Alaska Absentee/Write-in/Provisional Count

[Smash255]

See the link below the image??  Click it then scroll down

So how did they choose their sample?  Was it random?

Look at the first one.  Is that a "k" because you were checking to see whether it was an attempt to spell Murkowski, or because it looked like a "k'

It could be Muyauxi

The second is for Markowski

The fourth is for Muvkowski

The last is for Mxkauski

What? Are you being serious? Surely they're all spelled correctly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok and??  We know that, the discussion were the ballots highlighted in that other article which were clear as day all spelled Murkowski.

It indicates that the other sample was biased.

Pretend you are the Washington lawyer from Patton Boggs who has been hired for how many $100 or $1000/hour plus expenses to win the election for your client.  Part of your job is to create a public impression that Murkowski had won.   You didn't get hired because Lisa wanted to make sure that Joe got a fair shake.

Agreed?

The contested ballots had a continuum of discrepancies.  You are going to argue that those that were for "Lisa Minnelli" are really for Murkowski because the singer spells her first name with a "Z", and you are going to instruct your watchers to get pictures of the ballots on the
extreme edge and distribute those to the press.

How does it indicate the other sample was biased.

It was pretty clear that the Miller campaign challenged ballots that were clearly legible and spelled correctly.  Miller's camp has also challenged ballots that were not spelled correctly but pretty obvious who they were attempting to vote for.  Its pretty clear all Miller is trying to do here is suppress the vote. 

With that being said at this point it doesn't matter because he is behind by over 2,000 ballots even if you don't include the ballots he challenged that were spelled incorrect and the ballots he challenged that were spelled correctly.  However, he still won't stop despite having not even a remote path to victory.

[The Dowager Mod]

Petulant crybaby.

[jimrtex]

See the link below the image??  Click it then scroll down

So how did they choose their sample?  Was it random?

Look at the first one.  Is that a "k" because you were checking to see whether it was an attempt to spell Murkowski, or because it looked like a "k'

It could be Muyauxi

The second is for Markowski

The fourth is for Muvkowski

The last is for Mxkauski

What? Are you being serious? Surely they're all spelled correctly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok and??  We know that, the discussion were the ballots highlighted in that other article which were clear as day all spelled Murkowski.

It indicates that the other sample was biased.

Pretend you are the Washington lawyer from Patton Boggs who has been hired for how many $100 or $1000/hour plus expenses to win the election for your client.  Part of your job is to create a public impression that Murasaki had won.   You didn't get hired because Lisa wanted to make sure that Joe got a fair shake.

Agreed?

The contested ballots had a continuum of discrepancies.  You are going to argue that those that were for "Lisa Minnelli" are really for Murkowski because the singer spells her first name with a "Z", and you are going to instruct your watchers to get pictures of the ballots on the
extreme edge and distribute those to the press.

How does it indicate the other sample was biased.

It was pretty clear that the Miller campaign challenged ballots that were clearly legible and spelled correctly.  Miller's camp has also challenged ballots that were not spelled correctly but pretty obvious who they were attempting to vote for.  Its pretty clear all Miller is trying to do here is suppress the vote. 

90,000 ballots weren't challenged.

So now you are inferring that they were no more legible than the 11,000 ballots that were challenged.  On what basis are you making that assumption?  I doubt that the Miller count watchers had time to closely examine each ballot long enough to make a 100% consistent objection.  So there are probably some of those 90,000 that are worse than the some of those that were challenged.

We know that the Director of Election was accepting ballots that were clearly misspelled, even though the Malinowski campaign itself ran TV ads emphasizing that state law required that the correct spelling of her name.  And we know that the Director of Elections rejected ballots that were badly spelled, that Murkiness observers wanted to be counted.  Why weren't we shown any of those?

The only reason that someone would interpret that "K" with the long descender as a "K" given that it didn't match the other "K" was because they assumed that the word being spelled was Murkily or Murasaki.

[Smash255]

See the link below the image??  Click it then scroll down

So how did they choose their sample?  Was it random?

Look at the first one.  Is that a "k" because you were checking to see whether it was an attempt to spell Murkowski, or because it looked like a "k'

It could be Muyauxi

The second is for Markowski

The fourth is for Muvkowski

The last is for Mxkauski

What? Are you being serious? Surely they're all spelled correctly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok and??  We know that, the discussion were the ballots highlighted in that other article which were clear as day all spelled Murkowski.

