Joe Miller sues to force exact spelling rule for write-in votes.

[MRoCkEd]

http://www.adn.com/2010/11/09/1545716/miller-sues-to-force-exact-spelling.html


Election law calls for write-in ballots to have the oval filled in and either the candidate's last name or name as it appears on a declaration of candidacy written in. But election officials, pointing to prior case law, have said they plan to use discretion, in consultation with a state attorney, when it comes to misspellings or variations of Murkowski's name.

Miller's lawsuit calls this an "eleventh hour decision" and argues the state should be held to the letter of the law.


The law says the name must be written as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy submitted by Lisa Murkowski.


Sec. 15.15.360. Rules for counting ballots.

(a) The election board shall count ballots according to the following rules... (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.


But the court has insisted on a more liberal interpretation based on "voter intent."

[nate895]

I hope he wins. I doubt he will, however. I don't think Alaska's senator next term will be seated for a while in any event as the election is fought to ever higher courts.

[libertythor]

I hope they even throw out cursive write-ins. Ballots are printed in block letters, and write-ins should be done in the same way.

[nate895]

I hope they even throw out cursive write-ins.

Now that one I think is ridiculous. The reason why we have write-ins to begin with is the fact that you used to just get a sheet of paper with a box for each office on it. Those would have been filled out in cursive. If we are going to have write-ins at all (and I believe we should), then we should also accept cursive handwriting of their names, if merely to preserve an old republican tradition.

[libertythor]

Now that one I think is ridiculous. The reason why we have write-ins to begin with is the fact that you used to just get a sheet of paper with a box for each office on it. Those would have been filled out in cursive. If we are going to have write-ins at all (and I believe we should), then we should also accept cursive handwriting of their names, if merely to preserve an old republican tradition.

I can see your point, but cursive opens up a larger can of worms in regards to penmanship. People often omit or meld letters when writing in cursive, and some rule requiring each letter to be clear would be needed.

[james1906]

Is the first name required, as not to be confused with Lisa's father Frank?

[libertythor]

Is the first name required, as not to be confused with Lisa's father Frank?

It should be written out as it appears on the write-in list IMO. Yes. And a "Lisa M." needs to be invalidated because there is a different write-in candidate that has Lisa and "M" as her middle initial. Doing a proper write-in isn't exactly rocket science! The voter either needs to carry a news clipping in his or her pocket or copy it right off of the write-in list.

Any misspellings deviate from the write-in choice.

[nate895]

Is the first name required, as not to be confused with Lisa's father Frank?

Last names can be accepted if no other person with that last name is running for the office.

[wormyguy]

Is the first name required, as not to be confused with Lisa's father Frank?
I think they said that "Murkowski" would be unacceptable, but "Lisa M" would be. Or maybe it was the other way around. I don't remember.

[libertythor]

Last names can be accepted if no other person with that last name is running for the office.

It looks like now that will be up to the courts. The fact that up to 10% of the voters could have FUBARed their write-in vote speaks poorly of the educational level of many voters.

[nate895]

I think they said that "Murkowski" would be unacceptable, but "Lisa M" would be. Or maybe it was the other way around. I don't remember.

Lisa M is another write-in candidate, so I think you have them confused.

[wormyguy]

Lisa M is another write-in candidate, so I think you have them confused.
This was from before Lisa M declared her candidacy.

[nate895]

It looks like now that will be up to the courts. The fact that up to 10% of the voters could have FUBARed their write-in vote speaks poorly of the educational level of many voters.

I know. How hard can it be to spell a name, especially one that has represented you in one form or another for over 3 decades. A good chunk of Alaskan voters were born after Murkowski's dad became a senator.

[libertythor]

I once saw some interesting study about voter IQ and the propensity to have under or over votes. There is a qualification for voting that deals with mental competence, and hopefully it gets applied in this case.

[MRoCkEd]

Let's all hope the voters were very stupid and completely botched the spelling of Lisa's name.

[wormyguy]

Let's all hope the voters were very stupid and completely botched the spelling of Lisa's name.
The odd election where the best result might be reached either by the voters being smart or the voters being stupid . . .

[libertythor]

It isn't like Lisa Murkowski didn't give them a clear indication!

http://www.lisamurkowski.com/downloads/MURCOWSKI1small.jpg

http://www.lisamurkowski.com/downloads/MURCOWSKI2small.jpg

I would have to say that the "Kow" part is kind of accurate! :p

[Stary Hickory]

The law ought to be followed, how many times will she be allowed to skirt the laws?

[libertythor]

As of right now at least 12.6% of Princess Lisa's votes need to be invalidated for Joe Miller to have a shot at winning! Let's hope that this narrows to 10% after the rest of the absentee ballots are counted.

[specsaregood]

The fact that up to 10% of the voters could have FUBARed their write-in vote speaks poorly of the educational level of many voters.

