Is this a Valid Write-in Vote for Lisa Murskowski?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/154279

One of the ballots the Joe Miller campaign is challenging, saying the 'r' in "Murkowski" is a 'v'.

http://i51.tinypic.com/258tg7p.jpg

More ballots at the link.

[sailingaway]

That one's silly. I hope only a few fall in that category.

[low preference guy]

No! It says Muvkowski!



kidding

[MRoCkEd]

It's over for Joe

[Jordan]

:rolleyes:

Challenging things like this is the quickest way to lose all credibility.

[JoshLowry]

Pretty sure it says Usa Murkowski

You also misspelled the thread title. lulz.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/154279

One of the ballots the Joe Miller campaign is challenging, saying the 'r' in "Murkowski" is a 'v'.

http://i51.tinypic.com/258tg7p.jpg

More ballots at the link.

Well, those don't look good for Miller. Those are probably the four most obvious ones. Where are examples of others that are truly questionable?

[RonPaulCult]

Shame on them.

[oyarde]

I would accept that in good faith as voter intent . What does Alaska law say ?

[pcosmar]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grasp_at_straws

http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/APRD65.jpg

[low preference guy]

I would accept that in good faith as voter intent . What does Alaska law say ?

that the spelling should be exactly correct. no exceptions.

[silverhandorder]

Well I am kinda pissed at all "principled" people over this whole controversy. It's like why handicap our selves when we are fighting charlatans. You think for a second that they would not do the same to us? It is like fighting but refusing to hurt the opponent.

However for the pictures above it seems the ballot spelled her name right... Am I correct in reading it? If it is spelled right then why are they challenging this ballot?

[low preference guy]

However for the pictures above it seems the ballot spelled her name right... Am I correct in reading it? If it is spelled right then why are they challenging this ballot?

They are probably arguing that it says Muvkowski

[oyarde]

that the spelling should be exactly correct. no exceptions.

That is what I thought .

[MozoVote]

As it becomes more and more clear that Murkowski has the votes, Miller's financial support to continue further lawsuits will dry up...

This is not like Coleman/Franken where that precious "60th vote" hangs in the balance.

[oyarde]

I would say that ballot has to stand . It could be a v or an r .

[low preference guy]

I would say that ballot has to stand . It could be a v or an r .

i agree. the small top-left curvature allows for a "v" interpretation.

[klamath]

I think we can do better than Joe Miller. This is probably what the Alaskans saw in Miller that made them laboriously write in Murkowski. The guy is starting to act like sleaze.

[silverhandorder]

I think we can do better than Joe Miller. This is probably what the Alaskans saw in Miller that made them laboriously write in Murkowski. The guy is starting to act like sleaze.

Didn't he call for a neutral foreign policy, repeal of 17th amendment and balanced budget?

[low preference guy]

I think we can do better than Joe Miller. This is probably what the Alaskans saw in Miller that made them laboriously write in Murkowski. The guy is starting to act like sleaze.

no. they voted for Murkowski because they are idiots.

[Maximus]

This is bad on Miller, that is a vote for Murkowski

[klamath]

Didn't he call for a neutral foreign policy, repeal of 17th amendment and balanced budget? Yes he sounds great issuewise and I supported him but it is appearing that this guy has problems other than issues, ethics.

[dude58677]

Yes he sounds great issuewise and I supported him but it is appearing that this guy has problems other than issues, ethics.

Ethics? What about Murkowski (I spelled it right) losing then running as a third party to stay in power? What about PERSONAL RESPONISIBILTY from the VOTERS?

[winston_blade]

Yes he sounds great issuewise and I supported him but it is appearing that this guy has problems other than issues, ethics.

He's merely bringing up the challenge. The court can disagree if they don't feel the same way. When you represent someone you are a complete advocate for them and should make every possible argument to help them prevail. That is how the system is supposed to work. I see no problem with him challenging this.

[Brian4Liberty]

I think we can do better than Joe Miller. This is probably what the Alaskans saw in Miller that made them laboriously write in Murkowski. The guy is starting to act like sleaze.

That story (and examples) are from a newspaper. Their intent was probably to make Miller look bad. Who says that Miller personally looked at those ballots?

[klamath]

That story (and examples) are from a newspaper. Their intent was probably to make Miller look bad. Who says that Miller personally looked at those ballots?
Miller is head of the monitoring team and should set the standard as to what ballots to challenged.

For the record I can't stand Murkowski.

[klamath]

Ethics? What about Murkowski (I spelled it right) losing then running as a third party to stay in power? What about PERSONAL RESPONISIBILTY from the VOTERS?