It indicates that the other sample was biased.

Pretend you are the Washington lawyer from Patton Boggs who has been hired for how many $100 or $1000/hour plus expenses to win the election for your client.  Part of your job is to create a public impression that Murasaki had won.   You didn't get hired because Lisa wanted to make sure that Joe got a fair shake.

Agreed?

The contested ballots had a continuum of discrepancies.  You are going to argue that those that were for "Lisa Minnelli" are really for Murkowski because the singer spells her first name with a "Z", and you are going to instruct your watchers to get pictures of the ballots on the
extreme edge and distribute those to the press.

How does it indicate the other sample was biased.

It was pretty clear that the Miller campaign challenged ballots that were clearly legible and spelled correctly.  Miller's camp has also challenged ballots that were not spelled correctly but pretty obvious who they were attempting to vote for.  Its pretty clear all Miller is trying to do here is suppress the vote. 

90,000 ballots weren't challenged.

So now you are inferring that they were no more legible than the 11,000 ballots that were challenged.  On what basis are you making that assumption?  I doubt that the Miller count watchers had time to closely examine each ballot long enough to make a 100% consistent objection.  So there are probably some of those 90,000 that are worse than the some of those that were challenged.

We know that the Director of Election was accepting ballots that were clearly misspelled, even though the Malinowski campaign itself ran TV ads emphasizing that state law required that the correct spelling of her name.  And we know that the Director of Elections rejected ballots that were badly spelled, that Murkiness observers wanted to be counted.  Why weren't we shown any of those?

The only reason that someone would interpret that "K" with the long descender as a "K" given that it didn't match the other "K" was because they assumed that the word being spelled was Murkily or Murasaki.

The basis I am making the assumption on is what is in the ADN article earlier in the thread.  Its clear as day its legible as Murkowski and spelled correctly.  Alaska law is a bit murky granted.  Part of the law does say spelled the way on the ballot, but the state has other precedent for voter intent which is what the judge is basing it off of.

Regardless, Miller is down by over 2,000 votes even without including the misspelled ballots or the correctly spelled and legible ballots that his camp objected to, he should just concede already.  Its over.  He has no path to victory whatsoever.

[jimrtex]

See the link below the image??  Click it then scroll down

So how did they choose their sample?  Was it random?

Look at the first one.  Is that a "k" because you were checking to see whether it was an attempt to spell Murkowski, or because it looked like a "k'

It could be Muyauxi

The second is for Markowski

The fourth is for Muvkowski

The last is for Mxkauski

What? Are you being serious? Surely they're all spelled correctly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok and??  We know that, the discussion were the ballots highlighted in that other article which were clear as day all spelled Murkowski.

It indicates that the other sample was biased.

Pretend you are the Washington lawyer from Patton Boggs who has been hired for how many $100 or $1000/hour plus expenses to win the election for your client.  Part of your job is to create a public impression that Murasaki had won.   You didn't get hired because Lisa wanted to make sure that Joe got a fair shake.

Agreed?

The contested ballots had a continuum of discrepancies.  You are going to argue that those that were for "Lisa Minnelli" are really for Murkowski because the singer spells her first name with a "Z", and you are going to instruct your watchers to get pictures of the ballots on the
extreme edge and distribute those to the press.

How does it indicate the other sample was biased.

It was pretty clear that the Miller campaign challenged ballots that were clearly legible and spelled correctly.  Miller's camp has also challenged ballots that were not spelled correctly but pretty obvious who they were attempting to vote for.  Its pretty clear all Miller is trying to do here is suppress the vote. 

90,000 ballots weren't challenged.

So now you are inferring that they were no more legible than the 11,000 ballots that were challenged.  On what basis are you making that assumption?  I doubt that the Miller count watchers had time to closely examine each ballot long enough to make a 100% consistent objection.  So there are probably some of those 90,000 that are worse than the some of those that were challenged.

We know that the Director of Election was accepting ballots that were clearly misspelled, even though the Malinowski campaign itself ran TV ads emphasizing that state law required that the correct spelling of her name.  And we know that the Director of Elections rejected ballots that were badly spelled, that Murkiness observers wanted to be counted.  Why weren't we shown any of those?

The only reason that someone would interpret that "K" with the long descender as a "K" given that it didn't match the other "K" was because they assumed that the word being spelled was Murkily or Murasaki.

