announced his candidacy. He said "If they try to complain to voters that a New York jew is running for Minnesota senate, at least I'll be the only New York jew in the race who grew up in Minnesota."
This is where the love part of my love/hate thing for Fraken I have going on comes from. That line actually made me laugh pretty hard.
The problem is everytime I've seen Franken interviewed if he's not throwing out amusing jokes he's busy being a shrieking partisan dipshit. It's frustrating because sometimes he'll do it in the same breath. It's hard to shift gears from "Hahaha, that's hilarious" to "Jesus, you're kind of a tool" that quickly.
I think it's kind of funny that two people born in New York are running for a spot in the Minnesota Senate.
Al actually mentioned that when he announced his candidacy. He said "If they try to complain to voters that a New York jew is running for Minnesota senate, at least I'll be the only New York jew in the race who grew up in Minnesota."
This is where the love part of my love/hate thing for Fraken I have going on comes from. That line actually made me laugh pretty hard.
The problem is everytime I've seen Franken interviewed if he's not throwing out amusing jokes he's busy being a shrieking partisan dipshit. It's frustrating because sometimes he'll do it in the same breath. It's hard to shift gears from "Hahaha, that's hilarious" to "Jesus, you're kind of a tool" that quickly.
So Franken's like Ron Paul?
I think Franken's just the best of a crop of bad choices for Minnesota at the moment. If someone of real quality and experience were running I wouldn't be rooting for Franken, but as it is I find myself cheering him on just because he's Al Franken. Hopefully in six years or however long it takes he'll be replaced by someone with smarts and cojones who's running to make Minnesota a better place rather than out of spite, but for now we're stuck with Franken or Coleman and between the two Franken's less likely to actively sabotage Obama and more likely to yell and scream when people aren't acting in the best interest of his constituents.
Seriously, Franken's hatred of corruption borders on the dangerous and pathological.
In Parliamentary systems you get some fun majorities like that. The current most marginal constituency in the UK is held by.. 37 votes.
My favourite story is that of the conservative who lost the election in '97 to his Labour rival by 12(? I think) votes. The day before the election he'd gone to a restaurant and hadn't left a tip. The staff of 14 decided to all vote Labour as punishment.
I think it's kind of funny that two people born in New York are running for a spot in the Minnesota Senate.
Al actually mentioned that when he announced his candidacy. He said "If they try to complain to voters that a New York jew is running for Minnesota senate, at least I'll be the only New York jew in the race who grew up in Minnesota."
This is where the love part of my love/hate thing for Fraken I have going on comes from. That line actually made me laugh pretty hard.
The problem is everytime I've seen Franken interviewed if he's not throwing out amusing jokes he's busy being a shrieking partisan dipshit. It's frustrating because sometimes he'll do it in the same breath. It's hard to shift gears from "Hahaha, that's hilarious" to "Jesus, you're kind of a tool" that quickly.
So Franken's like Ron Paul?
I think Franken's just the best of a crop of bad choices for Minnesota at the moment. If someone of real quality and experience were running I wouldn't be rooting for Franken, but as it is I find myself cheering him on just because he's Al Franken. Hopefully in six years or however long it takes he'll be replaced by someone with smarts and cojones who's running to make Minnesota a better place rather than out of spite, but for now we're stuck with Franken or Coleman and between the two Franken's less likely to actively sabotage Obama and more likely to yell and scream when people aren't acting in the best interest of his constituents.
Seriously, Franken's hatred of corruption borders on the dangerous and pathological.
So you want someone who will "yell and scream" for his constituents but you don't like Franken because he's obnoxious, and you want someone who supports Obama's agenda but you don't like Franken because he's a hardcore partisan, and you don't like Coleman because he's a lying shit but you don't like Franken because he... hates corruption too much?
I mean I understand I'm conflating your comments with those above, but... do I have that right? Because if so... o_O
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
In Parliamentary systems you get some fun majorities like that. The current most marginal constituency in the UK is held by.. 37 votes.
