“I recognize these voters PROBABLY meant to vote for the senator, but as a legal principle I can see requiring exact spelling on a write in.”
Let me state the following:
(1) I don’t think write in votes should be allowed - but that is a matter for the state to decide.
(2) As an outsider to Alaska I support Miller and think Murkoski is a poor loser. She should have accepted primary defeat.
(3) The will of the voters must be respected...even when I disagree with there choice. If not, then it isn’t a democracy.
Therefore, I think Joe Miller is hurting himself and conservatism to get too much into the “letter” of the law and not its “intent.” “If” clear intent is expressed in the ballot via write-in (although slightly misspelled) then the vote needs to be honored.
I prefer Joe and dislike Lisa, but I must respect the voters of that state as I would want to be respected in my own. To win on overly strict legalese is a “liberal” way of doing things. Do the “right” thing and it will come back in dividens.
What this Freeper said.
All your points are well taken. However there are answers.
Liberals have not relied on “legalese” which implies a strict application of legal details.
Liberals have relied on things like “The law says the democrats cannot substitute a new candidate in NJ for the crooked Toricelli but hey, it will be great if the democrats can win, so law be damned”!
Point 2: Unless you can read people’s minds, you THINK they meant something but you, I, Joe Miller and the election commission cannot possibly know that for sure. You are not reading the voter’s intent, you are injecting your own rather logical assumption.
But your assumption isn’t the voter’s intent, and that’s not the law in Alaska.
A candidate should not be given multiple chances to win. Lisa Murcowski could have run as a Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or "write-in", from the very beginning.
What she did was lose the Republican nomination, then considered running as an Independent, but it was too late for that. Then she tried to get the Libertarians to give her their ballot slot. They didn't go for that crap, so she was left with running as a "write-in".
This is a basic flaw in Alaska's election law. (Doubtless, many other states have this same problem.) The law should force a candidate to commit to the way they will run, by primary election day. After that date, they should not be able to change parties, or run as a "write-in".
Had Murcowski run as a "write-in", from the very beginning, would she have won? We will never know, though I am inclined to doubt it. It would have created a completely different dynamic, which probably wouldn't have worked in her favor.
Do the right thing? The right thing was for Lisa chicken-neck to concede and back Joe when he won the primary.
Hell to the NO about him conceding. Fight to the finish, I say. Or we’ll allow the Al Freakens of this country to steal every election, and they’ve done a darned good job of it so far.
The will of the voters WASN’T respected when she lost, was it? Once again, hell to the NO.
(3) The will of the voters must be respected...even when I disagree with there choice. If not, then it isn’t a democracy.
and
Do the “right” thing and it will come back in dividens.
What is "there choice"?? What is a "dividens"??
The problem with discerning the intent of the voter is that it cannot be done without telepathy. An intelligent voter should first and foremost not take chances and misspell his or her desired write-in candidate's name.
Since this is an election for a federal, not state, office, I think I have a right to be concerned and to voice my opinion as the outcome can potentially affect me in a different state through voting on a US Senate Bill by the Alaskan Senators.
The cbs argument hinges on "tiny" errors allegedly made by voters filling in the write in candidate's name(s). What exactly is a "tiny" error? The law does not specify. This does not prevent cbs from glossing over that issue and asserting that Murkowski should win. But what happens if there are two write in candidates, and their names differ by a single letter? Should a vote for one be interpreted as a vote for another, if that other candidate is close to winning? Please note that this slippery slope is avoided by strict interpretation of the law.
A voter that really cares will be sufficiently motivated to spell a candidate's name correctly. People who can't spell should not conduct business with the expectation that other people will rescue them to correct their (not "there") mistakes. The more important the business, the more care that should be taken by the people conducting the business. There is little business that is more important than voting in a national election.