That ballot is spelled correctly and should never have been challenged. It meets the requirement of the law. Real mispelling are a different story however.

[silverhandorder]

Yes he sounds great issuewise and I supported him but it is appearing that this guy has problems other than issues, ethics.

What ethics? These are rules that were established before a fight. She should have challenged them before. Imagine if you are playing a sport and all of a sudden the game ends up being close. Would you not challenge the other team if they scored a goal that was not by the rules? For example a guy picked up the ball and ran into the goal post? This is the same shit. Whether you think rule is fair or not when you are in a fight you gotta follow them. Otherwise nothing stopping Joe from organizing a militia and revolting.

edit: I agree a ballot that close should count for her.

[oyarde]

That ballot is spelled correctly and should never have been challenged. It meets the requirement of the law. Real mispelling are a different story however.

I agree ,not a fan of Lisa , but that ballot needs to stand . I would say that even if it was me running against her . Is there any way he can win ? What are the numbers ?

[libertybrewcity]

I hope Miller wins. That would be great!

[Brian4Liberty]

What ethics? These are rules that were established before a fight. She should have challenged them before. Imagine if you are playing a sport and all of a sudden the game ends up being close. Would you not challenge the other team if they scored a goal that was not by the rules?

Unfortunately, even in sports the zebras sometimes "interpret" the rules as they go. Tuck rule my ass! ;)

[TruckinMike]

I see that this thread hasn't quite collapsed into a cesspool of Moral-relativism like the other thread on Miller did.

Good for us...

TMike

[oyarde]

I see that this thread hasn't quite collapsed into a cesspool of Moral-relativism like the other thread on Miller did.

Good for us...

TMike

How bad ? I have not looked at the other .

[specsaregood]

I see that this thread hasn't quite collapsed into a cesspool of Moral-relativism like the other thread on Miller did.

Good for us...

TMike

You mean the one where you argued that alaskan officials should ignore the rule of law for the benefit of an establishment hag?

[TruckinMike]

You mean the one where you argued that alaskan officials should ignore the rule of law for the benefit of an establishment hag?

Go back and re-read my posts. I was very clear in dividing law from morality. They are not equivocal. I only had one point and it was a moral one. Nothing more. Nothing less. I never even insinuated that the LAW not be followed, only that Miller should have held back with the lawsuit. Like I said... "It will haunt him". And its already happening ----right here in this thread as well as in countless other threads across the web.

TMike

[silverhandorder]

Sorry any action a person takes will have consequences. By fighting to the bitter end miller ignited my interest. We need more people like him to lead.

[specsaregood]

Go back and re-read my posts. I was very clear in dividing law from morality. They are not equivocal. I only had one point and it was a moral one. Nothing more. Nothing less. I never even insinuated that the LAW not be followed, only that Miller should have held back with the lawsuit. Like I said... "It will haunt him". And its already happening ----right here in this thread as well as in countless other threads across the web.

TMike

I'm just bustin balls. I hope this is not a good example of the types of votes they are trying to get thrown out. I have a hunch it isn't.

[dude58677]

That ballot is spelled correctly and should never have been challenged. It meets the requirement of the law. Real mispelling are a different story however.

It's the voters fault they blew it.

[klamath]

It's the voters fault they blew it. Nearly half of the Republican voters chose Murkowski in the primary, the democrats and independents never had a choice to vote for her.
Let's turn this around and say RP lost the nomination to Romney by one delegate vote at the republican convention and then turned around and ran as a writein because he knew he had a greater appeal to independents and democrats. Say he won the national election by 5% yet Romney challenged every letter in peoples spelling of Ron Pauls name. How would you feel that Romney won the election because 5 million voters wrote in "Ron Paul" and not "Ronald Earnest Paul?" Would you feel cheated especially if you were one of the voters that wrote in Ron Paul? How would you feel if you wrote in Ronald Earnest Paul and saw your ballot displayed in the papers as thrown out because Romney's attorneys said your "U" looked more like a "V"?

[nate895]

Nearly half of the Republican voters chose Murkowski in the primary, the democrats and independents never had a choice to vote for her.
Let's turn this around and say RP lost the nomination to Romney by one delegate vote at the republican convention and then turned around and ran as a writein because he knew he had a greater appeal to independents and democrats. Say he won the national election by 5% yet Romney challenged every letter in peoples spelling of Ron Pauls name. How would you feel that Romney won the election because 5 million voters wrote in "Ron Paul" and not "Ronald Earnest Paul?" Would you feel cheated especially if you were one of the voters that wrote in Ron Paul? How would you feel if you wrote in Ronald Earnest Paul and saw your ballot displayed in the papers as thrown out because Romney's attorneys said your "U" looked more like a "V"?

