I’m Good Enough, I’m Smart Enough, and Doggone It, the Minnesota Supreme Court Likes Me. This election may have been a virtual tie, but Al Franken swept the Minnesota Supreme Court today. The Court ruled that Franken should be certified as the winner of the state’s Senate race — rejecting a challenge by Republican Norm Coleman. With Franken, the Democrats will have the votes to overcome any filibuster (if you include the two independents).
On election night, Coleman was ahead by a margin of 206 votes out of more than 2.9 million votes. After the recount, Franken led by 225 votes.
Coleman’s hopes were pinned on thousands of absentees votes that were rejected by election officials, but the Supreme Court found that those voters failed to satisfy the conditions set out for such voting.
On the substantive due process issue, the court ruled:
We conclude that our existing case law requires strict compliance by voters with the requirements for absentee voting. Thus, we reject Coleman’s argument that only substantial compliance by voters is required. Having rejected this argument, we also conclude that the trial court’s February 13 order requiring strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting was not a deviation from our well-established precedent.
Because strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting is, and has always been, required, there is no basis on which voters could have reasonably believed that anything less than strict compliance would suffice. Furthermore, Coleman does not cite, and after review of the record we have not found, any evidence in the record that election officials required only substantial compliance in any past election or any official pronouncements that only substantial compliance would be required in the November 4, 2008 election. Nor does Coleman point us to the testimony of any voter who neglected to comply with the statutory requirements for absentee voting in reliance on either past practice or official assurances that strict compliance was not required.
At oral argument, Coleman posited that because of the increased use of the absentee voting method, it should now be treated as a right, not a privilege. But that is a policy determination for the legislature, not this court, to make. Indeed, Coleman‟s counsel acknowledged during oral argument that Coleman cannot claim that any voters changed their behavior based on the alleged substantial compliance standard.
It is difficult to argue with the Court’s opinion, which is well-written and well-based. There is no satisfying conclusion here for everyone. Coleman’s supporters have a right to be bitter. A couple hundred votes put the result on an almost arbitrary basis. I have long believed that there should be an automatic re-vote when candidates (both presidential or congressional) fail to receive a majority of votes. With the two most popular candidates, the election is likely to produce a majority favorite and avoid most such razor-thin results. While it is possible to still have close races, it is less likely.
Coleman has conceded the race.
Here is the ruling: OPA090697-6030
For the story, click here.
scilian1,
I also wanted to address your comments about science. You said, “Consensus stops science in its tracks.”, this is a ridiculous statement. Consensus is how science takes a step forward – does it hurt science that there’s a consensus about evolution or Newtonian mechanics or atomic theory? The arc of scientific discovery goes from a new hypothesis to finding evidence to arguing that the evidence show the hypothesis to be correct to consensus that the hypothesis (now a theory) is correct. The skepticism necessary to science is not the skepticism of the public (although I certainly believe that the skepticism of the public is a good thing), but rather the skepticism of doing everything that you can think of to prove yourself wrong – to take your hypothesis and try to the best of your ability to destroy it. But I’m sure as a master of logic you understand all this. I hope you continue to entertain us with your logic lessons, I’m sure that everyone else is just as fascinated by your pedagogical display as I am. I would address several other points, but it seems to me that others (as usual) are doing the job more ably than I could manage anyway…
rafflaw,
Don’t worry – math is your friend 😉
Thank-you!!! AY, SM, Rafflaw, Mike Appleton, Mike Spindell, Rafflaw, Slartibartfast, FFLEO, Mespo, Buddha & Bob on this thread as elsewhere you all so often make me smile and laugh!
Sicilian1, not so much.
P.S. I left out Larry David and so many others…
P.P.S. Where has Cook County Dem been? Hope to see him soon!
sicilian 1:
“I haven’t put the argument through the validity table.”
*************
Save yourself the time. My example was a classic example of the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. That’s why I said it wasn’t logical, but alas it appears accurate.
I was told there would be no math here!
Mike S., I haven’t seen the word “schmuck” since my days growing up in Skokie. It has a nice ring to it!
You know Sil, sometimes comments get belittled because they’re stupid, illogical and/or highly flawed and ill thought out.
Like yours.
