Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Matthew Carberry on November 10, 2010, 07:30:09 PM
-
I'm actually not too worried about this one, we'll have a decent vote on guns and such either way and I love getting your tax dollars sent to me to burn for warmth on cold winter nights, but the media coverage is odd.
They keep talking about how Murkowski is "gaining" as the write-in count progresses. Actually she can't gain, only lose votes, which is what's happening.
All 92,528 write-in ballots have been presumed to be for Murkowski; with Miller only having around 80K after the polls closed he appears to be dreaming if he thinks he can win.
But not all 92,528 are proving to be actual votes for his opponent so this is going to come down to the court decision(s) on the challenges.
Actual counting of the write-ins is showing that only 89% are clearly unchallengeable for Murkowski, with maybe up to another 10% being challenged. If that ratio holds, that's only a total of 82,350 or so unchallengeable votes.
As of last night Miller was at 81,195 votes. That's a small margin of 1,155 "for sure" votes for Murkowski. Further, there are still absentee and early ballots left to count, none with Murkowski's name on them (and I don't think those can even have write-ins), so a significant portion of those are likely to go to Miller; which means that margin of "for sure votes" may disappear or even invert in Miller's favor.
That means the Court rulings on the challenged write-in votes will probably decide the election, and Miller's case isn't bad.
-
The standard should be what the letter of the law says it is.
If they can't follow the law or try to make exceptions to it because they don't like the result, why should the rest of us have respect for any law on the books?
Just another reason to not have any respect for the Spoiled Princess and her govt handout dependent camp followers.
My source of irritation has more to to do with Murkowski's conduct than it does political positions most of which I can actually live with.
-
Just because of the sore loser nature of her write in bid I hope Miller take it. He seems like a bit of an arrogant used-car salesman in a way, but I like his "return power to the state" message.
Had Murky been a grown up about it, made a fortune lobbying or whatever, and waited until 2014 to run againt Begich I'd have had a ton more respect for her.
-
According to a news commentator I saw last night, Alaska's law requires that the name of a write-in candidate be written exactly as shown on the list of write-in candidates, but officials were going to use a "voter intent" strategy. So Murkowski = Merkowsky =Mercaoskee = M%r#0W@k1, etc. They even had one official (from the Murkowski camp, of course) saying that "Nobody should be disenfranchised because of their handwriting."
Miller sued to have the law apply as written, but a court threw that out. So it seems that the new standard isn't compliance with what the law actually says, but being sort of close to what lawmakers may have meant.
-
... and another election decided by people too frakking dumb to fill out a ballot properly.
Awesome.
-
... and another election decided by people too frakking dumb to fill out a ballot properly.
Awesome.
We seem destined to be ruled by the lowest quintile of voters, intelligence-wise.
That sounds like a great case to keep out dumb *expletive deleted*ss non-English speaking immigrants who are illiterate in both English and their native tongue.
-
It is possible that a voter intent strategy would be fairer - there are, after all, people medically incapable of spelling right.
That said, this isn't the law.
-
The question isn't really about dumb people who can't spell. The real question is why isn't the court following the law? We are supposed to be a society of laws, ergo the playing field is level for all. If you are too dumb to be able to spell, tough. Last time I looked, 12 grades of school is free. No excuse for not being able to read or write. You can also ask for help at the polls.
-
So is it just politicians who don't have to follow laws that they don't like ? ;/
-
The Judge didn't throw it out, he refused to issue an injunction as the harm was not irreperable.
They punted until the results are in. If it comes down to the contested ballots instead of a clear win for Murkowski then the Miller camp can decide to move forward.
-
We sure don't want the obvious intent of the voters to rule the day if it means a win for a RINO.
Better our guy wins, to heck with the intent of the voters.
-
Ron,
If we don't like the law as written, we should go to the trouble of changing it, not just pretend it means something it doesn't because we like that interpretation better.
Rule of law not rule of man.
-
Ron,
If we don't like the law as written, we should go to the trouble of changing it, not just pretend it means something it doesn't because we like that interpretation better.
Rule of law not rule of man.
As noted earlier in this thread:
Alaska's law requires that the name of a write-in candidate be written exactly as shown on the list of write-in candidates, but officials were going to use a "voter intent" strategy.
That is the law. How should it be changed? Add "...and we mean it."? ???
-
If we the voters want "voter intent" to be considered we should change the text of the controlling statute to reference "voter intent" and define the standards for how that intent is to be judged.
Personally I think that if you want to vote for a write-in the burden is on you to learn to spell that person's name correctly and learn to print clearly in block letters. Write a crib note and take it into the booth with you if necessary and simply copy it.
