Alaska GOP candidate wants to stop votes from being counted

[WildCat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101110/ap_on_re_us/us_alaska_senate

Honestly, if a voter misspells "Murkowski" by a letter or two, should the vote really not count?

I guess the answer is "yes", if you are a Republican.

So much for respecting the will of the people.

How do you think Obama got all his opponents thrown off the ballot when he first ran for Illinois Senate?

Was Obama a Republican then?

 

[hgc]

Except she failed to get the Republican nomination, so she didn't run as a Republican.

I agree she'll vote with other Republicans (and Skeptic is certainly wrong if he thinks Murkowski is a Democrat--or even a foe of the Republicans), but she's sort of in the Joe Lieberman status. She'll caucus with the Republicans without actually being a Republican.

Wrong there. She will caucus with the Republicans and is and will continue to be a Republican. Losing the GOP nomination and running a write-in campaign doesn't change that. She is still registered to vote as a Republican.

This is different from the case of the ever sniveling Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats but calls himself something else -- "Independent Democrat."

 

[hgc]

Actually, the RNC did NOT back Murkowski. In fact they told her they would strip her of any seniority and threatened to not allow her to caucus with them if she won.

Empty threats. If she is seated, it'll be all hugs and kisses.

ETA: The RNC is not the same as the Senate Republicans, whose campaign arm is the NRSC. Is it the NRSC you meant?

 

[Thunder]

How do you think Obama got all his opponents thrown off the ballot when he first ran for Illinois Senate?

evidence please.

source please.

forgive me if I choose not to take YOUR word for it.

 

[daenku32]

How do you think Obama got all his opponents thrown off the ballot when he first ran for Illinois Senate?

Was Obama a Republican then?

Are you implying a write-in candidate got more votes than Obama?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't see why ballots can't include photos of the contenders as well as their names. That would help out those who can't read, as well as cut down on at least some of the mistakes made. And maybe an audio clip that plays when you hit a button, that says "I'm Doofus McStupid, Idiot Party, running for governor!" And also these photos should be scratch-and-sniff, so you can smell your candidates.

 

[Vorticity]

And also these photos should be scratch-and-sniff, so you can smell your candidates.

That would be awesome.

"Mmmmm... He smells like cigarettes and crisp fifty dollar bills..."

 

[WildCat]

Are you implying a write-in candidate got more votes than Obama?

No, Obama got all his opponents thrown off the ballot by challenging signatures on nominating petitions.

Suppose you're registered to vote under the name of Johnathan Pawlak, of 123 Main St. Apt. 1. One day a man comes to your door asking you to sign nominating petitions for Joe Schmoe, who's running for office. You sign your name John Pawlak, of 123 Main St. Apt. 1.

Now Joe's opponent hires a lawyer to challenge your nominating petitions, pointing out that there is no John Pawlak registered to vote at 123 Main St. Apt. 1, just a Johnathan Pawlak. Oops! Sorry, that signature is invalid.

Wash, rinse, and repeat if he forgot to put "Apt. 1" on his petition signature.

Find enough innocent mistakes like that, and Joe Schmoe gets tossed off the ballot because he doesn't have enough valid signatures on his nominating petitions.

Which is exactly how Obama first got elected to the Illinois Senate - by challenging his opponents nominating petitions until they didn't have enough to remain on the ballot. Obama ran unopposed.

Even if your opponent has enough perfect signatures on his nominating petitions you can force him to burn through his entire campaign fund defending them.

That's democracy, Chicago style.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Actually, IIRC, the person who had the seat, wanted to run for congress and gave up the state senate seat so that Obama could run for that office. She changed her mind and decided to run anyway and filed the nominating papers at the last minute, but Obama successfully challenged her nominating petition and kept her (and one other challenger) off the primary ballot.

Politics ain't beanbag

 

[WildCat]

Actually, IIRC, the person who had the seat, wanted to run for congress and gave up the state senate seat so that Obama could run for that office. She changed her mind and decided to run anyway and filed the nominating papers at the last minute, but Obama successfully challenged her nominating petition and kept her (and one other challenger) off the primary ballot.

Politics ain't beanbag

Have you ever compared Chicago's requirements to get on the ballot with other cities requirements?