Is it sad that only 10% sounds really good to me in regards to the educational level of the voters? I'd have figgered it would be much higher.

[Knightskye]

Would Miller's name plaque have an asterisk on it? :D

[Imperial]

And a "Lisa M." needs to be invalidated because there is a different write-in candidate that has Lisa and "M" as her middle initial.

Gee, I wonder who recruited Lisa M to run?

I get pretty sick of the write-in and recount process sometimes because how you vote doesn't really matter; instead, it becomes who can pull off the best tricks and hire the most expensive legal team.

[low preference guy]

Gee, I wonder who recruited Lisa M to run?

I get pretty sick of the write-in and recount process sometimes because how you vote doesn't really matter; instead, it becomes who can pull off the best tricks and hire the most expensive legal team.

I disagree. If you write Lisa Murkowski and fill the oval properly, your vote won't be invalidated.

[libertythor]

Gee, I wonder who recruited Lisa M to run?

I get pretty sick of the write-in and recount process sometimes because how you vote doesn't really matter; instead, it becomes who can pull off the best tricks and hire the most expensive legal team.

That is why it is important to follow the instructions and copy the name as is.

[Esor]

I hope they even throw out cursive write-ins. Ballots are printed in block letters, and write-ins should be done in the same way.

Yeah, and no blue ink!!!!!

As much as I want Miller to win, I really hope he doesn't win because some idiot missed a letter in Lisa Murkowski. We are better than that. Take a loss and hold your head up high.

[libertythor]

Yeah, and no blue ink!!!!!

As much as I want Miller to win, I really hope he doesn't win because some idiot missed a letter in Lisa Murkowski. We are better than that. Take a loss and hold your head up high.

I am just going by precedent. Past write-in counts in Alaska have been conducted in that manner, and the same thing happened to the lead of a 2004 write-in candidate for Mayor in San Diego.

What I do agree with is that Miller shouldn't carry it any farther than the actions he has already filed. Anything more will make him look like a sore loser.

[BamaAla]

Yeah, and no blue ink!!!!!

As much as I want Miller to win, I really hope he doesn't win because some idiot missed a letter in Lisa Murkowski. We are better than that. Take a loss and hold your head up high.

+rep

How is dismissing the people's wishes a good thing? If the voters of Alaska wanted Lisa Murkowski, they should have her.

[fj45lvr]

It looks like now that will be up to the courts. The fact that up to 10% of the voters could have FUBARed their write-in vote speaks poorly of the educational level of many voters.

that's not a surpise....Floridians have a hard time with butterfly ballots LOL

[RM918]

+rep

How is dismissing the people's wishes a good thing? If the voters of Alaska wanted Lisa Murkowski, they should have her.

Tyranny of the majority, the problem with democracy. I guess the opinions of the 30-something percent of Alaskans don't matter because a few ten thousand more voted for the establishment. Though I suppose you could argue that Miller winning by a hair would mean it invalidates the opinions of another 30-something percent of Alaskans, but the point is I don't buy into 'They got more votes, it is the Right thing to support them'. The difference is that Miller would be less likely to infringe on the rights of those that voted against him, unlike Murkowski who will continue the looting and abuse while acting like she was just made queen.

[Krugerrand]

I hope he wins. I doubt he will, however. I don't think Alaska's senator next term will be seated for a while in any event as the election is fought to ever higher courts.

You've got to win it at the State Supreme Court. I doubt the SCOTUS would want to touch it.

[Bern]

Honestly, I'm not a terribly big fan of using a technicality to deny a citizen his voice/vote. If the vote is legit (ie. from a real, live registered voter and not a duplicate), I wouldn't want it discounted if the intent was obvious. If Joe Miller is going to win, it should be an honest victory.

[Krugerrand]

Honestly, I'm not a terribly big fan of using a technicality to deny a citizen his voice/vote. If the vote is legit (ie. from a real, live registered voter and not a duplicate), I wouldn't want it discounted if the intent was obvious. If Joe Miller is going to win, it should be an honest victory.

While I appreciate the premise - there must be some guidelines to dictate what is acceptable and not acceptable. And, you can't wait until after the game has been played to decide the rules.

[TruckinMike]

Gee, I wonder who recruited Lisa M to run?

I get pretty sick of the write-in and recount process sometimes because how you vote doesn't really matter; instead, it becomes who can pull off the best tricks and hire the most expensive legal team.

Exactly! Ethics has no home in politics. Joe Miller is showing his true colors. Voter intent means nothing to him. "The end justifies the means"? Understanding Machiavelli is one thing, adopting his lesson is another.

TMike

[specsaregood]

Exactly! Ethics has no home in politics. Joe Miller is showing his true colors. Voter intent means nothing to him. "The end justifies the means"? Understanding Machiavelli is one thing, adopting his lesson is another.