Not sure why we have to pander to the lazy or non-documentably medically incompetent.
-
Not sure why we have to pander to the lazy or non-documentably medically incompetent.
What about the documentally medically incompetent?
-
Personally I think that if you want to vote for a write-in the burden is on you to learn to spell that person's name correctly and learn to print clearly in block letters. Write a crib note and take it into the booth with you if necessary and simply copy it.
Wurd.
Brad
-
My parents were down here visiting from Eagle River this week (I'm a transplanted Alaskan) and my mother (being a staunch Lifelaong Democrat) and I got into several spirited discusions on this campaign. There were so many news pundits with different ideas on what the law says that I had to break out my Google-Fu and look.
As such, I can say that:
Alaska's law requires that the name of a write-in candidate be written exactly as shown on the list of write-in candidates
No, It doesn't.
AK Statutes Sec 15.15.360 (10) says:
In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate's name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.
And that's all I can find on the subject. (for those interested (1) of that subsection covers what way's you can fill in the oval)
My mom swears up and down, but can't find, that there's a Division of Elections reg that mentions the term "Voter's Intent". Apparently those regs have already hit the court once this election over whether or not there could be posted a list of approved write-in candidates. :shrug
As a guy that really has no dog in this race anymore, I read that law and note that it doesn't use the word "exactly" or mention an approved list of candidates. And that's probably reasonable. After all, Sen Murkowski's name is actually Lisa Ann Murkowski, and no-one expects that written in. Just as if some drunk dude from Tok scrawled "That one chick we already got" I wouldn't expect that to count. There's got to be a middle ground.
I hate to drag that hard to find "Reasonable Person" over from all the SD shootings, but it seems to me in the abscense of either of the words "intent" or "exactly" in the statute that might be a good standard to apply. That would kinda be the court's role in government, wouldn't it?
Also, as someone with really bad handwriting, I'd hate to disenfranchise a voter because a poll worker couldn't make out every little cross and dot.
-
Also, as someone with really bad handwriting, I'd hate to disenfranchise a voter because a poll worker couldn't make out every little cross and dot. disenfranchisement would be my own durn fault.
Fixed that for you. Since my wife tends to show up late to everything, I would hate to disenfranchise those who show up to the polls five minutes after close. ;/
-
What about the documentally medically incompetent?
They should be in a home and their guardians should vote their proxy.
-
Dogmush,
Scroll down to number (a)11 and then (b).
Alaska Stat. § 15.15.360
(a)(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.
(b) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.
The statute is pretty clear that the name must be exactly as declared by the candidate and there isn't any wiggle room to interpret it more widely.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/15/15.15./15.15.360.
-
They should be in a home and their guardians should vote their proxy.
Think of dyslexics. There are people who are fully intellectually competent to understand the issues, and yet can't spell.
-
Dogmush,
Scroll down to number (a)11 and then (b).
The statute is pretty clear that the name must be exactly as registered by the candidate and there isn't any wiggle room to interpret it more widely.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/15/15.15./15.15.360.
I would think that there would be legal precedent for restrictions on things like exact spelling. Invalidating someone's vote simply because they can't spell (or even write) would seem to fall under the purview of anti-discrimination law.
Brad
-
Think of dyslexics. There are people who are fully intellectually competent to understand the issues, and yet can't spell.
Right, kept in a home, and if it's genetic, probably forbidden to breed. =D
Seriously though, those would be among the people who should get consideration for misspelling since they can't even necessarily "monkey see, monkey do" off of a crib sheet.
-
I would think that there would be legal precedent for restrictions on things like exact spelling. Invalidating someone's vote simply because they couldn't spell or even write would seem to fall under the purview of anti-discrimination law.
Brad
If the news is reporting correctly there are some "voter's intent" case law precedents but those didn't involve write-in ballots, just marks on scan-tron.
Since you aren't forbidden from cutting out an article in the paper with the name spelled correctly, or printing something online for free at the library, or having someone who can spell write the name for you, and carrying that crib note into the voting booth; I have a bit of a problem with the "but, but, spelling is hard" argument. It's your vote dammit, people died so you could have it, put a little effort in or don't do it at all.
-
Since we're getting into voter intent, when I voted for McCain/Palin, I was actually voting for Palin/whoever-she-appoints-to-serve-out-the-VP-term :lol:
-
If the news is reporting correctly there are some "voter's intent" case law precedents but those didn't involve write-in ballots, just marks on scan-tron.
