• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Joe Miller camp files suit over Alaska write-in ballots

There was a chance the Dem would win just because she felt she was entitled to that seat.

Proving what many have suspected for quite sometime. Many politicians think they are "entitled" to their seats.
 
Well, it looks like there's a good chance the voters who own the seat made her entitled to it this time around.
 
For a vote to be counted, the intent of the voter is what is important.....

and no human is in a position to divine that intent

especially some human holding a political office
 
and no human is in a position to divine that intent

especially some human holding a political office

I see that you left off the relevant part of my post, and that is dishonest as hell.

Ladies and gentlemen of DP - Here is the entirety of my post, which the Prof so dishonestly edited, when he responded:

danarhea said:
For a vote to be counted, the intent of the voter is what is important.....


Wait a minute. I see your point. If someone writes in "Lisa Mercowsky" it should not count. It is clearly not her. [/sarcasm]

There is clearly nothing to divine here. Sheesh!!

The part in red is what the Prof cut out of my quote, and his edit of my post changes completely the meaning of what I posted. That is just damn dishonest.

Prof - You sure that you aren't Stinger? He used to edit posts too, to make them look different than what the poster intended. He tried that crap with me too, and I caught him with his pants down, just like I caught you now. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
5179AVC88KL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
 
This issue here is that Miller wants ballots thrown out that misspell Murkowski's name, even if only one letter is incorrect. Never mind that the intent of the voter is crystal clear when he or she wrote in Murkowski's name.

I have only one statement to make here:

Joe Miller - You are an ass and a douche bag of the lowest calibre. And you will not succeed in circumventing the will of the voters, who probably already knew what kind of a dishonest bitch you really are, hence the reason they voted for your opponent.

OK, make that 2 statements. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

both are douchebags
he for doing that-she for not respecting the primary results and being a sore loser

Neither one is little miss purity
 
Wait a minute. I see your point. If someone writes in "Lisa Mercowsky" it should not count. It is clearly not her. [/sarcasm]

There is clearly nothing to divine here. Sheesh!!

there are literally thousands of variations of expression subject to an awful lot more divination than a liza merkelski, my fired up friend
 
Seems even his lawyers are giving up now.. hahaha.. bye bye the fascist Joe Miller.
 
Seems even his lawyers are giving up now.. hahaha.. bye bye the fascist Joe Miller.

Before you get too excited... it ain't over yet.

Nov 13, 2010
Murkowski camp growing more confident of victory

there are still thousands other votes yet to be tallied (at least 8,800 absentee votes plus more to be tallied from overseas) which could skew in Miller's favor, and if the difference between Miller and Murkowski is 1,246 or fewer votes -- 0.5 percent of all votes cast -- the election outcome will be close enough to trigger a state-funded recount. Not to mention Miller has launched a series of legal questions about whether less-than-perfect votes -- those with misspellings -- should count. He says no, Murkwoski says yes, and the court fight could become much higher stakes if it is challenged ballots on which the election will be decided. Also, more recently Miller has lodged allegations of possible fraud, and he's seeking voter registries to verify that the number of votes from certain areas didn't exceed the number of legally registered voters and to assess whether voters filled out their own ballots.

.
 
Last edited:
no, you play by the rules of the game. the law states X, then X is what needs to occur, irregardless of whether or not you like X.

I'm all for playing by the rules, but the idea of Miller using the law to club voters over the head is outrageous. This isn't about him or Murkowski, it's about voters. This isn't quite as chickensh*t as what Algore did in Florida (at least Miller is using the rules...), but it's up there in that neighborhood.
 
The signs of a flawed election system is when courts of law have to decide the outcome.. pathetic.

The courts aren't going to decide the winner. The courts are going to ensure that the will of the voters on election day is respected. There is a CLEAR difference between the two...
 
both are douchebags
he for doing that-she for not respecting the primary results and being a sore loser

Neither one is little miss purity

Uhh, the results of the general election pretty conclusively prove that she was just as viable a candidate. You're calling what appears to be the winner a "sore loser." Bull**** legal challenges about write-ins be damned, it's pretty clear that more of the Alaskan voters support Murkowski.