My favourite story is that of the conservative who lost the election in '97 to his Labour rival by 12(? I think) votes. The day before the election he'd gone to a restaurant and hadn't left a tip. The staff of 14 decided to all vote Labour as punishment.
There's an important lesson there.
Hahahaha. I remember that. The newsreader could barely keep the grin off his face.
Do you know who Norm Coleman is? The circumstances under which he took that Senate seat?
There are three sitting Republican US Senators who deserve to be sodomized with sharp sticks, and they all just so happen to be the same three currently holding on for dear life. Coleman is the least offensive of the cabal, but that doesn't mean I don't want him to burn slowly.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
I think it's kind of funny that two people born in New York are running for a spot in the Minnesota Senate.
Al actually mentioned that when he announced his candidacy. He said "If they try to complain to voters that a New York jew is running for Minnesota senate, at least I'll be the only New York jew in the race who grew up in Minnesota."
This is where the love part of my love/hate thing for Fraken I have going on comes from. That line actually made me laugh pretty hard.
The problem is everytime I've seen Franken interviewed if he's not throwing out amusing jokes he's busy being a shrieking partisan dipshit. It's frustrating because sometimes he'll do it in the same breath. It's hard to shift gears from "Hahaha, that's hilarious" to "Jesus, you're kind of a tool" that quickly.
So Franken's like Ron Paul?
I think Franken's just the best of a crop of bad choices for Minnesota at the moment. If someone of real quality and experience were running I wouldn't be rooting for Franken, but as it is I find myself cheering him on just because he's Al Franken. Hopefully in six years or however long it takes he'll be replaced by someone with smarts and cojones who's running to make Minnesota a better place rather than out of spite, but for now we're stuck with Franken or Coleman and between the two Franken's less likely to actively sabotage Obama and more likely to yell and scream when people aren't acting in the best interest of his constituents.
Seriously, Franken's hatred of corruption borders on the dangerous and pathological.
So you want someone who will "yell and scream" for his constituents but you don't like Franken because he's obnoxious, and you want someone who supports Obama's agenda but you don't like Franken because he's a hardcore partisan, and you don't like Coleman because he's a lying shit but you don't like Franken because he... hates corruption too much?
I mean I understand I'm conflating your comments with those above, but... do I have that right? Because if so... o_O
I don't like Franken as a Senator, particularly. He has no government experience and is abrasive and comes across as completely unwilling to compromise. He's a funny guy, but he also seems like a bit of a douchebag. However, compared to Coleman, who jumps ship at the slightest inkling that the winds might change direction and who skated to a Senate seat on the charred remains of Paul Wellstone, Franken looks almost Lincolnesque.
And yes, you're conflating some of my comments to make them seem overzealous.
Allow me to clarify:
Compared to Coleman, Franken is more likely to speak up if something is going against the best interest of the people. This is because of his (apparently) pathological hatred of corruption.
RE: Obama's agenda. Yes Franken is hardcore partisan, but part of Obama's agenda is not just toeing the party line, but compromising to find the best and most doable solutions. Franken might not fit well in there due to his unwillingness to compromise.
I never said anything about hating Franken (especially not because of his stance on corruption) but while I personally like the guy I don't feel he'll make a particularly effective Senator.
At the same time, he's better than the alternative.
Of course Franken is better than the alternative. Extremely partisan, yes. That's true. And there wouldn't be anything inherently wrong with partisan if it weren't always so detrimental to the good of the people. Not because partisan ideas are bad, but because two people on opposite sides of the aisle, both strongly partisan, won't get shit done.
I think Franken is more likely to come to terms with better solutions than Franken. I'm not arguing for an "awesome guy of the year" award for him. But there are only two people running.
I don't give a shit how bad Franken is. There are only two people running. Pragmatically, one is better. Maybe not totally badass sweet, but better.
