Alaska GOP candidate wants to stop votes from being counted

[hgc]

I also agree with you that Lieberman is politically a bit less of a Democrat than Murkowski is a Republican in that he single handedly opposed key points in the healthcare reform bill.

I don't think we're quite in agreement here. I claim that Murkowski is fully in the Republican fold -- not in the least a Democrat, and that the ever sniveling Lieberman straddles the fence while still enjoying a committee chairmanship courtesy of his patsy Democratic colleagues.

 

[hgc]

From an ABC news story on Oct. 20:


This article points out that the National Republican Senatorial Committee endorsed Miller and not Murkowski in their ads and says, "The NRSC has made it clear that it is backing Miller ever since he unexpectedly defeated Murkowski in the Aug. 24 GOP primary."

RNC chairman Steele "defended ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and criticized Republican leaders who have voiced doubts about the prospect of tea party candidates like Alaska’s Joe Miller." Linky.

While I think you're right that the RNC probably didn't threaten Murkowski with any specific actions, it is very clear that they opposed her write-in candidacy against their party's nominee. And prominent members of the party voiced their opposition to her campaign--again similar to what went on with Lieberman and the Democratic Party.

I also agree with you that Lieberman is politically a bit less of a Democrat than Murkowski is a Republican in that he single handedly opposed key points in the healthcare reform bill.

All that because they were worried, and rightfully so, that two Republicans in the race would throw the seat to the Democrat. It's all water under the bridge now.

 

[cwalner]

So, what exactly is the opposite of a RINO, then.

...

A Republican In Everything Other Than Name (RIEOTN) hmm doesnt' work ...

A pseudoRepublican - nah, that doesn't sound right either ....

I guess she is just somewhere between and Elephant and a RINO, so Elephino. (yes, i stole this from a thread about humor, forgot who from though).

 

[varwoche]

Judge with 'negative opinion' of Miller bows out of write-in case

Miller is so whacked-out that maybe all of the judges have a negative opinion of him. What then??

 

[cwalner]

Judge with 'negative opinion' of Miller bows out of write-in case

Miller is so whacked-out that maybe all of the judges have a negative opinion of him. What then??

What the article is hiding is that the *real* reason the judge has a negative opinion of him has nothing to do with his policies, but that his (the judge's) wife has recently been trying to get him to grow a beard and wear flannel

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Back to the vote counting issue. .
This article says that 89% of the write-in ballots aren't being challenged. Does anyone know if that means that Miller has a chance mathematically?

According to that article at least some of the challenges are trivial (smudges or sloppy handwriting), and the votes will be awarded to Murkowski anyway. But even if all the misspellings end up not going to the real Lisa Murkowski, does Miller have a chance?

ETA: The article says that at least someone calculated that and said the even if all the challenged ballots are taken away from Murkowski, she may still win.

From the article:

CNN also observed write-in ballots cast for "Lisa Murkoski," "L. Murkosski," "Lisa Macoski," to name a few.

Did voters who cast these ballots intend to vote for the incumbent Alaska senator?

In some cases, the official in charge of deciding – Division of Elections Director Gail Fenumiai – has said, yes. In rare cases, she has said no.

<snip>

Sweeney continued: "We're seeing that a lot of the challenged ballots right now are perfectly spelled. They've sort of changed the threshold for which they challenge a ballot. Yesterday they, at one point, were challenging…"Murkowski, Lisa" – which were perfectly spelled.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Judge with 'negative opinion' of Miller bows out of write-in case

Miller is so whacked-out that maybe all of the judges have a negative opinion of him. What then??

Seriously, though, the judge recused himself because of prior interactions with Miller that might prejudice his opinion (or at least call it into question). I don't think it's a matter of thinking ill of Miller as a politician or even of having an opinion on Miller's lawsuit.

 

[cwalner]

Back to the vote counting issue. .
This article says that 89% of the write-in ballots aren't being challenged. Does anyone know if that means that Miller has a chance mathematically?

I couldn't find anything with the exact vote totals, but this site shows that Miller received 35.5% of the vote and 40.1% are for a write-in.

Therefore if 89% of the write-ins are undisputed for Murkowski, then she received 35.68% of the vote, more than Miller's 35.5. However, some of those undisputed ballots may be clearly for a candidate other than Murkowski.

 

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101112...VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNtdXJrb3dza2ljYW0

just as I thought, this mess does involved the national Republican Party.

 

[Ranb]

Not according to Alaska voting rules. Intent counts more.

Got a link to those voting rules you read?

Ranb

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I couldn't find anything with the exact vote totals, but this site shows that Miller received 35.5% of the vote and 40.1% are for a write-in.

Therefore if 89% of the write-ins are undisputed for Murkowski, then she received 35.68% of the vote, more than Miller's 35.5. However, some of those undisputed ballots may be clearly for a candidate other than Murkowski.