TMike

How is NOT following the laws as written ethical? He is arguing for following the letter of the law, you are arguing for feel-good subjective "intent".

[Krugerrand]

How is NOT following the laws as written ethical? He is arguing for following the letter of the law, you are arguing for feel-good subjective "intent".

Walking into an election booth - I'd rather know my vote will be counted according to some pre-established standard rather than wondering how a government employee will determine my intent afterwards.

[TruckinMike]

How is NOT following the laws as written ethical? He is arguing for following the letter of the law, you are arguing for feel-good subjective "intent".

Just because its legal doesn't mean its right. I am not arguing legality. I am arguing morality. Any politician honest with themselves would know discounting a misspelled ballot would be wrong. He had a choice, he made a decision, now he has to live with it.

It will haunt him.

TMike

[Slutter McGee]

Honestly, I'm not a terribly big fan of using a technicality to deny a citizen his voice/vote. If the vote is legit (ie. from a real, live registered voter and not a duplicate), I wouldn't want it discounted if the intent was obvious. If Joe Miller is going to win, it should be an honest victory.

This. If it is obvious that the vote was for Murkowsky it should be given to her. Since when has the liberty movement promoted the removal of suffrage for dislexic people.


Slutter McGee

[malkusm]

Exactly! Ethics has no home in politics. Joe Miller is showing his true colors. Voter intent means nothing to him. "The end justifies the means"? Understanding Machiavelli is one thing, adopting his lesson is another.

TMike

Umm, did you miss the GOP primary? Murkowski pledged to endorse the winner of the GOP primary if she didn't win. Then, when she lost, she threw a fit and announced a write-in candidacy because she felt so entitled to her precious Senate seat. Then, Murkowski spent the next 3 months throwing vicious, slanderous accusations at Joe Miller out of spite.

Joe Miller should do anything WITHIN the law to challenge Murkowski.

[malkusm]

This. If it is obvious that the vote was for Murkowsky it should be given to her. Since when has the liberty movement promoted the removal of suffrage for dislexic people.


Slutter McGee

Alaska should change their law to grant adequate suffrage to dyslexic people. It shouldn't have a law and then work around the law whenever it is politically or socially convenient. Hayek writes at length about the necessity of a clear legal framework, and the abomination that is arbitrary rule.

[TruckinMike]

Umm, did you miss the GOP primary? Murkowski pledged to endorse the winner of the GOP primary if she didn't win. Then, when she lost, she threw a fit and announced a write-in candidacy because she felt so entitled to her precious Senate seat. Then, Murkowski spent the next 3 months throwing vicious, slanderous accusations at Joe Miller out of spite.

Joe Miller should do anything WITHIN the law to challenge Murkowski.


Ok. I get it, he's angry. Justified vote-o-cide.:rolleyes:

TMike

[specsaregood]

Just because its legal doesn't mean its right. I am not arguing legality. I am arguing morality. Any politician honest with themselves would know discounting a misspelled ballot would be wrong. He had a choice, he made a decision, now he has to live with it.

It will haunt him.

TMike

I'd argue that ignoring the law is immoral. And that allowing elected officials to ignore the laws whenever they see fit, for some pseudo-justice or expediency is what has gotten us into our current mess. I hope you have never ranted about our elected officials ignoring the constitution, lest you be accused of hypocrisy.

[TruckinMike]

I'd argue that ignoring the law is immoral. And that allowing elected officials to ignore the laws whenever they see fit, for some pseudo-justice or expediency is what has gotten us into our current mess. I hope you have never ranted about our elected officials ignoring the constitution, lest you be accused of hypocrisy.

Nice attempt at taking the high-ground with that twisted bit of logic. The clear minded folk reading your post know better.

I never said, nor will I say that what Joe was doing is illegal, or even should be. My issue with joe was of a moral nature, not a legal one. It has nothing to do with government employees, politicians, the Constitution, arbitrary rules, laws, or dictates - morality transcends law. Its a desired human quality.

Joe obviously does not possess it.

TMike

[ARealConservative]

Umm, did you miss the GOP primary? Murkowski pledged to endorse the winner of the GOP primary if she didn't win. Then, when she lost, she threw a fit and announced a write-in candidacy because she felt so entitled to her precious Senate seat. Then, Murkowski spent the next 3 months throwing vicious, slanderous accusations at Joe Miller out of spite.

Joe Miller should do anything WITHIN the law to challenge Murkowski.

isn't it up to the voters to decide if her actions should cost her the election?

it sucks that they chose her, but it seems clear the majority of Alaskans want her, not Joe Miller.

[Kregisen]

isn't it up to the voters to decide if her actions should cost her the election?

it sucks that they chose her, but it seems clear the majority of Alaskans want her, not Joe Miller.