Coleman has crossed the floor once, many years ago. He was also democratically elected, whether you like it or not, and to infer that it was over the corpse of the previous senator is tasteless.
Coleman has crossed the floor once, many years ago. He was also democratically elected, whether you like it or not, and to infer that it was over the corpse of the previous senator is tasteless.
And yet true. Wellstone died less than two weeks before the election. Scrambling to find a candidate, they settled on Mondale, who failed to generate excitement. Any absentee ballots cast for Wellstone by older Minnesotans wintering elsewhere in the country did not count at all (not that those would have put him over the difference.)
Had Paul Wellstone not died Norm Coleman never would have won that race.
So who cares? Did he kill Wellstone? No? Then he was democratically elected. Democrats like to piss and moan when a Republican gets in, but that's what happened. He's now faced another election, without anyone dying, and has once again won it. So what's the problem? The fact that he's not a radio host? That he's never written any absurd pro left books? I'm confused as to the extent of his crimes.
So who cares? Did he kill Wellstone? No? Then he was democratically elected. Democrats like to piss and moan when a Republican gets in, but that's what happened. He's now faced another election, without anyone dying, and has once again won it. So what's the problem? The fact that he's not a radio host? That he's never written any absurd pro left books? I'm confused as to the extent of his crimes.
Well, he hasn't once again won it yet; the difference in votes between him and Franken was well under the margin of error, and Minnesota state law thus requires a hand recount.
Which he'll win. The recount is a formality. They're checking. There's no reason at all to think that there are any discrepancies in the count. He's won.
Frankly I'd vote for a ham sandwich for senate over a Republican, given the last few years of republican governance. At least the sandwich wouldn't vote in favor of wiretapping.
I mean, what's your issue here tube? You don't like franken, awesome. He'd still be better than coleman.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Which he'll win. The recount is a formality. They're checking. There's no reason at all to think that there are any discrepancies in the count. He's won.
Actually there are some reasons to think there is a discrepancy, because there is a large number of ballots with a vote for President and no vote for Senate. The Minnesota Senate race was highly contested and a ton of money was spent on it, there were well publicized debates, and several campaign stunts that I'm sure got a ton of local coverage. So there's some reason to believe that for whatever reason there are ballots with an indicated preference in the Senate race that weren't counted.
EDIT: Change 'a' to 'no' so this all made sense.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Which he'll win. The recount is a formality. They're checking. There's no reason at all to think that there are any discrepancies in the count. He's won.
and thus your ignorance shines through the clouds like a light from heaven.
The results always change in recounts. Always. It even changed in the formalizing process, which isn't anywhere as thorough as a recount.
There are a couple of things to pick through here. Firstly, it appears that slightly more than 10,000 people undervoted the presidential race. Although there are undoubtedly cases in which the voter undervoted the presidency but not the senate race, it would appear that for the most part the presidential undervote is a subset of the senate undervote.
The research I've come across suggests that about two-thirds of presidential undervotes are unintentional. So let's take two-thirds of that 10,086 vote total and assign them to the recount pile -- that equals 6,724 votes.
There were also about 25,000 cases in which the voter voted for the presidency but undervoted the senate race (consistent with the AP's reportined finding last week). Let's assume that in most of these cases, the voter intentionally skipped the senate race, but that in one-third of cases he did not. This equals another 8,277 votes, or a total of 15,001 cases in which the voter intended to vote for the senate race, but his vote was not recorded.
In not all of these 15,001 cases, however, will the voter's intention be clear. Let's assume that one-quarter of these ballots will be unresolvable, even upon a hand recount. This means that 11,251 ballots will actually be reclassified during the recount, or about 0.4% of the total cast.
Bitwise notes, however, that Franken did in fact perform better -- really, quite a bit better -- in precincts with more undervotes. If undervotes follow the pattern of the recorded votes, then Franken would win 52.5% of recounted ballots (excluding any ballots cast for third parties). This is a significant finding, as these are the first numbers I have seen to break the undervote down to the precinct level.
