Last week, I read over on Talking Points Memo that Norm Coleman’s legal team is trying to finagle an election do-over by arguing that the results of the recent Minnesota Senate race were within the margin of error. While I hope that he doesn’t prevail for various reasons, I have to say that there’s merit to this argument, whether or not they are indeed making it. Why do we presume that after the recount and legal processes, close elections – let’s say those where there’s less than .01% between two or more candidates – can be determined with certainty? There is an inherent susceptibility to error during the complex election process, due to both humans and machines, and while some of this error can be reduced by redundancy in the recount process, it is perhaps impossible to remove it in entirety. So in the case where an election falls within a tight margin of error, why don’t we just flip a coin (or, in close races with x multiple candidates, roll an x-sided die) to determine the victor? After all, you’re hardly losing any electoral efficiency either way – it could even be argued that a close election shows indecision in the voting populace. And the major benefits of the coin flip would be that elections could be resolved earlier, and with much less cost – it’s February and we still don’t have an official winner in the Minnesota race, and it’s costing a bit of money. There are some obvious problems with such an approach. For one, most voters, rationally or not, would likely protest that their vote has been thrown to the whims of chance. In general, an electoral process that relies on non-random processes should receive a high benefit of the doubt – if one is going to introduce algorithmic randomness to the process, there better be a good reason. (This is also a strong argument against alternative voting methods that use sampling, even if they are likely to produce more accurate rankings.) Another issue is that there would still have to be a recourse for a recount or legal appeals that would take the results outside the determined margin of error (and coming up with that is yet another challenge). So, this would be a politically unpopular solution with debatable cost savings. Still, there’s something about it that appeals to me. Maybe it would just be fun to watch the actual coin flip – a random event with results that could greatly affect the legislative process, especially in a situation like we have now, where the Democrats are hovering around a filibuster-proof majority. But is it really worth months of time and millions of dollars to determine an election with an edge of a few hundred votes?