You like one kind of reasoning and one kind only: Outcome Based Reasoning. That outcome which you desire (Progressives = Bad) is simply propaganda language, sport. It’s also first order bad logic. You seek to demonize what you have yet to this point best with logical argument and proof. And when you try, you fail miserably. You probably shouldn’t lecture on logic to a group of which many are fully equipped to teach logic as a collegiate academic subject if not at a graduate studies level. Logic is a tool. You’ve just demonstrated you don’t know how to use it with firm certainty and mespo made you look foolish for your effort. Not a brilliant move that considering your earlier appeals to your own vanity. Many of the regulars have lectured on logic. We just didn’t get laughed at. I wonder why?
I know I’m wasting time talking to you. Based on the totality of your posts you’re either paid, brainwashed beyond all help or intractably stupid. Maybe all of the above. So I guess it’s a good thing I point this out about you for the benefit of others so they see you in your proper context of cautionary tale. You are consistent. Consistently wrong and consistently proven to have a dishonest Neocon agenda that is.
Buddha,
When Siddartha was under the tree contemplating reality he probably used some of these logical tables and exercises.
mespo,
I haven’t put the argument through the validity table. That in fact is a CONJUCTIVE argument joined by an (AND) it mauy or not be valid or invalid but the argument does not pass thev test for soundness.
But please continue, I love to recieve the insults from the compassionate, highly intellectual, moralist, high brow progressive crowd
roflmao
Uh, yeah Sil, this is very informative. Keep it up.
snicker
Bob, esq. Mike A,
Yes, continue to expose your inferior progressive abilities. You are unable to see your own hypocricies and the rhetorical tricks you play.
Mike A can’t ask anything other than a loaded question so he can spew his pre-arranged party-line.
Bob, I already exposed AY attempts to demonize me with insults. It is a dishonest, lazy, unwarranted rhetorical trick. When all else fails discredit your opponent with belittling comments.
But hey, we all gotta work with what we got.
sicilian 1:
“To test for validity first a logician assumes the premises to be true in order to determine the conclusion MUST be true. That is all there is to a test of validity.”
*************
Let’s test sicilian 1’s theory as he stoops to educate we the ignorant:
1. All jackasses bray loudly.
2. sicilian 1 brays loudly.
3. Ipso facto, sicilain 1 is a loud jackass!
Yep, two obviously true premises and one abundantly true conclusion. Not logically correct of course despite sicilian 1’s theorem but anecdotally who can argue with it.
Teach on Socrates! I ‘m learning more about you by the minute.
MIKE S,
It took me a long time but I did finally show your intellectual arrogance.
Thank you for giving me the eternal high ground with your derogatory insults.
But that is the last resort in the progressive playbook; dismiss their opponents with vile insults; implying to take the high ground with a refusal to stoop to a level they have deemed beneath them when it is in fact they who took it to the gutter in frustration over having their words and tricks used against them.
AY,
For a deductive argument to be valid:
IF all the premises are true then the conclusion MUST be true.
The key words are IF/MUST.
To test for validity first a logician assumes the premises to be true in order to determine the conclusion MUST be true. That is all there is to a test of validity.
Lets do the FIRST step.
This is what logicians call a truth table.
This is a classic modus pollens argument.
1 progressive(p) => digressive(Q) (You all prog. then me digr.)
2 progressive(p) (You all prog.)
—————- (Therefore)
3.: digressive(.:Q) (Me digr.)
p Q p .:Q
t[t]t t t
t[f]f t f
f[t]t f t
f[t]f f f
The first premise 1)That you are all progressives and then I am a digressive must be assigned a truth value for each possibility.
The bracketed letters is what determines the truth validity of the first premise. The truth of each premise is then compared to the conclusion.
This is in fact a valid argument b/c there is no line in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
However we are NOT done b/c a valid argument is judged as either sound or unsound.
A good deductive argument MUST meet two conditions:
1)It MUST be valid AND
2)ALL the premises must be true
We’ve already established that the argument is valid.
However now we must analyze the premises to see if the argument is sound or unsound.
Premises are the reason to support the conclusion
The premises of this argument are:
1) If you are ALL progressives then I must be a digressive
2) You are all progressive
The question is do the premises support the conclusion which is:
C)I am therefore a digressive.
So though the argument is valid it will ONLY be sound if it has true premises.
Lets analyze premises
1)Clearly this is a FALSE premise b/c although you may be progressives that does not automatically make me a digressive. I could in fact be a more progressive progressive or in fact static or any number of other directionary designations.
2)Clearly this is a ealse premise. Mike S has repeatedly stated that he is NOT a progressive as has FFLEO and Gary T, to name just a few as well as your enemy Patty C. So this premise is ABSOLUTELY, IRREFUTABLY FALSE.