Well if 38% is the majority then you may be right.

[Jordan]

The ends, for me, justify the means.

Let's win :)

[LibertyEagle]

Alaska should change their law to grant adequate suffrage to dyslexic people. It shouldn't have a law and then work around the law whenever it is politically or socially convenient. Hayek writes at length about the necessity of a clear legal framework, and the abomination that is arbitrary rule.

+1

[ARealConservative]

Well if 38% is the majority then you may be right.

semantics, really?

fine, it is clear she has a plurality, which is what is required to be seated in Alaska for senator.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Murkowski facts:
1.) She initially became Senator because HER FATHER - the governor - appointed her to the Senate. As a result, Alaskans decided to take away the right of the governor to do that due to her morally questionable appointment.

2.) She promised to endorse the GOP candidate even if it wasn't her - clearly not expecting to lose. When she did lose, she went back on her promise.

3.) "In July 2007, Murkowski stated she would sell back land she bought from Anchorage businessman Bob Penney, a day after a Washington watchdog group filed a Senate ethics complaint against her, alleging that Penney sold the property well below market value.[16] The Anchorage Daily News noted, "The transaction amounted to an illegal gift worth between $70,000 and $170,000, depending on how the property was valued, according to the complaint by the National Legal and Policy Center." According to the Associated Press, Murkowski bought the land from two developers tied to the Ted Stevens probe"

4.) The law is clear about how write-in votes work. Don't blame Joe Miller for those rules. She lost her legitimate chance at being on the ballot, so her sore loser approach puts her at a disadvantage since people need to write her name in. That's the price you pay for losing once and still thinking you should be the winner. Many people probably think it is wrong for the winner of the popular vote to not be the President too, but it's the law

[AuH20]

IF you can't take the time to spell Murkowski correctly, should you really be voting? At the very least, you could use some common sense to copy the correct spelling from a news source. I think I'm with Aristotle on this one.

[DeadheadForPaul]

IF you can't take the time to spell Murkowski correctly, should you really be voting? At the very least, you could use some common sense to copy the correct spelling from a news source. I think I'm with Aristotle on this one.

Exactly. If you don't know your own 2 term Senator's name (who also had a prominent father that was Governor and Senator), what's the likelihood you understand her policies?

That's like a Massachusetts resident not knowing how to spell Kennedy

[Meatwasp]

Sorry t. Mike, to me she is dis honest. I hope she loses.

[dude58677]

Nice attempt at taking the high-ground with that twisted bit of logic. The clear minded folk reading your post know better.

I never said, nor will I say that what Joe was doing is illegal, or even should be. My issue with joe was of a moral nature, not a legal one. It has nothing to do with government employees, politicians, the Constitution, arbitrary rules, laws, or dictates - morality transcends law. Its a desired human quality.

Joe obviously does not possess it.

TMike

Allowing voters to cast mispelled write-in votes goes against the very principle of personal responsiblity.

[mcgraw_wv]

Can't really support this... Winning this argument would mean he is actively trying to suppress the people's vote. Misspelling a name, when it's obvious a vote for a particular candidate is still a vote for a certain candidate.

This tells me he's more concerned with winning than principles he says he stands for.

[MRoCkEd]

This tells me he's more concerned with winning than principles he says he stands for.
Our founders cherished the rule of law, not democracy.

[ChaosControl]

He lost my support.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Can't really support this... Winning this argument would mean he is actively trying to suppress the people's vote. Misspelling a name, when it's obvious a vote for a particular candidate is still a vote for a certain candidate.

This tells me he's more concerned with winning than principles he says he stands for.

He's not doing anything - the government ultimately decides which votes legitimately meet the requires for a valid write-in vote.

I really don't think he's attempting to do this to advance himself. I think he is seriously concerned about the future of this country

Wouldn't we all be cheering Ron on if a similar situation occurred with him?

[klamath]

I can see this is going to be another hanging chad election. Wht is the line? I do believe that if the voters intent was to vote for Murkowski it should be counted but it opens up the question of what is the limit of bad spelling? Is it any thing with an M and an I or Murkowski with just one or two letters off? I suspose I would be ok with a 10 person board of equal Murkowski and miller supporters voting on the questionable spellings.

[Kregisen]

I can see this is going to be another hanging chad election. Wht is the line? I do believe that if the voters intent was to vote for Murkowski it should be counted but it opens up the question of what is the limit of bad spelling? Is it any thing with an M and an I or Murkowski with just one or two letters off? I suspose I would be ok with a 10 person board of equal Murkowski and miller supporters voting on the questionable spellings.

I agree with some of the others here. Obviously you have to establish a law for this kind of thing. If I was to establish a law, I would say no misspells either. If you include misspells, there is no black and white line, and any vote can be accepted.