That's an inaccurate analogy. Ron Paul would be an acceptable write-in form in Alaska. However, to the point, it is acceptable to challenge everything that is disputable at all. You have to think on the margins with this kind of stuff. That isn't saying that the judge should rule that it isn't a Murkowski vote. When there is a dispute about what letter it is, as a rule, the voter should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

[EndDaFed]

Well I am kinda pissed at all "principled" people over this whole controversy. It's like why handicap our selves when we are fighting charlatans. You think for a second that they would not do the same to us? It is like fighting but refusing to hurt the opponent.

However for the pictures above it seems the ballot spelled her name right... Am I correct in reading it? If it is spelled right then why are they challenging this ballot?

Because if you give a little room sooner or later the charlatans will take over and screw everything up.

[Dripping Rain]

I dont believe any crap that comes out of the Alaska media

[Zatch]

It's not fair to Miller for them to use discretion when it comes to Murkowski's write-ins if they aren't going to count Joe Miller write-ins. If they are going to count misspelled Murkowski votes then they should count perfectly spelled Miller write-ins.

[low preference guy]

It's not fair to Miller for them to use discretion when it comes to Murkowski's write-ins if they aren't going to count Joe Miller write-ins

i think they're counting Miller's write-ins

[FrankRep]

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/154279

One of the ballots the Joe Miller campaign is challenging, saying the 'r' in "Murkowski" is a 'v'.

Like school in the summer time.

.... No class

[Zatch]

i think they're counting Miller's write-ins

Nope. They aren't going to because he's not on the official list of write in candidates: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700078435/Lt-Gov-Joe-Miller-write-ins-wont-go-to-GOP-nom.html If they aren't going to use discretion for him then they shouldn't for Murkowski.

[low preference guy]

Nope. They aren't going to because he's not on the official list of write in candidates. If they aren't going to use discretion for him then they shouldn't for Murkowski.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700078435/Lt-Gov-Joe-Miller-write-ins-wont-go-to-GOP-nom.html

the article you posted is dated 11/3

[Zatch]

the article you posted is dated 11/3

Do you have an article that says something different?

[RonPaulwillWin]

:rolleyes:

Challenging things like this is the quickest way to lose all credibility.



Pretty sure it says Usa Murkowski

You also misspelled the thread title. lulz.


Well then this thread has lost credibility.

[Promontorium]

So my vote would never be right in Alaska because I have poor penmanship.

America hates liberty. One more veil, the illusion of the "write-in", has fallen.

[Anti Federalist]

like school in the summer time.

.... No class

lol :d

[Promontorium]

Sorry any action a person takes will have consequences. By fighting to the bitter end miller ignited my interest. We need more people like him to lead.

Weasels?

Reminds me of women who get wet when a guy bullies smaller weaker people.

He's not fighting to the bitter end for what he believes, he's weaseling to the bitter end to piss and moan. Yeah, I'd love to have a government full of pissy bitches who in every instance of challenge and stress they immediately throw other people under the bus and lie lie lie to keep their job. No wait, that is our government, and most of our military.

The hero is the sonuvabitch who gets the shit done while the bully nails the girl and the weasel takes all the credit (and those heroes don't usually stick around for long).

[silverhandorder]

Weasels?

Reminds me of women who get wet when a guy bullies smaller weaker people.

He's not fighting to the bitter end for what he believes, he's weaseling to the bitter end to piss and moan. Yeah, I'd love to have a government full of pissy bitches who in every instance of challenge and stress they immediately throw other people under the bus and lie lie lie to keep their job. No wait, that is our government, and most of our military.

The hero is the sonuvabitch who gets the shit done while the bully nails the girl and the weasel takes all the credit (and those heroes don't usually stick around for long).

First of all he is running against a completely discredited woman who went back on her word. She is using procedure to her advantage when it suits her and wants to over ride it when it does not.

When you fight an animal that wants to kill you, you do not think about murdering it as a wrong. Such is the case for Miller. He is fighting some one with no morals, as such there should be no moral considerations for her.

Put it plainly she said she wasn't going to run. Then she broke her word and ran against him in general. She was well within her right as far as rules are concerned. No one stopped her. The same rules should continue to apply to her after the vote.

I see this no different then the moral justification for self defense. It is wrong to do violence. But if a person you are fighting does not see it as wrong then it is not wrong to do violence to them.

