Tea party candidate Joe Miller attempts to block "write in" votes over spelling

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Honestly if you're unable to spell their name correctly, your vote really shouldn't count. We need a way of removing as many morons as possible from the election process.

Originally posted by howmuch4another
Miller isn't "go"ing anywhere. The law is being enforced and he is making sure of it.

Oh yes, he's making sure that folks spell the names of their candidates correctly, right, and you will just take this excuse and run with it, right.

If miller wins, part of this will be over his attempts in blocking votes for the other candidates. But yes I'm sure you find that acceptable enough, we have a silly state law to look to, we'll just use that.

Probably not as it is the law.

"Probably not", ok.

Originally posted by Gakus
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Honestly if you're unable to spell their name correctly, your vote really shouldn't count. We need a way of removing as many morons as possible from the election process.

Right, and you'll be doing this by targeting Murkowski voters?

It is our constitutional right as citizens to vote for whom we want to see representing us. Literacy tests have been proven time and time again to be an easy way to voter fraud. I have no doubt there were morons who voted for Miller and morons who actually think the tea party candidates are beyond just a political brand. However ignorant voters will be an inevitability, by establishing laws barring certain people you do not solve the problem, you only allow for stripping people's right to choice.

The law is the law .... Unless you are a politician. Then you get to be above the law. She is the incumbant .... She should be gone.

Fire Congress. All of them.

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
The law is the law

Oh yes, ok then:

Arkansas:
--A man can legally beat his wife, but no more than once a month.

California:
--In, LA, a man may legally beat his wife with a leather strap, as long as it is less than 2 inches wide, or she gives him permission to use a wider strap.
--It is a misdemeanor to shoot any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Florida:
--Unmarried women who parachute on Sunday's will be jailed.

Georgia:
--In Quitman, it is illegal for a chicken to cross the road.
--In Columbus, it is illegal to sit on one's porch in an indecent position.

Indiana:
--Monkey's are forbidden to smoke cigarettes in South Bend.

Illinois:
--In Chicago, it is illegal to take a french poodle to the Opera.
--According to state law, it is illegal to speak English. The officially recognized language is "American."
--In Joliet, it is illegal to mispronounce the name Joliet.

Massachusetts:
--It is illegal to wear a goatee without a license.
--North Andover prohibits its citizens from carrying "space guns."
--In 1659, the state outlawed Christmas.

Minnesota:
--It is illegal to tease skunks.
--Every man in Brainerd is required by law to grow a beard.

Michigan:
--A State law stipulates that a woman's hair legally belongs to her husband.
--Under State law, dentists are officially classified as "mechanics."

Montana:
--In Whitehall, it is illegal to operate a vehicle with ice picks attached to the wheels.
--It is a felony for a wife to open her husband's mail.

New York:
--In NYC, "it is disorderly conduct for one man to greet another on the street by placing the end of his thumb against the tip of his nose and wiggling the extended fingers of that hand."

North Carolina:
--It is illegal to make love on the floor of a hotel room between two double beds.

Oklahoma:
--Whale hunting is strictly forbidden.
--People who make "ugly faces" at dogs may be fined and/or jailed.

Ohio:
--In Columbus, it is illegal for stores to sell corn flakes on Sunday.
--In Oxford, it's illegal for a woman to disrobe in front of a man's picture.
--In Youngstown, it is illegal to run out of gas.

Oregon:
--The town of Hood River prohibits the act of juggling without a license.

Nebraska:
--If a child burps during a church service in Omaha, his or her parents may be arrested.
--It is illegal for a mother to give her daughter a perm without a state license

Pennsylvania:
--"Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass. If the horses appear skittish, the motorist must take his car apart piece by piece, and hide it under the nearest bushes."

Rhode Island:
--Its illegal to throw pickle juice on a trolley.

Tennessee:
--It is illegal to use a lasso to catch a fish.
--In Dyersburg, it is illegal for a woman to call a man for a date.
--In Memphis, it is illegal for a woman to drive by herself; "a man must walk or run in front of the vehicle, waving a red flag in order to warn approaching pedestrians and motorists."