Respect the primary? The primary, in this case, got it wrong.
 
Wow, a typical politician attempting to screw over a typical politician. Who'd a thunk it.

Gotta love the state of politics in this day and age.
 
Wow, a typical politician attempting to screw over a typical politician. Who'd a thunk it.

Gotta love the state of politics in this day and age.

I agree, if this situation was in reverse you'd have them doing exactly what the other is doing.
 
The courts aren't going to decide the winner. The courts are going to ensure that the will of the voters on election day is respected. There is a CLEAR difference between the two...

And if there was an election system in place that had the confidence of the people, then it would not have to be so. And in the end, it is the court that decides who wins.. like it or not.. the election system is incapable of finding the winner because the rules are weak. If the system was strong, then there would be no reason to take it to the courts...
 
And if there was an election system in place that had the confidence of the people, then it would not have to be so. And in the end, it is the court that decides who wins.. like it or not.. the election system is incapable of finding the winner because the rules are weak. If the system was strong, then there would be no reason to take it to the courts...

Thats why courts exist to interpret the rules and laws which we live under, its about deciding exactly what it means when Alaska state law says "legible hand written name."

The rules are not weak they just need to be interpreted by a court.
 
Thats why courts exist to interpret the rules and laws which we live under, its about deciding exactly what it means when Alaska state law says "legible hand written name."

The rules are not weak they just need to be interpreted by a court.

There should be no doubt what so ever in the election rules.. that is my point!
 
Thats why courts exist to interpret the rules and laws which we live under, its about deciding exactly what it means when Alaska state law says "legible hand written name."

The rules are not weak they just need to be interpreted by a court.

There should be no doubt what so ever in the election rules.. that is my point!
 
There should be no doubt what so ever in the election rules.. that is my point!

There isn't. Case law in Alaska has set the precedent for ages that the intent of the voter is used.
 
There should be no doubt what so ever in the election rules.. that is my point!

I honestly don't know the courts work where you live, so I'll give you a simple example of how it works here. My intent is strictly to illustrate that your point is kinda moot.

If the election law here stated that you had to cast your ballot while standing on one leg, and every voter in fact cast their ballot with one foot in the air, the losing candidate could opt to bring a court action intended to throw all of the ballots on the grounds that the voters were standing on their foot, not their leg.

In other words, no matter how obvious either the law itself or the accepted interpretation is for the bystander, anybody can bring a court action against anyone or anything for any reason.

That's because we're guaranteed our day in court, and since the only way to determine if someone's suit is too stupid for court is to actually have it heard in court, there's really very little anyone can do except sit back and laugh.
 
This is not just hard-ball politics being played against her. This is some piece of **** politician giving voters who did not vote for him the middle finger by trying to throw their votes away.

What's the law say? If it states that mispellings, as long as it's obvious who the voter intended to vote for, are cool, then Miller doesn't have a pot to piss in.

If the law states that no misspellings are acceptable, then Miller has a case.
 
There should be no doubt what so ever in the election rules.. that is my point!

There isn't, until a politico hires some scumbag lawyer to fight his/her defeat in an election.
 
There isn't, until a politico hires some scumbag lawyer to fight his/her defeat in an election.

Which is why Miller is a scumbag. It is also why both Coleman and Franken were scumbags in the Minnesota Senate election. Both elections were attempts to put winning an election over the will of the voters. However, it's not always the case. Bush used the court in order to stop Gore from cherry picking counties in the recount, and attempting to throw out some of the military overseas votes. This was a case where a court was necessary. I wouldn't call Bush a scumbag for attempting to right an injustice by way of a lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
What's the law say? If it states that mispellings, as long as it's obvious who the voter intended to vote for, are cool, then Miller doesn't have a pot to piss in.

If the law states that no misspellings are acceptable, then Miller has a case.

Regardless of what the law says Miller is still a scumbag.He is trying to steal votes from the voters.
 
Back
Top Bottom