* More people’s last intended vote (where anyone who choose randomly’s intended vote is the choice they came upon randomly) was Al Franken than Norm Coleman.
* More people’s last actual vote (where a vote is determined by the ballot and the standards set forth by the Minnesota Canvassing Board) was for Al Franken than Norm Coleman.*
* More properly registered people’s last actual vote (where a vote is determined by the ballot and the standards set forth by the Minnesota Canvassing Board) was for Al Franken than Norm Coleman.*

And those truths or falsities are important. Even if you thought that quantum uncertainty was only epistemic, you’d certainly think that, for our science and use, the actual truth or falsity of a certain quantum state isn’t so important. (Right? You’re more a scientist than I.)

Now, there are problems of missing ballots, overcounted ballots, undercounted ballots, improperly rejected absentees, improperly accepted absentees and so on. There is an epistemic issue about whether the outcome of any particular COUNT reflects any of the vote totals. But that’s the same kind of uncertainty we get in classical mechanics. We just need better instruments if we want to fix that. Can we do that for electron positions? And there’s a pair of epistemic issues about whether the count and the vote reflect the will of the voters and the will of the people, but those are familiar problems: cf. butterfly ballots and low-voter turnout.

*: There might be a couple undeterminable votes by the MSCB standards. So unless the vote was actually close by only, say, a swing of 10, these statements are true or false.