Since you aren't forbidden from cutting out an article in the paper with the name spelled correctly, or printing something online for free at the library, or having someone who can spell write the name for you, and carrying that crib note into the voting booth; I have a bit of a problem with the "but, but, spelling is hard" argument. It's your vote dammit, people died so you could have it, put a little effort in or don't do it at all.
Let me explain this:
My experience with heavily-dyslexic people is summed up by having gone to Basic Training with a young man who was, by all accounts, a prodigy (tested out at some abominably high IQ). But the IDF drafts everybody. Even prodigies. Even peopl who cannot spell the word 'IDF' when surrounded by people wearing shirts with that acronym.
-
Let me explain this:
My experience with heavily-dyslexic people is summed up by having gone to Basic Training with a young man who was, by all accounts, a prodigy (tested out at some abominably high IQ). But the IDF drafts everybody. Even prodigies. Even peopl who cannot spell the word 'IDF' when surrounded by people wearing shirts with that acronym.
Let me explain myself. I already said people with a documentable medical issue such as dyslexia should get some assistance.
:-*
-
Think of dyslexics. There are people who are fully intellectually competent to understand the issues, and yet can't spell.
Have them get a properly spelled out rubber stamp with the name ... that should be legal ... politicians LOVE rubber stamps -- they've been doing it for decades. [tinfoil] >:D ;/
-
or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111105971.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
i find it interesting that were the situation reversed here i believe millers folks would be shouting about the will of the people
-
or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.
The dyslexic folks could make an "X" and a certified poll watcher from each campaign could verify the name written by an able speller was the one requested.
I think you're right about whose ox is being gored reflecting on who's yelling what.
-
on one contested ballot its being contested because the l is in cursive..... i think miller has the chance to demonstrate that he represents grownups who deserve a seat at the table, or he and his followers can go all larouche on us. That decision will impact the tea party's future. we will know soon
-
on one contested ballot its being contested because the l is in cursive..... i think miller has the chance to demonstrate that he represents grownups who deserve a seat at the table, or he and his followers can go all larouche on us. That decision will impact the tea party's future. we will know soon
Too late for any class at this point.
-
sadly true
-
Too late for any class at this point.
It was too late once these people have registered their campaigns with the FEC.
-
The Dutch Harbor Fisherman (local paper) had peel-off stickers on the front page of the last issue of their rag that had the 'write in the name, fill in the oval' campaign slogan on it including the correct spelling of her name.
I couldn't tell you about the skAnchorage or Fairbanks papers, but the media up here is definitely singing her praises.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111105971.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
i find it interesting that were the situation reversed here i believe millers folks would be shouting about the will of the people
I believe there's some contention about whether or not write-ins for Joe Miller should be counted too. Technically speaking he's not on the list of write-in candidates and they shouldn't.
-
I believe there's some contention about whether or not write-ins for Joe Miller should be counted too. Technically speaking he's not on the list of write-in candidates and they shouldn't.
Last I'd heard at least he'd only gotten 2 write in votes. Kind of a moot point if that's all he gets from the write ins. The chances of that vote coming down to those 2 swinging it to Murky are pretty remote.
-
Last I'd heard at least he'd only gotten 2 write in votes. Kind of a moot point if that's all he gets from the write ins. The chances of that vote coming down to those 2 swinging it to Murky are pretty remote.
Who is Murky? Was it your intention to refer to Lisa Ann Murkowski? :lol:
-
http://alaskadispatch.com/blogs/political-animal/7072-fact-checkers-examine-anti-murkowski-ads
is it that shes beating miller thats got you mad? or that even with palins endorsment miller lost? and that bodes poorly for the cause?
-
http://factcheck.org/2010/10/murkowski-vs-tea-party-round-2/
-
Dogmush,
Scroll down to number (a)11 and then (b).
Alaska Stat. § 15.15.360
(a)(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.
(b) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.
The statute is pretty clear that the name must be exactly as declared by the candidate and there isn't any wiggle room to interpret it more widely.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/15/15.15./15.15.360.
I bolded a different clause. Notice the "or" at the beginning. Writing the last name is sufficient, and it doesn't say anything about how much misspelling is allowed.
Miller had been challenging things like "Murkowski, Lisa", and ballots where the 'L' was cursive.
Both of 'em are sore losers, but Miller seems to also be a *expletive deleted*bag; that should disqualify him in my opinion.
-
All I know is if Murkowski does not face serious consequences to her standing within the party after this stunt, it's time for conservatives to mount third party challenges.
Ignoring primary voters (the base) is a VERY bad idea for the party to encourage in any way. (And there may be serious consequences for the Republican leadership if they don't realize this.)