Also, like someone else pointed out, if someone can't even spell the name of who they're voting for, they shouldn't be voting.


If you don't like the law, change it....but if it's in place, you have to follow it.

Don't count misspells.

[mcgraw_wv]

He's not doing anything - the government ultimately decides which votes legitimately meet the requires for a valid write-in vote.

I really don't think he's attempting to do this to advance himself. I think he is seriously concerned about the future of this country

Wouldn't we all be cheering Ron on if a similar situation occurred with him?

I would not Support Ron, and he himself would not try to make a write in vote for "Jon Mcain" not count for "John McCain"

I don't need a specific law that says he's right, or wrong, this is dirty, and doesn't pass the eye test for respecting liberty values. no law says dumb people who can't spell well don't get a vote.

[mcgraw_wv]

I agree with some of the others here. Obviously you have to establish a law for this kind of thing. If I was to establish a law, I would say no misspells either. If you include misspells, there is no black and white line, and any vote can be accepted.

Also, like someone else pointed out, if someone can't even spell the name of who they're voting for, they shouldn't be voting.


If you don't like the law, change it....but if it's in place, you have to follow it.

Don't count misspells.

That law is simply a a law to supress the vote. When this country was founded with the Constitution, I would venture to say 80+% of Americans' couldn't read or spell...

And they all got to vote, and their votes were counted, and people died to ensure those people could vote and were counted.

[MRoCkEd]

no law says dumb people who can't spell well don't get a vote.
The law says the name must be written as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy submitted by Lisa Murkowski.


Sec. 15.15.360. Rules for counting ballots.

(a) The election board shall count ballots according to the following rules... (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.

[klamath]

I would not Support Ron, and he himself would not try to make a write in vote for "Jon Mcain" not count for "John McCain"
I don't need a specific law that says he's right, or wrong, this is dirty, and doesn't pass the eye test for respecting liberty values. no law says dumb people who can't spell well don't get a vote.

For debate. Would it still apply if it was JN MC?

[malkusm]

No, but that is implied when the law says the name must be written as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy submitted by Lisa Murkowski.

Exactly. The law is what the law is. Doesn't mean it has to be a good law. As I said before, Hayek explained the dangers of arbitrary rule very well. You might not agree with the speed limit on the road, but it is clearly posted and the consequences for violating the law are well-known. But what if this wasn't the case? What if cops could pull over and detain anyone on any whim they wanted to, in the name of social justice?

That is the slippery slope implied by "interpreting voter intent." Count all the damn votes the same way, the legal way. That's all Joe Miller is saying.

[mcgraw_wv]

The law says the name must be written as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy submitted by Lisa Murkowski.

Correct, that is an example of laws passed in this overly political atmosphere in order to suppress the vote. I understand it's on the books now... but doesn't mean its a good thing. Remember in the South people had to take and pass test before voting, again a measure to suppress the vote.

[malkusm]

Correct, that is an example of laws passed in this overly political atmosphere in order to suppress the vote. I understand it's on the books now... but doesn't mean its a good thing. Remember in the South people had to take and pass test before voting, again a measure to suppress the vote.

So the establishment should be able to change the law on the fly, without going through appropriate legal proceedings to do so? Why do you think that Alaska is looking at this issue now, and not (for example) in 2004? Do you think maybe they have an agenda? Should we allow the establishment to change laws (even bad laws) when it is politically expedient for them to do so?

[MRoCkEd]

Correct, that is an example of laws passed in this overly political atmosphere in order to suppress the vote. I understand it's on the books now... but doesn't mean its a good thing. Remember in the South people had to take and pass test before voting, again a measure to suppress the vote.
So the court should ignore the law on the books and use their own discretion based on what is a "good thing"?

[Bern]

The law says the name must be written as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy submitted by Lisa Murkowski.

Thanks. I can support enforcing the rules that were established before the game began. I wasn't sure what exactly the rules were. Hopefully the courts will do the correct thing.

[mcgraw_wv]

For debate. Would it still apply if it was JN MC?

Honestly, if he was running again a "Sam Smith" then yeah... I don't know the right or wrong way to run it, honestly, the right answer is to remove the strangle hold of the parties and the costs, to get on the ballot. There really should be no need to even write someone in.

Why do you need a write in? Because a Party is suppressing your election.

The Solution should be to make eligibility to get on the ballot more attainable outside of the traditional party system.

[mcgraw_wv]

As I mentioned people... it's a law on the books... but it shouldn't be something a PRO liberty candidate is championing!

That's like Ron Paul saying... Well The Fed can set interest rates, it's in the Federal Reserve act of 1913!!! I understand it's a law, but what makes Ron Paul so amazing, is he doesn't comprimise his principles.

To me reading this about Joe Miller, seems to me his compromising in order to win.