That's what that CNN article said. 89% of the write-ins were uncontested, and apparently many (if not most) of the contested ones contained no misspellings or anything else that could possibly result in them not being counted for Murkowski. [ETA: The article Thunder just cited gives the uncontested figure at 89.8%.]

So it sounds like Miller will lose no matter what. [ETA: Except that I see they're still receiving mailed in absentee ballots through Friday, so we really don't know the totals yet.]

 

[Foggy of the Fogbow]

Y'know, I think Norm Coleman antagonized all the sane Republicans in Minnesota by dragging out the contest with Al Franken so long ... long after it was apparent to everyone that he was going to lose.

Some of that anger against him has probably receded ... don't have time to look up how the GOP did in MN last Tuesday.

But Miller is going to SERIOUSLY piss off the Republicans that voted for Murkowski.

Did I spell that right?

This isn't Coleman trying to invalidate Democratic votes for Franken.

This is Miller TRYING TO INVALIDATE MOSTLY REPUBLICAN VOTES.

If I lived in Alaska and was a Republican who decided I'd rather vote for Murkowski than Miller, I'd be extremely angry about his tactics right now.

Can that even possibly be a smart move looking down the road toward any future political career he may have dreamed about? Because IMHO, there are going to be some Republicans who will never, ever, ever forgive him.

 

[cwalner]

That's what that CNN article said. 89% of the write-ins were uncontested, and apparently many (if not most) of the contested ones contained no misspellings or anything else that could possibly result in them not being counted for Murkowski. [ETA: The article Thunder just cited gives the uncontested figure at 89.8%.]

So it sounds like Miller will lose no matter what. [ETA: Except that I see they're still receiving mailed in absentee ballots through Friday, so we really don't know the totals yet.]

you missed my final point. some of those that are not disputed may be so because they are clearly not for Murkowski. I have seen nothing which gives those figures. I doubt it is very large, but in a close race, it doesn't have to be to have an impact. As I have said repeatedly, any election that allows write-ins is going to get some votes for Luke Skywalker and Mickey Mouse.

I still think she will eventually be declared the winner, but because it is dealing with write-ins, the ballots do have to be reviewed much more closely and it will take time to resolve.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hey Milller is desperate, he is trying to cite the unciteable Bush v Gore decision.

 

[Foggy of the Fogbow]

I can cite it:

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

How hard was that?

The issue Miller's probably referring to is the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wikipedia does a fairly accurate job of describing what happened in this instance:

Bush argued that recounts in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because there was no statewide standard that each county board could use to determine whether a given ballot was a legal vote. Each county used its own standard to manually recount each vote, and Bush argued some counties would have more lax standards than other counties. Therefore, two voters could have marked their ballot in an identical manner, but one voter's ballot in one county would be counted while the other voter's ballot in a different county would be rejected, due to the varying standards used for manual recounts.

...

The Court held the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment". Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record, as weighed by the Florida Supreme Court, suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county, even when identical types of ballots and machines were used.

.
But I should think Miller would have to find some disparity among the counties in Alaska under that standard, yesno?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can cite it:

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

How hard was that?

The issue Miller's probably referring to is the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wikipedia does a fairly accurate job of describing what happened in this instance:


.
But I should think Miller would have to find some disparity among the counties in Alaska under that standard, yesno?

The decision also uniquely is not something you can use as a precedent, by the very decision itself.

 

[Meadmaker]

Miller is scum. He lost. By a lot. The voters made it clear they didn't want him, and he's trying to undo that. If, somehow, he manages to get declared the winner, his first act in office should be to resign, because the democratic process and the principle of free elections is actually even more important than whatever his personal political goals might be.

 

[MattusMaximus]

It seems that some real drama is developing in this race, given the recent claims of "voter fraud & intimidation" coming out of the Miller camp. Personally, I'm going to enjoy watching the GOP establishment and Tea Partiers form a circular firing squad on this one

 

[Kestrel]

Nate Silver has an overview of ballot counting in Alaska. The results so far look good for Murkowski.

About 0.9 percent of the write-in ballots were legal votes deemed to be cast for someone other than Lisa Murkowski.
Another 1.4 percent of write-in ballots, which appeared to be votes for Ms. Murkowski, were successfully challenged by Mr. Miller’s campaign.
Another 8.5 percent of write-in ballots were unsuccessfully challenged by Mr. Miller’s campaign and counted for Ms. Murkowski.

For Joe Miller to win, over 11.6% of the write in ballots have to be invalid or for someone besides Murkowski.

 

[dudalb]

It seems that some real drama is developing in this race, given the recent claims of "voter fraud & intimidation" coming out of the Miller camp. Personally, I'm going to enjoy watching the GOP establishment and Tea Partiers form a circular firing squad on this one

I think that Murkowski clearly is going to win, but Miller's antics will be fun to watch.
At the moment, I ma betting that the GOP establishment is ,behind closed doors,rooting for Murkowski since Miller has shown that he is going to be a huge embarassment for the party. I don't care for Rand Paul at all, but he is not coming off like a total jerk the way Miller is.