-
but it appears that the majority of folks wanted her. are their votes discounted cause they didn't vote in the primary? maybe miller needs to hear what they told him. he and his camp are not doing their cause any favors right now
-
but it appears that the majority of folks wanted her. are their votes discounted cause they didn't vote in the primary? maybe miller needs to hear what they told him. he and his camp are not doing their cause any favors right now
What she did was disgraceful and self-serving. For the Alaskan people to vote for pork as blantantly as they just did is sickening.
However, it appears she won. There should be consequences to her standing in the Senate, though.
-
i think its all a matter of perspective. the fact that she won as a write in speaks loudly. if it had gone the other way and miller had won as a write in some folks would be speaking about "the will of the people" and what a great moment it was. what did miller or his camp do wrong? it was his to lose
-
Since she lost the primary, does this mean that more Dems voted for her than Repugs ???
-
in this case the miller camp managed to convince enough folks that they didn't want him while the murkowski camp taught everyone to spell her name.
The "write in candidate" - presumably Murkowski - leads the field with 34 percent, according to the poll. McAdams is up 13 points and comes in at 29 percent, while Miller is down 8 points with 23 percent support.
1/2 way down page 2
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021092-503544.html
the fail begins
-
I bolded a different clause. Notice the "or" at the beginning. Writing the last name is sufficient, and it doesn't say anything about how much misspelling is allowed.
Miller had been challenging things like "Murkowski, Lisa", and ballots where the 'L' was cursive.
Both of 'em are sore losers, but Miller seems to also be a *expletive deleted*bag; that should disqualify him in my opinion.
"... and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate..."
The "as it appears on the write-in declaration" applies equally whether the person chooses to write the entire name or simply the last name. Since all the text says is "as it appears..." there is no textual allowance for any misspelling at all.
For the statute to support poor/lazy spellers it would have to read "as it appears or a minor misspelling thereof..."
Since there is not yet any controlling case precedent or judicial ruling on that particular part of the election law; the "intent of the voters", as expressed by their freely elected legislators, should be respected and the text read exactly as written. =D
-
Miller cost himself support.
He won the primary not due to a real majority in even the republican side but in getting out the vote of the energized and offering an alternative to Murkowski's lingering negative "Daddy's Girl" image and moderation on some social issues.
He then didn't manage his own message and made some horrible personal and campaign decisions on top of it. That cost him support from folks who voted for him in the primary as well as most of our massive number of "independents in practice regardless of declared affiliation".
He's still got potential votes coming in from absentee, early and questioned ballots but it will likely come down to the courts.
-
What about the documentally medically incompetent?
Don't straw man this and pretend like that's a voting block with enough people to make a significant dent in the election. Regular people who are too stupid by choice to vote correctly is the problem at hand, not the handful of medical cases that might have a real problem. Get off the whole "medically incompetent" horse; it's not going anywhere.
-
Since she lost the primary, does this mean that more Dems voted for her than Repugs ???
Essentially yes. The Alaska republican primary is a closed ballot and available by request only. The open primary ballot allows cross-party voting and covers Dems, Libertarians, Alaska Independence, Greens and whoever else can get recognized. You can have one or the other, but not both.
What happened here is that most of the Spoiled Princess's .......er.....excuse me..... the good Senator's govt handout dependent camp followers are mostly those who couldn't let themselves be seen in broad daylight asking for the closed republican ballot. As a result, those of us voted the republican primary ballot tossed her on her arse. Her camp followers that came out of the woodwork for her write-in is a list of the usual left leaning suspects such as labor and teachers unions, native corporations, tribal govts and their non-profits, bush community govts, commercial fishing associations and anyone else who is gagging on the federal teat. It's all about the (formerly) Almighty Greenback Dollar and how many she can bring back.
Now policywise I can live with most of her positions. What I have issue with is the federal govt is in gross violation of its contractual responsibilities of the Alaska Statehood Compact and she isn't aggressive enough in holding them to it. The other problem is the federal spending. The federal treasury is about to implode and when it does, the govt handout crowd are going to be like a bunch of junkies that have just gotten thrown off the Horse. There's going to some severe withdrawls with no fix.
-
Don't straw man this and pretend like that's a voting block with enough people to make a significant dent in the election. Regular people who are too stupid by choice to vote correctly is the problem at hand.
No, they are not. It transpires that a lot of the challenges are outright frivolous. There is no major problem at all.
-
miller and his followers lost what could/should have been theirs
their antics since could make him and his cause a nonstarter for a long time