Let's approach this in a couple of different directions. Firstly, let's assume that my estimate of 11,251 recounted ballots is correct and hold this number constant, but vary the share of such ballots that go to Franken. Here are his win percentages under various such scenarios:
Alternatively, let's assume that Bitwise's estimate of 52.5% of recounted ballots being resolved for Franken is correct, but vary the number of qualified ballots:
Franken Wins 52.5% of Recounted Ballots
======================================================
Number of Recounted Ballots Franken Win %
2,500 1.68%
5,000 54.60%
5,623 68.93%
7,500 92.49%
10,000 99.15%
11,251 99.75%
15,000 99.99%
20,000 100.00%
The long story short is as follows: if Al Franken in fact wins anywhere near 52.5% of the undercounted ballots, it is quite likely that he will prevail, even given what I would consider to be fairly pessimistic assumptions about the number of correctable errors. You could halve my estimate of the number of recounted ballots, for instance (to 5,623) and Franken still projects to prevail around 69% of the time. If, on the other hand, Franken only wins say 51% of the undercount, then the precise number of correctable errors is more important.
I hesitate to say this, but I think the evidence points on balance toward Franken being a slight favorite to win the recount.
Yes. It's impossible to get a perfect count unless we find some perfect beings to do the counting. Frankly, I think there should be some sort of rule stipulating that if a recount would alter the outcome but lies within the margin of error, you should ignore the recount and go with the original result. Because what you've effectively done is decided to go with a new result based on statistical noise.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
No, Franken really is that big of a douche. It speaks to his douchiness that Coleman is a complete asshole who's done nothing of value and still managed to wind up in a statistical tie with him.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
But does it matter which can't-tell-if-it's-true-or-noise result you go with? Maybe when it's within the margin of error there should be a "best of recounts" victory.
Cervetus on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Yes. It's impossible to get a perfect count unless we find some perfect beings to do the counting. Frankly, I think there should be some sort of rule stipulating that if a recount would alter the outcome but lies within the margin of error, you should ignore the recount and go with the original result. Because what you've effectively done is decided to go with a new result based on statistical noise.
True, but I thought that the recount methods were more exact than the original count, hence leaving the recount results more likely to be correct. At the very least, I thought it was harder to hide shenanigans in a recount.
Yes. It's impossible to get a perfect count unless we find some perfect beings to do the counting. Frankly, I think there should be some sort of rule stipulating that if a recount would alter the outcome but lies within the margin of error, you should ignore the recount and go with the original result. Because what you've effectively done is decided to go with a new result based on statistical noise.
What? No. Margin of error is purely a polling concept, based on the fact that you only ask a sample of the population. A vote does consist of the entire population so there isn't any margin of error, only human error, which I guess might be what you're referring to, but that isn't quantifiable in anyway so you can't use it in the way you intend.
But does it matter which can't-tell-if-it's-true-or-noise result you go with? Maybe when it's within the margin of error there should be a "best of recounts" victory.
It just seems that in the case of a within-the-MOE victory, the fairest thing is to go with the first result. Barring that, you'd have to do a best-of-three or something, and that's a ridiculous amount of work to do. It's a great injustice if 90% of people choose candidate A and candidate B gets in. Not so much if 50.01% choose candidate A and candidate B gets in - B was still chosen by about half the electorate, and will represent the will of the people roughly the same as A.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Frankly I'd vote for a ham sandwich for senate over a Republican, given the last few years of republican governance. At least the sandwich wouldn't vote in favor of wiretapping.
I mean, what's your issue here tube? You don't like franken, awesome. He'd still be better than coleman.
Why? Because he's not a Republican? My issue isn't with Franken or Coleman, it's with people who immediately jump to hate the Republican candidate or whine about Republican candidates winning democratic elections. Just saying things like "he'd be better than Coleman" means nothing. When challenged as to why Coleman is so bad the best anyone has come up with is "well a guy died right before he was elected and so he came in based on that" and some ludicrous wrangling copy pasted from some guy's blog desperately trying to pretend that Franken has won.
