I’m not a big believer in incumbent protections, but I think in cases like these, as in boxing, there should be some presumption of incumbency, unless the contender has CLEARLY won a decision.
This one will never be clear. And the rats can’t figure out which is worse, a Republican from Minnesota, or having to admit THAT *SSH*LE franken to the Senate club.
I would tend to agree. If the final result is within 100 votes either way, who actually won is essentially unknowable given the number of ballots where the voter intent is borderline uncertain. If 1,000 experts examined the questioned ballots that were put online, you would get 1,000 different results.
So, you might as well use a coin toss to settle the election, unless there is a rule allowing the incumbent to keep the seat in the case of a tie. (But then you still have the question of how much of a lead does the challenger need to make it a win and not a tie? No easy solutions.)