Posted on 11/11/2010 3:34:25 PM PST by mdittmar
“If someone writes Cruella DeVille, are we to assume they forgot her name but meant to vote for Murkowski?”
Well, maybe.
Especially when the dolts were provided with a cheat sheet right there at the polls...
If I lose the primary, I will not contest it..Lisa said. She lost..she got mad because the Alaskans wanted someone, they chose, not one who had been put there by her dad. She gathered everyone who’d helped ole Papa help her ruin the voting laws of Alaska by write-ins and other sheenagans. So now cBS is saying Joe Miller, who was chosen during the primary to be the candidate of choice by the Alaskan Republicans, is trying to disenfranchise Alaskans?
Correct.
And we are clearly speaking about ballots that were intended to be read, by someone.
The legislature could have demanded exactitude in spelling, when drafting the law and did not.
There is no criteria in that statute demanding perfection in spelling, clearly the responsibility falls on the individual tallying the votes, subject to the challenge process.
(which may or may not speak further on the subject, but it is CLEARLY not in this instance)
Let's see what Websters has to say, shall we?
disenfranchise - n. to deprive of the right to vote
It's my understanding that the ballots in question belong to people who actually voted. Thus by definition, these individuals were not disenfranchised. If these individuals have their votes disqualified because they did not follow the rules, then the responsibility falls on them - not Joe Miller. But to say that Miller is denying them the right to vote is ludicrous. C-BS should be ashamed.
Why?
Because the requirement is to "write the name
as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy,>
of the candidate or the last name of the candidate."
With the kep phrase being "as it appears" along with where it appear "on the write-in declaration of candidcy"
Don't understand all the efforts and arguments attempting to get around the requirement to write the name "as it appears."
I mean it is clear to me, if someone says I have to write a name "as it appears" to get credit then I have to write it "as it appears" to get credit with a single exception permitted. The execption is I may write only the last name "as it appears" if I wish to do so and still get credit.
CLEARLY the point in contention is what does "as it appears" mean. For me, it CLEARLY means what it says.
Cheers!
Since the Dems ran such a weak candidate, they crossed over and voted for the Dem lite, Lisa the Liar. They were focused on keeping a Conservative out of office. Just look at the low numbers the Dem got.
Lisa the Liar got the RINO vote plus a large number of Dem, anti-Miller vote.
So..the RTKABA depends on a ‘well regulated militia’ ?
I am empathetic to those who intended to vote for Murkowski, but who were too stupid to understand how to write her name.
But, if we are just going to blow off laws because they are inconvenient, or because we discover they might not work they way we want them to, why have laws? And if we are not going to have laws, why have lawmakers?
Pretty much means she is out on her ass anyway.
The possiblity of "a well regulated militia" depends on the RTKABA.
Or,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There won't be a militia, well regulated or otherwise, without "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," a right that "shall not be infringed."
BTW - what was your point anyway?
yep...I’m an idiot
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.