Talk:Coleman appeals Franken victory in Minnesota Senate race

review

Revision 807892 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 807892 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

There's an error here. Your reporter seems to have conflated two separate issues. The 132 votes from Dinkytown were counted once, then placed in an envelope marked 1/5, which was lost or stolen. Coleman is not alleging otherwise. He is asking that these votes not be counted, although there was no indication of any problem with the machine count. No one took this part of Coleman's case seriously. Coleman is also claiming an ill-defined number of votes were double-counted due to failure to properly label duplicates. It is widely accepted that this happened in some cases, and that Franken probably gained from it. However the net Franken gain is probably well under 100 votes, not enough to make a difference.