Why is it that Coleman’s lead is always shrinking?
Look up the gubernatorial election in Washington State in 2004. Three recounts, every one added to the vote totals of the initial loser. They kept adding votes until the Dem won, then it was time for the Republican to “gracefully bow out”. Finished, done, court challenges were no longer accepted after the chosen one was in the lead. I suspect the motives, means and cheating are exactly the same.
The nature of the challenges (e.g., voter intent is clear, identifying mark, etc.) that Franken and Coleman are putting up differ.
In general, there were more Franken ballots that the machine wrongly threw out than Coleman ones. For example, if a voter selects Franken, but then scribbles out Coleman's name and bubble, it would register as an overvote, even though the hand count would count it for Franken (based on the obvious intent). Coleman voters were less likely to do that.
It actually grew quite a bit before the canvassing started, to over 700 votes, but the canvassing process thus far has shrunk it. I’ve been watching bits and pieces of the canvassing board online, and it’s been very fair so far. Of the five members, two are Republicans, one is a DFLer, one is an Independent (appointed by Ventura), and one is a judge elected in a non-partisan election (though, in reality, I’m sure she’s a liberal also). So, it’s 2-2-1 split.