So this in fact proves your argument though to be valid is nevertheless unsound. And that, is ALL that matters.
So not only are your rhetorical skills inferior, you have proven that you possess faulty logic. But that does not surprise me in the slightest. Progressives are as a lot knee-jerk reactionaries who can only spew their programmed souundbites. It is you progressives who define the term “psuedo intellectual” You busy yourselves spouting vapid platitudes to make yourself feel good and get pats on the back from your crowd. All it does is take me the slighest mention of the word progressives to get a reaction out of your crowd.
I have no problem to continuously expose your ignorance. It NEVER fails you continue to step in it. I don’t even have to bait you emotionally unstable progressives any longer.
Mike S., I’ll say this, you get an A++ for effort. I believe that for some people, a perpetual state of defensive anger is the only proof that they are alive.
Is it me, or does sicilian1 sound like a ten year old alone in his room acting out some fantasy game with dolls?
Talk about a B-movie dialect.
snicker
Sicilian 1,
Okay you win. I quit. I am everything you say I am and worse and you are the only pure intellect that I have ever encountered. I see the error of my ways and will engage you no more. In truth though, in all your magnificence and purity of motive, you are a schmuck.
Bye.
sicilian1,
Will you return on Tuesday as well? I admit, I am everything you think I am. I cannot deny the existence of your thought process and know that only Mr. Butler has the appropriate words of wisdom for you. Since you are as brilliant as you claim in exposing progressives then maybe you may decipher the phraseology. This is for you alone for you to do, you have to rely upon your own intelligence, whatever that may be or lacking therefore.
So if we are all progressive as you claim, then it is presumed that you are nothing more than digressive? Would you not agree?
AY,
Not surprised the ad hominem, labeling attacks are the m.o. of your progressive crowd.
Do NOT try to group me or besmirch me by attaching me to one of your opponents who you’ve already demonized. It will NOT work. My thoughts are my original own.
You see how easy it is with your crowd? You see how you keep on stepping in it?
I didn’t even have to do anything. You progressives are so intellectually arrogant that you can’t see how you keep falling into my traps.
Your own words exposed your own faulty rhetoric.Patty C is a past enemy of your’s who you’ve demonized in order to discredit and it’s probably worked with all th other pavlovian progressives on this site. Knowing this you try to attach her to me in a feeble attempt to discredit me. But I know your game and dissectede it for you. You are out of your league do NOT let the tagline fool you. Yes I may be your typical muscle head but I am well educated and a master rhetorician. You can NOT fool me. So just keep falling into my traps or setting yourselves up to enable me to expose you.
If you want to be a progressive then that is fine but I advise that you discard your faulty rhetorical tactics b/c they won’t work with my. But if you’re really smart you will see that I am exposing the desperate fault line in the progressive ideology. It can NOT stand on it’s merits. There is NO real substance behind it. It is nothing more than a “feel-good psychology” that can NOT stand up to legitimate critical debate.
I’ve had enough fun for today. I could toy with you progressives untill bed time but then I’d never get anything done. I’ve already wasted much of the day exposing the faulty rhetoric and logic of my opponents.
I shall return.
Slartibartfast,
It is me who will NEVER get tired of pointing out the hypocritical rhetorical tricks of you progressives. You follow the exact same game plan with every issue, I’ll repeat it again so you can try to avoid it:
Wait for someone to speak on a topic immediately demonize them with baseless accusations then drape your bias views as some type of moral sanctity in effect shutting down all legitimate debate.
With me I lay a little incendiary bomb that you knee-jerk, emotionally unstable progressives can’t resist detonating. You assign an assumption then use it as launching pad for your rants.
It works EVERY time. You are again another example of my premise.
As I explained to you in my blog last night, I am NOT looking for consensus nor do I hold any wieght in it. I do NOT follow along with the pavlovian massess. My opinions are my own, I try to back them up. You can draw your own conclusions.
I will NEVER count a “win” as convincing others to agree with me. A win for me is being able to formulate a well informed opinion then being able to articulate it. That is a win for me. It is intrinsic in value. I do NOT need any sychophants in my camp.
Remember what I said to you about skepticism as oppossed to consensus.
Slartibartfast,
This must be Patty C’s new moniker, sicilian1,
You don’t win an argument (at least here) by posting the most or ranting the longest or sounding the fanciest or spewing your ideas until everyone else gets tired of pointing out how wrong you are – you win by convincing someone else that you are right.
***********************
This is the way she does it.