[erowe1]

I don't really care if people's votes get counted properly. I just want Murkowski to lose.

[ARealConservative]

So the court should ignore the law on the books and use their own discretion based on what is a "good thing"?

no, but original intent and understanding should be applied where possible.

[erowe1]

As I mentioned people... it's a law on the books... but it shouldn't be something a PRO liberty candidate is championing!


Why not?

Are pro-liberty candidates supposed to promote democracy?

I'm for throwing out all the Murkowski votes, regardless of spelling, just because they're for Murkowski.

[mcgraw_wv]

So the court should ignore the law on the books and use their own discretion based on what is a "good thing"?

No, but at least the courts reading retention abilities are sharper than yours.

I'm not arguing against the law... the law is the law. A principled champion of Liberty knows a "good" law from a bad one, and Ron Paul would never seek cover in the Patriot Act even if it's the current law.

[mcgraw_wv]

Why not?

Are pro-liberty candidates supposed to promote democracy?

I'm for throwing out all the Murkowski votes, regardless of spelling, just because they're for Murkowski.

That's a very anti liberty, very Pro totalitarianism stance you are preaching. ;)

[malkusm]

No, but at least the courts reading retention abilities are sharper than yours.

I'm not arguing against the law... the law is the law. A principled champion of Liberty knows a "good" law from a bad one, and Ron Paul would never seek cover in the Patriot Act even if it's the current law.

Ron Paul also wouldn't support using an executive order to rescind the Patriot Act. What he would support is a legal challenge or a formal repeal of the law, or perhaps state nullification, which are in line with the rules of the system. Point being: Alaska has to follow the rules, lest there be NO rules.

You're confusing "belief that the law is good" with "belief in the law."

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Ron Paul also wouldn't support using an executive order to rescind the Patriot Act. What he would support is a legal challenge or a formal repeal of the law, or perhaps state nullification, which are in line with the rules of the system. Point being: Alaska has to follow the rules, lest there be NO rules.

You're confusing "belief that the law is good" with "belief in the law."

^ what he said

[erowe1]

That's a very anti liberty, very Pro totalitarianism stance you are preaching. ;)

No it's not. It's the opposite.

The position that holds that people have the right to impose legislators like Murkowski on other people is the totalitarian one.

[mcgraw_wv]

Point being: Alaska has to follow the rules, lest there be NO rules.

Which I have said from the start...

However, Joe Miller should not be going on media channels calling for throwing out votes, and compromising his "principles". Let's follow the law, yes, let's do that.


Ron Paul would never use the Patriot Act in order to spy on Socialist Candidates running against him... It's the law, he could as a part of the government, he could ask the government to spy on them, but he would NEVER do that.

[Krugerrand]

Which I have said from the start...

However, Joe Miller should not be going on media channels calling for throwing out votes, and compromising his "principles". Let's follow the law, yes, let's do that.


Ron Paul would never use the Patriot Act in order to spy on Socialist Candidates running against him... It's the law, he could as a part of the government, he could ask the government to spy on them, but he would NEVER do that.

The quote I read was that he wanted every legal vote counted.

[ChaosControl]

Why not?

Are pro-liberty candidates supposed to promote democracy?

I'm for throwing out all the Murkowski votes, regardless of spelling, just because they're for Murkowski.

That is a disgusting view.

Vote only for people who I like, or your vote shouldn't count!

To hell with a democratic republic! People should not have a say unless they agree with my view.
Y'all sound as bad as people at the DU.

[malkusm]

Which I have said from the start...

However, Joe Miller should not be going on media channels calling for throwing out votes, and compromising his "principles". Let's follow the law, yes, let's do that.


Ron Paul would never use the Patriot Act in order to spy on Socialist Candidates running against him... It's the law, he could as a part of the government, he could ask the government to spy on them, but he would NEVER do that.

Like I said, Ron Paul would also never use an executive order to eliminate the Patriot Act, even though he believes it to be completely unconstitutional. Is it somehow justified to do something that goes against the spirit of law in order to throw out an equally unjustified law? If your standard is Constitutionality, then you can't declare a law unconstitutional by unconstitutional means. Likewise, if you believe that there should be election laws at all, then you can't declare an election law invalid by violating other laws, on the arbitrary notion that you disagree with the law in a certain case.

This whole back and forth is ridiculous. Here are my final thoughts.

(A) It is more just to uphold a clearly-defined, bad law EQUALLY than it is to throw it out by illegal means when politically expedient to do so.
(B) Even if you believe that Joe Miller is somehow doing something immoral by challenging the validity of certain ballots, it pales in comparison to the hundreds of liberty upholding votes that he would take were he elected Senator.

I hope Alaska upholds their election law which was clearly defined before the election, and that it causes Murkowski to lose enough votes.