Texas:
--The entire Encyclopedia Brittanica is banned because it contains a formula for making beer at home.
--It is illegal to milk another person's cow.

Utah:
--A husband is responsible for every criminal act committed by his wife
in his presence.

Virginia:
--In Richmond, it is illegal to flip a coin in any eating establishment to determine who buys a cup of coffee.
--In Lebanon, it is illegal to kick your wife out of bed.

Vermont:
--It is illegal to deny the existence of God.
--It is illegal to whistle underwater.
--Women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth.

But hey, the law is the law, unless ofcourse it's passed by liberals.

She is the incumbant .... She should be gone.

Ah yes, never mind the choice of the voters by majority, you have your own personal agenda. I do not care much about Murkowski's policies in this case, it's the nature of how "write in" votes are being blocked. This has huge consequence from people who will in time have the choice of two established candidates, and may want to vote outside. This is about the opportunity of third party candidates and candidates not given the chance to be on the ballot. These kinds of tactics contribute to the two major parties being established and while Murkowski was an incumbent, it still doesn't change the fact that opportunities to vote outside what's just given to you will be blocked at every attempt.

Fire all of them

And replace them with new Republicans and Democrats, as it has been done for the past 50 years.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You said:

But hey, the law is the law, unless ofcourse it's passed by liberals.

I addressed this on the previous page. This is exactly how Obama got his rivals removed from the ballots in Illinois. In fact, that was pretty much just what he said about it in 2007 when asked. Said he was just abiding by the rules that had been set up. So, why is it that abiding by the law is okay for Obama, but when some candidate that you don't like expects the same laws to be upheld it isn't okay?

You continue to run with this theme, but have yet to answer or address a very similar instance of this happening by Obama. This makes it look an awful lot like you are condoning the practice when done by a candidate you like and condemning it when done by one you dislike. Isn't that the kind of hypocrisy that the country is fed up with and led to the Democratic party losing the House?

Take care,
Cindi

Originally posted by Glencairn
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

You said:

But hey, the law is the law, unless ofcourse it's passed by liberals.

I addressed this on the previous page. This is exactly how Obama got his rivals removed from the ballots in Illinois. In fact, that was pretty much just what he said about it in 2007 when asked. Said he was just abiding by the rules that had been set up. So, why is it that abiding by the law is okay for Obama, but when some candidate that you don't like expects the same laws to be upheld it isn't okay?

You continue to run with this theme, but have yet to answer or address a very similar instance of this happening by Obama. This makes it look an awful lot like you are condoning the practice when done by a candidate you like and condemning it when done by one you dislike. Isn't that the kind of hypocrisy that the country is fed up with and led to the Democratic party losing the House?

Take care,
Cindi

Southern won't answer you. But your right. If it was a democrat it would be perfectly fine with Southern if the democrat candidate asked for the law to be enforced. But since its miller and he's backed by the tea party and Southern doesn't like the tea party or republicans for that matter, he is MAKING AN ISSUE OUT OF NOTHING REALLY. You'll notice he didn't answer me on the previous page either because he can't spin facts to suit his "issue" to answer me.

reply to post by Mercenary2007


I sure did notice that your point wasn't addressed. I don't expect that mine will be, either. It doesn't fit the spin, as you pointed out. That doesn't mean that they weren't valid questions and issues that really should be addressed, but what are you gonna do? It just goes to show others the partisan rhetoric that is still being spun and how what is good for the Obama goose apparently isn't also good for the Miller gander.

Take care,
Cindi

reply to post by Glencairn


Now I was not aware that Obama did any of this? Care to source a link? Neither do I see any hypocrisy in my posts as I had never argued the opposite in the case that Obama or any other candidate did it.