[klamath]

First of all he is running against a completely discredited woman who went back on her word. She is using procedure to her advantage when it suits her and wants to over ride it when it does not.

When you fight an animal that wants to kill you, you do not think about murdering it as a wrong. Such is the case for Miller. He is fighting some one with no morals, as such there should be no moral considerations for her.Put it plainly she said she wasn't going to run. Then she broke her word and ran against him in general. She was well within her right as far as rules are concerned. No one stopped her. The same rules should continue to apply to her after the vote.

I see this no different then the moral justification for self defense. It is wrong to do violence. But if a person you are fighting does not see it as wrong then it is not wrong to do violence to them.

Somehow this paragraph reminds me of the logic that was used to justify the no holds barred methods in the war on terror.
Edit; The point is this isn't about the morals of Murkowski this is about the voter rights, right or wrong

[cswake]

Somehow this paragraph reminds me of the logic that was used to justify the no holds barred methods in the war on terror.

The logic is solid, even in the "War on Terror". The problem is the neoconservatives expanded what should have been a decisive, one-sided action by our Special Forces to eliminate and/or capture Osama Bin Laden and a couple dozen criminals into a massive bureaucratic effort to remake the Middle East.

[Pericles]

:rolleyes:

Challenging things like this is the quickest way to lose all credibility.

Yes

[klamath]

The logic is solid, even in the "War on Terror". The problem is the neoconservatives expanded what should have been a decisive, one-sided action by our Special Forces to eliminate and/or capture Osama Bin Laden and a couple dozen criminals into a massive bureaucratic effort to remake the Middle East.
Ok so torture is fine if the otherside is doing it, which they were. I guess nobody needs to claim the moral high ground.

[cswake]

Ok so torture is fine if the otherside is doing it, which they were. I guess nobody needs to claim the moral high ground.

That's a red herring. I said nothing about torture. My only statement was that once 9/11 occurred, our government's duty was to unequivocally bring the people who carried out the plan to justice. Special Forces operations to capture/kill are Constitutional, torture is not.

To tie it back to the Miller issue, he *should* challenge every single ballot that even has the most remote possibility of being overturned. As long as he operates within the law, I see no problem with it. Murkowski broke her word when she ran her Write-in campaign AND it seems that the legal system is siding with her interpretation of what to do, rather than what the law says.

[klamath]

That's a red herring. I said nothing about torture. My only statement was that once 9/11 occurred, our government's duty was to unequivocally bring the people who carried out the plan to justice. Special Forces operations to capture/kill are Constitutional, torture is not.

To tie it back to the Miller issue, he *should* challenge every single ballot that even has the most remote possibility of being overturned. As long as he operates within the law, I see no problem with it. Murkowski broke her word when she ran her Write-in campaign AND it seems that the legal system is siding with her interpretation of what to do, rather than what the law says.
No this ballot is twisting the law to fit your goals. Bush twisted the law to fit his goal on torture. It wasn't a war so the geneva convention that bans torture didn't apply. This ballot was within the law and Miller knows it. Miller should fight Murcowski when she trys to get moocowski to count for her.

[amy31416]

This is pretty undignified and goes far beyond "playing the politics game."

That vote was obviously for Murkowski, and he should have the balls to stand or fall on his own merits, not some bullshit. He will have much more credibility in the long run, and these sorts of things only damage said "credibility."

Winning a political race is not worth selling yourself out. When will they learn? And if he'd sell out that particular voter, who else will he sell out?

[klamath]

This is pretty undignified and goes far beyond "playing the politics game."

That vote was obviously for Murkowski, and he should have the balls to stand or fall on his own merits, not some bullshit. He will have much more credibility in the long run, and these sorts of things only damage said "credibility."

Winning a political race is not worth selling yourself out. When will they learn? And if he'd sell out that particular voter, who else will he sell out?

This is also my point. If that many of us that were strong Miller supporters are having this kind of reaction to it then how is this going to come across to moderated miller supporters or borderline Murcowski supporters. These actions will do far more harm to tea party movement than leting Murcowski win legitimently. Miller is handing a very easy smear to teaparty oponents.

[low preference guy]

This is pretty undignified and goes far beyond "playing the politics game."

That vote was obviously for Murkowski, and he should have the balls to stand or fall on his own merits, not some bullshit. He will have much more credibility in the long run, and these sorts of things only damage said "credibility."

Winning a political race is not worth selling yourself out. When will they learn? And if he'd sell out that particular voter, who else will he sell out?

better to challenge too many than too few. challenging a vote doesn't mean it will be thrown out.