It's the lazy thinking that bugs me. What's so bad about Coleman? Plenty of people are able to express what they don't like about Franken, and you'll have to do a lot better than "he's a Republican!" because believe it or not, being a Republican isn't an objectively bad thing and the belief that it is (and the reverse from conservatives) is sending the country to the fucking dogs.
Posts
Only if Stevens wants one. There are no automatic recounts in Alaska. If it's within 0.5% (probably around 1500 votes) then the state will cover the cost, otherwise Stevens would have to pay for it himself.
Now chances are he will want one, but the likelihood of him winning a recount at that point is somewhere between slim and none.
In Parliamentary systems you get some fun majorities like that. The current most marginal constituency in the UK is held by.. 37 votes.
We can't discount the possibility of Stevens pulling ahead via recount in a predominantly red state while at the same time trumpeting the inevitable victory of Al Franken via recount in a predominantly blue one.
The truth of the matter is we have no idea, at this time, where either of these races is going to fall.
We'd just prefer to have a Filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
This is where the love part of my love/hate thing for Fraken I have going on comes from. That line actually made me laugh pretty hard.
The problem is everytime I've seen Franken interviewed if he's not throwing out amusing jokes he's busy being a shrieking partisan dipshit. It's frustrating because sometimes he'll do it in the same breath. It's hard to shift gears from "Hahaha, that's hilarious" to "Jesus, you're kind of a tool" that quickly.
So Franken's like Ron Paul?
I think Franken's just the best of a crop of bad choices for Minnesota at the moment. If someone of real quality and experience were running I wouldn't be rooting for Franken, but as it is I find myself cheering him on just because he's Al Franken. Hopefully in six years or however long it takes he'll be replaced by someone with smarts and cojones who's running to make Minnesota a better place rather than out of spite, but for now we're stuck with Franken or Coleman and between the two Franken's less likely to actively sabotage Obama and more likely to yell and scream when people aren't acting in the best interest of his constituents.
Seriously, Franken's hatred of corruption borders on the dangerous and pathological.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
My favourite story is that of the conservative who lost the election in '97 to his Labour rival by 12(? I think) votes. The day before the election he'd gone to a restaurant and hadn't left a tip. The staff of 14 decided to all vote Labour as punishment.
There's an important lesson there.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
So you want someone who will "yell and scream" for his constituents but you don't like Franken because he's obnoxious, and you want someone who supports Obama's agenda but you don't like Franken because he's a hardcore partisan, and you don't like Coleman because he's a lying shit but you don't like Franken because he... hates corruption too much?
I mean I understand I'm conflating your comments with those above, but... do I have that right? Because if so... o_O
Hahahaha. I remember that. The newsreader could barely keep the grin off his face.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Do you know who Norm Coleman is? The circumstances under which he took that Senate seat?
There are three sitting Republican US Senators who deserve to be sodomized with sharp sticks, and they all just so happen to be the same three currently holding on for dear life. Coleman is the least offensive of the cabal, but that doesn't mean I don't want him to burn slowly.
I don't like Franken as a Senator, particularly. He has no government experience and is abrasive and comes across as completely unwilling to compromise. He's a funny guy, but he also seems like a bit of a douchebag. However, compared to Coleman, who jumps ship at the slightest inkling that the winds might change direction and who skated to a Senate seat on the charred remains of Paul Wellstone, Franken looks almost Lincolnesque.
And yes, you're conflating some of my comments to make them seem overzealous.
Allow me to clarify:
Compared to Coleman, Franken is more likely to speak up if something is going against the best interest of the people. This is because of his (apparently) pathological hatred of corruption.
RE: Obama's agenda. Yes Franken is hardcore partisan, but part of Obama's agenda is not just toeing the party line, but compromising to find the best and most doable solutions. Franken might not fit well in there due to his unwillingness to compromise.