Either you believe what Miller is doing is wrong or you don't, pointing to what other candidates did does not make it any more acceptable or does not dismiss the issue. There's this assumption that by whining about the actions of other candidate you'll just dismiss this issue at hand, but isn't that hypocrisy in itself?

Yep. I'll leave ya'll to it.

Firstly, Judge Denies Injunction Against Murkowski

A federal court judge has denied a request by Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller to immediately stop the state Division of Elections from counting write-in ballots.

In my opinion, determining voter intent is crucial. A misspelling of the name is, IMO, not relevant.

As I read the Alaska statute, the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of the candidate OR the the last name of the candidate is written in the space is required to specify the voter's choice. The second part of that requirement (after the OR) does not specify spelling.

When a voter's vote is counted, the INTENT of the voter MUST be taken into consideration.

Originally posted by Glencairn
This is exactly how Obama got his rivals removed from the ballots in Illinois.

Not exactly. Voter intent had nothing to do with Obama's situation. In 1996, Obama challenged the signatures of his opponents and the Elections Commission found that they did not meet the requirements for signature-gathering.

On December 26, Obama campaign volunteer Ron Davis filed objections to the legitimacy of the nominating petitions of incumbent state Sen. Palmer, and to those of Askia, Ewell and Lynch.[11][12]

On January 17, 1996, Palmer announced she was withdrawing her bid for re-election because she was a couple of hundred signatures short of the 757 needed to earn a place on the ballot after almost two-thirds of the 1,580 signatures on her nominating petitions were found to be invalid.[12][13] The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners had previously sustained an objection to the nominating petitions of Lynch because of insufficient valid signatures, and subsequently also sustained objections to the nominating petitions of Askia and Ewell because of insufficient valid signatures.[12][13]

en.wikipedia.org...

To me, insufficient signatures is a very different situation than a simple misspelling of a name BY A VOTER.

To add: While we do know what disqualifies a signature, I have not seen a specific listing of why these particular signatures were disqualified. It COULD be because the person was dead, it COULD be because they signed the wrong name or it COULD be some other technicality. But as to the the specifics of the 1996 State Senate election, I do not believe we have any idea why the signatures were actually disqualified.

In any case, it had nothing to do with the voter's voice not being heard.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Sorry, but we do know why names were disqualified with Obama. I am here near Chicago and watched it all as it was happening. It was all over the news for a bit and the reasons that names were thrown out were examined and discussed in depth. There were a handful of reasons, not just a single problem, but let's be real honest here: removing names because they were printed and not written in cursive is far and away even more petty than removing names (or not counting votes, in this case) because they didn't spell the candidate's name correctly.

The bottom line, though, is that both actions have been done based on each of the candidates interpretation of the law. Obama just managed to get a judge to go along and agree with his interpretation where it appears that Miller couldn't. Both appear to be petty actions and taken in the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.

I also respectfully disagree in regard to intent. It actually does enter into the area of voter intentions, too. At least, potentially. It could be guessed that if someone is signing a petition and trying to get a candidate on the ballot, that they will also likely be voting for that candidate. So, having a rival removed from being able to be voted for is just as much tampering with voter intent as having votes be thrown out because voter's couldn't be bothered enough with taking the time to ensure that their vote would be counted by spelling their candidate's name correctly. Look, I agree and do believe that voter intent should be considered first. That doesn't mean that I don't see the hypocrisy that the people are sick of, though. If it is good for Obama, it should also be good for Miller. If it isn't good for Miller, it shouldn't have been good for Obama.

Take care,
Cindi

Originally posted by Glencairn
Sorry, but we do know why names were disqualified with Obama.

But do you now how many were faked, how many were names of dead people, how many were names of people who didn't exist? Do you know the rundown? Two thirds of them were found to be not valid, for various reasons. I agree that a printed name shouldn't be disqualified, but how many were like that?

From what I've read, it's common for politicians to challenge the signatures of other candidates. Alice Palmer HASTILY gathered the signatures and that would put a question in my mind too.