/thread

[TruckinMike]

That law is simply a a law to supress the vote. When this country was founded with the Constitution, I would venture to say 80+% of Americans' couldn't read or spell...

And they all got to vote, and their votes were counted, and people died to ensure those people could vote and were counted.

Great Point!

TMike:)

[Cherder]

Umm, did you miss the GOP primary? Murkowski pledged to endorse the winner of the GOP primary if she didn't win. Then, when she lost, she threw a fit and announced a write-in candidacy because she felt so entitled to her precious Senate seat. Then, Murkowski spent the next 3 months throwing vicious, slanderous accusations at Joe Miller out of spite.

Joe Miller should do anything WITHIN the law to challenge Murkowski.

+rep

[dude58677]

Great Point!

TMike:)

i ovtde rfo lsia Mukrosiw, y doesn;'t shoudn't my vote count

[Krugerrand]

That law is simply a a law to supress the vote. When this country was founded with the Constitution, I would venture to say 80+% of Americans' couldn't read or spell...

And they all got to vote, and their votes were counted, and people died to ensure those people could vote and were counted.

Nonsense. There must be some legal framework to establish what can count and what cannot count on a write it vote.

[dude58677]

Voters are given a chance to review their votes before they hit the submit button. We even have this system on this forum before we post a thread. If you don't spell your write-in vote correctly, then you do not take it seriously enough.

[specsaregood]

Alaska should change their law to grant adequate suffrage to dyslexic people.

I'd wager they already do and it applies to all disabilities. If you need help voting, poll workers are usually empowered to help you.

[georgiaboy]

1. Not that it's really relevant, but I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot and Miller were the write-in candidate, where Murkowski would stand on the issue. And I'm not really wondering, I think I know.

2. The law as quoted earlier isn't crystal clear on 100% exact spelling requirements, so there's probably wiggle room to allow for certain misspellings while not allowing others, legally. Mickey Mouse has a some of Murkowski's letters in it, but shouldn't be counted, obviously.

3. If I were Miller, I wouldn't want the win if I felt like I were stealing it. I would want voter intent to rule the day, albeit clearly judged voter intent. So yeah, we're in hanging chad territory, and I'd accept the court's ruling on the matter.

[specsaregood]

2. The law as quoted earlier isn't crystal clear on 100% exact spelling requirements, so there's probably wiggle room to allow for certain misspellings while not allowing others, legally. Mickey Mouse has a some of Murkowski's letters in it, but shouldn't be counted, obviously.


I disagree. I think it is 100% clear.
From the op:


Sec. 15.15.360. Rules for counting ballots.

(a) The election board shall count ballots according to the following rules... (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.


Unless it is spelled correctly it is not their last name and thus not them. You *might* have an argument except for the 2nd section that says explicitly "no exceptions". What does no exceptions mean if not exactly what it says?

[georgiaboy]

sg,

define "the last name of the candidate" legally. There's wiggle room when it comes to spelling.

Say the the words "Murkowski", "Mercowscky", "Mrkowsky". Any difference?

[MRoCkEd]

There is also the issue of the "protest vote" where someone writes in a complete misspelling of Lisa's name intentionally as a joke or to make a statement...

Leesa Markoowskeey

Will that be accepted?

[specsaregood]

sg,

define "the last name of the candidate" legally. There's wiggle room when it comes to spelling.

Say the the words "Murkowski", "Mercowscky", "Mrkowsky". Any difference?

Yeah, legally it makes a big difference. I think it is clear that it means their legal name. Whats the point in adding "no exceptions", if it wasn't meant to prevent exactly this type of confusion?

[georgiaboy]

"no exceptions" can easily be interpreted to simply mean
1. gotta have the dot shaded
2. gotta have minimally the last name
if either is missing, no vote is counted.

if both are there, reasonably identifiable as complete and accurate, the vote is counted.

[Krugerrand]

sg,

define "the last name of the candidate" legally. There's wiggle room when it comes to spelling.

Say the the words "Murkowski", "Mercowscky", "Mrkowsky". Any difference?

What does "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy" have to do with how you say them? I don't see anything about "as it sounds."

[georgiaboy]

What does "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy" have to do with how you say them? I don't see anything about "as it sounds."

there's also the "or the last name of the candidate", which could leave room for minor misspellings, seen from a legal perspective.

Oh, and did I mention, I'm not a lawyer?:o

[specsaregood]

there's also the "or the last name of the candidate", which could leave room for minor misspellings, seen from a legal perspective.

Oh, and did I mention, I'm not a lawyer?:o

Go try using a misspelling of your last name with the government, see how far that gets you.