I never said anything about hating Franken (especially not because of his stance on corruption) but while I personally like the guy I don't feel he'll make a particularly effective Senator.
At the same time, he's better than the alternative.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I think Franken is more likely to come to terms with better solutions than Franken. I'm not arguing for an "awesome guy of the year" award for him. But there are only two people running.
I don't give a shit how bad Franken is. There are only two people running. Pragmatically, one is better. Maybe not totally badass sweet, but better.
That simple.
And yet true. Wellstone died less than two weeks before the election. Scrambling to find a candidate, they settled on Mondale, who failed to generate excitement. Any absentee ballots cast for Wellstone by older Minnesotans wintering elsewhere in the country did not count at all (not that those would have put him over the difference.)
Had Paul Wellstone not died Norm Coleman never would have won that race.
Well, he hasn't once again won it yet; the difference in votes between him and Franken was well under the margin of error, and Minnesota state law thus requires a hand recount.
I mean, what's your issue here tube? You don't like franken, awesome. He'd still be better than coleman.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Actually there are some reasons to think there is a discrepancy, because there is a large number of ballots with a vote for President and no vote for Senate. The Minnesota Senate race was highly contested and a ton of money was spent on it, there were well publicized debates, and several campaign stunts that I'm sure got a ton of local coverage. So there's some reason to believe that for whatever reason there are ballots with an indicated preference in the Senate race that weren't counted.
EDIT: Change 'a' to 'no' so this all made sense.
and thus your ignorance shines through the clouds like a light from heaven.
The results always change in recounts. Always. It even changed in the formalizing process, which isn't anywhere as thorough as a recount.
538 on the MN recount:
Yes. It's impossible to get a perfect count unless we find some perfect beings to do the counting. Frankly, I think there should be some sort of rule stipulating that if a recount would alter the outcome but lies within the margin of error, you should ignore the recount and go with the original result. Because what you've effectively done is decided to go with a new result based on statistical noise.
No, Franken really is that big of a douche. It speaks to his douchiness that Coleman is a complete asshole who's done nothing of value and still managed to wind up in a statistical tie with him.
True, but I thought that the recount methods were more exact than the original count, hence leaving the recount results more likely to be correct. At the very least, I thought it was harder to hide shenanigans in a recount.
What? No. Margin of error is purely a polling concept, based on the fact that you only ask a sample of the population. A vote does consist of the entire population so there isn't any margin of error, only human error, which I guess might be what you're referring to, but that isn't quantifiable in anyway so you can't use it in the way you intend.
It just seems that in the case of a within-the-MOE victory, the fairest thing is to go with the first result. Barring that, you'd have to do a best-of-three or something, and that's a ridiculous amount of work to do. It's a great injustice if 90% of people choose candidate A and candidate B gets in. Not so much if 50.01% choose candidate A and candidate B gets in - B was still chosen by about half the electorate, and will represent the will of the people roughly the same as A.
It is. Someone somewhere reads '12' as '17' and presto, five more votes materialize.
Why? Because he's not a Republican? My issue isn't with Franken or Coleman, it's with people who immediately jump to hate the Republican candidate or whine about Republican candidates winning democratic elections. Just saying things like "he'd be better than Coleman" means nothing. When challenged as to why Coleman is so bad the best anyone has come up with is "well a guy died right before he was elected and so he came in based on that" and some ludicrous wrangling copy pasted from some guy's blog desperately trying to pretend that Franken has won.
It's the lazy thinking that bugs me. What's so bad about Coleman? Plenty of people are able to express what they don't like about Franken, and you'll have to do a lot better than "he's a Republican!" because believe it or not, being a Republican isn't an objectively bad thing and the belief that it is (and the reverse from conservatives) is sending the country to the fucking dogs.
But there is no way of knowing how big or small this is unless you know the exact, perfect numbers which would make the whole thing moot.
And besides a recount presumably has less human error so if it has a different result than the first, it would be the one you listen to.