The basis I am making the assumption on is what is in the ADN article earlier in the thread.  Its clear as day its legible as Murkowski and spelled correctly.  Alaska law is a bit murky granted.  Part of the law does say spelled the way on the ballot, but the state has other precedent for voter intent which is what the judge is basing it off of.

Regardless, Miller is down by over 2,000 votes even without including the misspelled ballots or the correctly spelled and legible ballots that his camp objected to, he should just concede already.  Its over.  He has no path to victory whatsoever.

And what if you were duped by the ADN article?

They flatter you by presenting carefully selected evidence, letting you be the judge.

The Alaska Division of Elections site

November 2, 2010 Unofficial Results

shows:

102,252 Write-in votes.
90,740 Miller
60,007 McAdams

2010 General Election Unofficial Results United States Senator Write-In

103,805 Write-in    
92,929 Murkowski
8,159 Murkowski (challenged, counted)
2,016 Murkowski (challenged, not counted)

So you are saying that Murkowski's 92,929 unchallenged votes  is 2,189 votes greater than Miller's 90,740 votes, correct?

Where did the 1,553 (103,805 minus 102,252) extra write-in votes come from?

What judge?

[MaxQue]

Military ballots who arrived after November 2?

[jimrtex]

Military ballots who arrived after November 2?

Wouldn't that have added some to the Miller total as well?

We have one set of reports that shows all precincts, and the number of votes for Miller, McAdams, and write-in votes.  It may be incomplete -- but it is where the Miller vote total is coming from.

Then we have the accounting of write-in votes, which is where the Murkowski total comes from. 

It doesn't seem plausible that they would update the Miller and McAdams totals, but not the write-in totals in the first report -- which also includes results from all the other races.

In the absentee ballots, Miller gained about 2,000 more votes than "Write-in".  So it would seem reasonable that he would also gain more than the 1,500 additional write-in votes, if these were indeed coming from military votes.  Which then might mean that Murkowski then needs some of the challenged votes.

[RI]

The correct answer as to why the second number is higher:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, it is not a factor in any way whatsoever.

[jimrtex]

The correct answer as to why the second number is higher:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, it is not a factor in any way whatsoever.

So for example in HD 5,

There were 5872 ballots cast, with 5722 votes cast including 2461 write-in votes.  Which would mean there were 150 ballots (5872 minus 5722) that were counted as not having a vote.

The election officials took the 2461 ballots with write-in votes and the 150 no-vote ballots, and determined that there were 2546 write-in ballots, and 65 ballots that were disposed of in a manner which is not accounted for?

Unless some of the write-in ballots weren't write-in ballots?

[ag]

The correct answer as to why the second number is higher:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, it is not a factor in any way whatsoever.

So for example in HD 5,

There were 5872 ballots cast, with 5722 votes cast including 2461 write-in votes.  Which would mean there were 150 ballots (5872 minus 5722) that were counted as not having a vote.

The election officials took the 2461 ballots with write-in votes and the 150 no-vote ballots, and determined that there were 2546 write-in ballots, and 65 ballots that were disposed of in a manner which is not accounted for?

Unless some of the write-in ballots weren't write-in ballots?

Probably, truly blank or null votes: they did "salvage" some that said "Murkowski" (though didn't count them), but had no vote or multiple votes on these, or smthg else strange. Of course, given how they report it, we may only guess.

I would grant to you, that the reporting system is awful. These things should be done much more clearly. Still, the Miller campaign must know how this was generated, so if there were still votes outstanding, we'd have heard by now, w/ an explanation.

[Smash255]

Military ballots who arrived after November 2?

Wouldn't that have added some to the Miller total as well?

We have one set of reports that shows all precincts, and the number of votes for Miller, McAdams, and write-in votes.  It may be incomplete -- but it is where the Miller vote total is coming from.

Then we have the accounting of write-in votes, which is where the Murkowski total comes from. 

It doesn't seem plausible that they would update the Miller and McAdams totals, but not the write-in totals in the first report -- which also includes results from all the other races.

In the absentee ballots, Miller gained about 2,000 more votes than "Write-in".  So it would seem reasonable that he would also gain more than the 1,500 additional write-in votes, if these were indeed coming from military votes.  Which then might mean that Murkowski then needs some of the challenged votes.

Those late arriving absentees are probably from the Bush (uber Murkowski region)