It's one thing to fake signatures with the intent of illegally getting on the ballot, quite another to purposely discard a voter's voice in the voting booth when the intent is perfectly clear.

I understand that you see it as the same thing, but I do not.

Originally posted by centurion1211
According to the Alaska statute the name on the ballot must match the candidate list and these rules are mandatory. No misspellings allowed.

(10) 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.

(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.

If that is not an authoritarian line to take - It is funny when you contrast the "freedom" rhetoric of the Right
and then let GOVERNMENT and its regulation disenfranchise voters, to subvert the entire constitutional process from the cradle of that process.

Joe Miller is a wet sock of a man for this, extremely pussy in fact -

If I were ever in that position the very honor my parents distilled in me would take over,,, Miller shows him self to be nothing more than a politician - that is what Alaska will get

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
The law is the law

Oh yes, ok then:

Arkansas:
--A man can legally beat his wife, but no more than once a month.

California:
--In, LA, a man may legally beat his wife with a leather strap, as long as it is less than 2 inches wide, or she gives him permission to use a wider strap.
--It is a misdemeanor to shoot any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Florida:
--Unmarried women who parachute on Sunday's will be jailed.

Georgia:
--In Quitman, it is illegal for a chicken to cross the road.
--In Columbus, it is illegal to sit on one's porch in an indecent position.

Indiana:
--Monkey's are forbidden to smoke cigarettes in South Bend.

Illinois:
--In Chicago, it is illegal to take a french poodle to the Opera.
--According to state law, it is illegal to speak English. The officially recognized language is "American."
--In Joliet, it is illegal to mispronounce the name Joliet.

Massachusetts:
--It is illegal to wear a goatee without a license.
--North Andover prohibits its citizens from carrying "space guns."
--In 1659, the state outlawed Christmas.

Minnesota:
--It is illegal to tease skunks.
--Every man in Brainerd is required by law to grow a beard.

Michigan:
--A State law stipulates that a woman's hair legally belongs to her husband.
--Under State law, dentists are officially classified as "mechanics."

Montana:
--In Whitehall, it is illegal to operate a vehicle with ice picks attached to the wheels.
--It is a felony for a wife to open her husband's mail.

New York:
--In NYC, "it is disorderly conduct for one man to greet another on the street by placing the end of his thumb against the tip of his nose and wiggling the extended fingers of that hand."

North Carolina:
--It is illegal to make love on the floor of a hotel room between two double beds.

Oklahoma:
--Whale hunting is strictly forbidden.
--People who make "ugly faces" at dogs may be fined and/or jailed.

Ohio:
--In Columbus, it is illegal for stores to sell corn flakes on Sunday.
--In Oxford, it's illegal for a woman to disrobe in front of a man's picture.
--In Youngstown, it is illegal to run out of gas.

Oregon:
--The town of Hood River prohibits the act of juggling without a license.

Nebraska:
--If a child burps during a church service in Omaha, his or her parents may be arrested.
--It is illegal for a mother to give her daughter a perm without a state license

Pennsylvania:
--"Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass. If the horses appear skittish, the motorist must take his car apart piece by piece, and hide it under the nearest bushes."

Rhode Island:
--Its illegal to throw pickle juice on a trolley.

Tennessee:
--It is illegal to use a lasso to catch a fish.
--In Dyersburg, it is illegal for a woman to call a man for a date.
--In Memphis, it is illegal for a woman to drive by herself; "a man must walk or run in front of the vehicle, waving a red flag in order to warn approaching pedestrians and motorists."

Texas:
--The entire Encyclopedia Brittanica is banned because it contains a formula for making beer at home.
--It is illegal to milk another person's cow.

Utah:
--A husband is responsible for every criminal act committed by his wife
in his presence.

Virginia:
--In Richmond, it is illegal to flip a coin in any eating establishment to determine who buys a cup of coffee.
--In Lebanon, it is illegal to kick your wife out of bed.

Vermont:
--It is illegal to deny the existence of God.
--It is illegal to whistle underwater.
--Women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth.

