Al Franken picking up votes in recount...

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/34736454.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs

Well it looks like the Dems might be on track to pick up another Senate seat.

If so, the Georgia runoff will be crucial.

Hopefully, with Obama's enthusiastic support, the Dems can unseat Saxby Chambliss.

That would give them 60 votes and let them override the republicans' obstructionism.

Obama has already said he's not going to GA.

I do find it interesting that in a state where the Republican won by ~3% AND garnered 50% of the vote, they're having a run off with just those two candidates but in one state where the two candidates virtually tied at 42% and an independent got 15% of the vote they are using a recount and in another state where the democrat won by 1% with less then 50% of the vote, he is declared the winner.

Georgia law requires a runoff when the winner gets less than 50%.

Minnesota law requires a recount when the election is that close.

Alaska law allows for a recount if the loser requests it, but Stevens conceded.

According to CNN, Chambliss got 50% of the vote.

And the Senate should unify the election procedures for all Senators in each state as they are constitutionally permitted to do.

Actually the Senate might end up making the decision on the Minnesota seat.

If the state cant certify a winner before time to convene.

And of course you would favor that knowing they would chose the joke democrats ran and also knowing that it is not the will of the Minnesota voters, who chose Coleman over the joke because you believe Senate democrats would likely choose the joke.

Personally, given that an independent took 15% of the vote, Minnesota should have a runoff as well.

Aaron wrote:Personally, given that an independent took 15% of the vote, Minnesota should have a runoff as well.

So you don't think that the citizens of each state should be allowed to set electoral rules for their state? How would you like it if Californian decided how West Virginia's senatorial elections should be conducted?

This has nothing to do with electoral rules William. I'm referring to the method of choosing United States Senators.

Aaron wrote:This has nothing to do with electoral rules William. I'm referring to the method of choosing United States Senators.

Right, senatorial electoral rules (NOT electoral college).

Californians wouldn't be choosing how West Virginians vote, our Congress would, as is permitted under Article 1 Section 4 of the constitution.

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

There is no way a Senator from GA should have to face a run off election because he got 49.89% of the vote while a Senator from Minnesota who statistically tied with 42% of the vote where an independent got 15% of the vote should win on a recount or have the Senate choose for them.

The election of our Senators should be uniform. There should also be a mandatory retirement age and probably term limits as well although that one is debatable.

Darwin is 97% anus and 3% bmd.