[robert9712000]

I usually agree that liberty minded candidates should take the high ground but from what i heard she had her people out handing out thousands of absentee ballots to Alaska villages and showing them how to write in murkowskis name,whom these people had no idea who they were really voting for and could probably care less

http://www.theolympian.com/2010/11/07/1431624/vote-in-rural-alaska-look-to-be.html

so your saying she can be as crooked as she can be and have her people pander for votes.He shouldn't run a crooked campaign as well but at least let him use the laws to his advantage to help even the playing field.Based on your moral high ground stance the crooked guy is always gonna have the advantage

[Zap!]

Who cares how he becomes Senator (within the law, of course)? If they could legally throw out all of the absentee votes I'd support it. The Senate does not need another neo-con returning. A war with Iran may hinge on one vote.

[libertythor]

That is a disgusting view.

Vote only for people who I like, or your vote shouldn't count!

To hell with a democratic republic! People should not have a say unless they agree with my view.
Y'all sound as bad as people at the DU.


Actually the issue is following the instructions on the ballot. Evidently a lot of voters didn't simply copy the name from the write-in list like they were supposed to.

Casting a proper vote isn't rocket science, and safeguards are in place if you are disabled.

[Noob]

I think they said that "Murkowski" would be unacceptable, but "Lisa M" would be. Or maybe it was the other way around. I don't remember.
Has the full list of write-ins been made public? I like see who is on it. Well they even bother to report or count the votes for any body on the list besides Leesa Markoowskeey, Murkowski", "Mercowscky", "Mrkowsky" or how ever you spelll her name.

[pcosmar]

Much ado,,,,

Is this even an issue?
If there are enough write-ins to even affect the race at all, I would say the intent of the voters is pretty clear.

[low preference guy]

There is also the issue of the "protest vote" where someone writes in a complete misspelling of Lisa's name intentionally as a joke or to make a statement...

Leesa Markoowskeey

Will that be accepted?

Miller will challenge any and every ballot that doesn't have an exactly correct spelling

[libertythor]

Miller will challenge any and every ballot that doesn't have an exactly correct spelling

I personally am okay with that. It is funny that people commenting on the Anchorage Daily News website claims that this is racist. I countered last night that they might be the racists by assuming that certain races would be more likely to screw up their votes.

Yes! Somehow the race card is now being played over two Republican candidates who are White. :confused: :mad:

[Kregisen]

Much ado,,,,

Is this even an issue?
If there are enough write-ins to even affect the race at all, I would say the intent of the voters is pretty clear.

Nah it just determines who 1 of our nation's 100 senators is....considering 1 senate vote could determine the outcome of things like: war with iran, obamacare, etc.

Not even an issue. ;)

[nate895]

I personally am okay with that. It is funny that people commenting on the Anchorage Daily News website claims that this is racist. I countered last night that they might be the racists by assuming that certain races would be more likely to screw up their votes.

Exactly what I'd say. Half of the voting rights legislation is based on the theory that minorities are too stupid to cast a vote properly. Who's the racist again?


Yes! Somehow the race card is now being played over two Republican candidates who are White. :confused: :mad:

In a state that is overwhelmingly white. The only significant minority group, Native Americans, I don't think actually vote as a protest

[libertythor]

In a state that is overwhelmingly white. The only significant minority group, Native Americans, I don't think actually vote as a protest

I lived in Alaska for a year and got to know some Natives. Many actually don't vote, but those that do and live on the highway system only modestly go towards Democrats or liberal candidates. Natives that live in bush or tundra communities do go solidly for the more liberal candidates but not in huge overwhelming numbers like in lower 48 inner city neighborhoods do.

The dependence of bush communities on special infrastructure is the deciding factor, not race. And even then, there is a significant faction of conservatives there.

[pcosmar]

Nah it just determines who 1 of our nation's 100 senators is....considering 1 senate vote could determine the outcome of things like: war with iran, obamacare, etc.

Not even an issue. ;)

And a couple write ins are going to make what difference?

Or is the issue a large number of write ins? which would alter the race and support the "will of the people".
In which case "spelling" is irrelevant.

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44918.html


Miller gaining ground in Alaska


63 Comments (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44918.html#comments)

http://images.politico.com/global/news/101109_miller_alaska_ap_328.jpg Joe Miller has cut into the vote lead for write-in candidates by about 2,100 votes. | AP Photo Close



By SHIRA TOEPLITZ (http://www.politico.com/reporters/ShiraToeplitz.html) | 11/9/10 7:46 PM EST
Republican Joe Miller gained ground in the Senate race Tuesday, cutting into the vote lead for write-in candidates – most of which, presumably, are for Sen. Lisa Murkowski – by about 2,100 votes.
Miller had 35 percent of the vote and write-in candidates collectively had 40 percent, after election officials tabulated 27,000 additional absentee and early ballots Tuesday. That margin is smaller that the 7-point lead – or 13,439 votes — that write-in candidates had over Miller after election night.
Continue Reading (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44918.html#continue)