But hey, the law is the law, unless ofcourse it's passed by liberals.

She is the incumbant .... She should be gone.

Ah yes, never mind the choice of the voters by majority, you have your own personal agenda. I do not care much about Murkowski's policies in this case, it's the nature of how "write in" votes are being blocked. This has huge consequence from people who will in time have the choice of two established candidates, and may want to vote outside. This is about the opportunity of third party candidates and candidates not given the chance to be on the ballot. These kinds of tactics contribute to the two major parties being established and while Murkowski was an incumbent, it still doesn't change the fact that opportunities to vote outside what's just given to you will be blocked at every attempt.

Fire all of them

And replace them with new Republicans and Democrats, as it has been done for the past 50 years.

Thanks SG

I thought the point was to get rid of the ludicrous and tyrannical aspects of governance -

This all says a lot to me, three dollar Tea Party, anything to will or cheat will governmental help

Rich...

I like when someone else does something bad, it is okay for you to do something bad.

Clearly, if I get robbed, I should be able to rob someone.

Seriously, this is what you can compare this argument by the Miller camp and supports to. It's seriously that stupid.

In 99.99999% of every case Miller seems to question the intent of the voter...well, it's been very clear who was written in the space. You see LISA MURKOWSKI. In some odd cases, you might see a Y, maybe a E, but it's clear what the intent is. Playing this semantics game ultimately only harms this voting process considering it's seriously really clear who the hell is being voted for.

I wonder how much this is costing the state of Alaska?

Sheesh, some of you people.

I see nothing that explicitly requires exact spelling...so why are people going on about "the law?"

So, since there is nothing in there requiring exact spelling...then why do we have a problem with someone determining intent?

What is the big freaking deal here?

Check out the spellings they ARE allowing and those that they aren't.

But Miller and his lawyers are challenging ballots that only a dolt could misread as anything but a Murkowski vote. Miller tried to toss out ballots with "Merkowski," "Murkowsky" and "Murcowski," but election officials overruled their objections and counted them toward Murkowski’s vote.

Other misspellings were not allowed, such as "McCosky," "Misskowski" and "Morcowski," which is too bad. No one else with a similar name campaigned as a write-in candidate.

Miller’s effort smacks of desperation and a lack of respect for the voice of the people. Alaska’s ballot counters shouldn’t be cowed by a sore loser.

blog.nj.com...

Originally posted by SpectreDC
I like when someone else does something bad, it is okay for you to do something bad.

Clearly, if I get robbed, I should be able to rob someone.

Seriously, this is what you can compare this argument by the Miller camp and supports to. It's seriously that stupid.

In 99.99999% of every case Miller seems to question the intent of the voter...well, it's been very clear who was written in the space. You see LISA MURKOWSKI. In some odd cases, you might see a Y, maybe a E, but it's clear what the intent is. Playing this semantics game ultimately only harms this voting process considering it's seriously really clear who the hell is being voted for.

I wonder how much this is costing the state of Alaska?

Agreed - I don't care if it's

MERCOWSKI

or

MURCKOWISKY

if it phonetically sounds like the correct name it should be counted...

Anything less is dishonorable, lawyer-like and weak

Sheesh.

They need to bring in the same system we use in Australia.

We get a piece of paper, preprinted with a list of candidates and a little box next to each name. Then we write the number "1" next to who we want to vote for. No names required

Obviously there are some people whose votes will be considered invalid because they put a tick or a X... or deliberately cast a donkey vote by putting 2 "1" or just dont bother ticking.

Sorry OP, you are using the standard tatic of attempting to demonize and ridicule the opposing position.

Federal election law HAS ALWAYES stated the spelling must be precise. Otherwise discrepancies are left to interpretation. There is no room in an election for any voter to have their intent questioned let alone interpreted by another .

By the way "Tea Party Joe Miller" & "Republican Joe Miller" was the first clue to your ill-intent. At least that was my interpretation.