In Chicago, to run for Mayor you need 12,500 valid signatures. New York City, nearly 3 times the size, requires only 7,500. Los Angeles, with nearly 1 million more people, requires only 1,000 signatures, or only 500 if you pay a $300 filing fee.

In Illinois, the system is rigged in favor of the incumbents, who typically have large organizations already in place. And that's exactly the intended effect.

 

[AlBell]

What a jerk.

Now. Now. Murcowsky? Mikoosy? Mockfloozy? is the jerk.

 

[dudalb]

THe first reports of the vote count are in; 89% of the write in votes cast have been counted for Murkowski. It looks as though Joe Miller is going down.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wrong there. She will caucus with the Republicans and is and will continue to be a Republican. Losing the GOP nomination and running a write-in campaign doesn't change that. She is still registered to vote as a Republican.

But she ran against the Republican nominee. This is exactly the same situation as Lieberman. He lost the primary, then ran as an independent. Murkowski lost the primary and ran as a write-in. She did NOT run as a Republican.

This is different from the case of the ever sniveling Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats but calls himself something else -- "Independent Democrat."

She might still call herself a Republican, but again, she ran against the Republican nominee.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't see why ballots can't include photos of the contenders as well as their names.

The ballots include neither (for Murkowski and the 160 or so other write-in candidates). That's why they're write-ins; they're NOT on the ballot.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

THe first reports of the vote count are in; 89% of the write in votes cast have been counted for Murkowski. It looks as though Joe Miller is going down.

That's good. I would hate to see Murkowski (or anyone) lose due to a slimy tactic like this radio host was trying to pull off.

Any Alaskans here? I'm curious as to whether or not Murkowski spent any of her final campaign efforts on making sure voters knew exactly how to cast a write in vote for her.

 

[dudalb]

That's good. I would hate to see Murkowski (or anyone) lose due to a slimy tactic like this radio host was trying to pull off.

Any Alaskans here? I'm curious as to whether or not Murkowski spent any of her final campaign efforts on making sure voters knew exactly how to cast a write in vote for her.

Not an Alaskan, but there were several stories in the national press about how Murkowski was spending a great deal of time explaining exactly how to cast a write in vote.

ANd I mispoke. The 89% of the write in votes going to Murkowski I mentioned are UNCHALLENGED write in votes.
WHen you aid the votes that were challenged by Miller and the challenge was overruled, it is close to 98% of the write in are for Murkowski. THe phony write in effort was a major flop.

 

[tyr_13]

Now. Now. Murcowsky? Mikoosy? Mockfloozy? is the jerk.

How? Because she isn't a Tea Party backed wackjob? (I'm not saying Miller is a wackjob because the Tea Party backed him, I'm saying that he's a wackjob and Tea Party supported.)

 

[hgc]

But she ran against the Republican nominee. This is exactly the same situation as Lieberman. He lost the primary, then ran as an independent. Murkowski lost the primary and ran as a write-in. She did NOT run as a Republican.

She might still call herself a Republican, but again, she ran against the Republican nominee.

Yeah, she ran against the Republican nominee, but she's still a Republican if a) she's registered to vote as a Republican and b) she calls herself one. Lieberman, in order to get on the CT ballot after losing the Dem nod, was required to create a party to run under. It was (and is?) called the Connecticut for Lieberman party. In any case, Lieberman could re-register as a Democrat any time, and unambiguously call himself a Democrat, but he chooses not to.

Murkowski, as a write-in candidate, had no requirement to run under any party line, and continues to call herself a Republican. The election is over (practically), and this is all going to be water under the bridge. Believe me, the GOP non-Tea establishment prefers her to an unschooled embarassment like Joe Miller, and only publicly supported him as a pro-forma nod to the prerogatives of the Alaska Republican primary voters -- something the Dem establishment could have done lot better on in regards to Ned Lamont against the ever sniveling Lieberman.

 

[quixotecoyote]

How? Because she isn't a Tea Party backed wackjob? (I'm not saying Miller is a wackjob because the Tea Party backed him, I'm saying that he's a wackjob and Tea Party supported.)

Or perhaps the Tea Party supported him because he's a whackjob.

 

[Meadmaker]

After the Minnesota recount of 2008, I thought the people of that state had a lot to be proud of in the way they conducted that election with such a high level of openness. I wonder if the same will be said of Alaska at the end of this.

I'm not highly optimistic, but bigger surprises have happened.