Alaska Finds More Uncounted Ballots
The latest update from the ethically-challenged State of Alaska, from the Brad Blog:
This just in from Alaska, where thousands of new ballots continue to be found each day, since it was first reported that turnout in 2008 was 11% lower than in 2004. Thousands of ballots, nearly a third of them, remain uncounted nearly a week after the election. Their numbers could explain the strange results so far in races --- such as those of the felonious Sen. Ted Stevens (R) and the under-investigation Rep. Don Young (R) --- for which pollsters had predicted decisive losses for the Republicans.
*****
The following updated numbers come from the DNC's Alaska Communications Director, Kay Brown late this afternoon [emphasis in the original]...
New totals for ballots were posted today at:
http://www.elections.ala...rly_question_numbers.pdfThe Division of Elections reports there are now 90,635 ballots remaining to be counted. This means nearly 29 percent (28.8%) of the total vote has not been counted yet.
With these new numbers the total vote is at 314,268, with turnout at 63.3% (registered voters = 495,731).
The new ballots posted today include about 4,000 additional Questioned ballots about 5,600 additional Absentees.
The Division of Elections (DOE) plans to count the majority of early vote and absentee ballots that were verified by Election Day on Wednesday. The DOE Plans to count the remaining ballots on Friday (but this is all obviously subject to change). However, there could be enough ballots left after Wednesdays count for the race to still go either way.
All overseas ballots have to be received by Wednesday, November 19th and the DOE plans to certify the election on Tuesday, November 25. A recount, should one be necessary, would occur after that. An automatic recount is only implemented if the final votes are within 0.5 percent.
Total turnout in 2004 was 314,502 with these new ballots posted today we are still slightly under the number who voted in 2004. Turnout in the 2004 General was 66.6%, with 314,502 voting and 472,160 registered voters statewide.
Thanks for keeping us posted. Are any DNC attorneys monitoring this situation in Alaska? Are the courts involved yet?
November 10, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to worry: Todd "First Dude" Palin is overseeing the process.
November 11, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lest we forget, Alaska is pretty much still a wilderness..
Those dogsleds can run slow sometimes...
There's probably a lone musher out there, right now, winding his way through the wilderness, trailed by a pack of hungry wolves and a herd of starving polar bears, carrying the last load of ballots from Wasilla to the capitol.
Now that would make for a great movie scene, huh?
Betcha Stevens is cheering for the wolves...
November 11, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a lovely image! Ha! By the way, does anyone know when they started calling snowmobiles "snow machines"? What's up with that?
November 11, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
...like, do Alaskans call automobiles "auto machines" now, too?
November 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
They call 'em "asphalt machines."
November 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That started in the late 1990s, when "snowmobiling" was blamed for much of the pollution in many of our national parks that allowed unrestricted access. Its just thinkspeak.
November 11, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another reminder that we'd do well to wait until all three remaining senate races are final and certified before we decide what to do about our possible 60th Senate vote--Lieberman. I for one have not had any memory lapse about the way the republican senators used the fillibuster to block EVERYTHING for the past two years. I would really like to see Americans get healthcare after all the decades we've been fighting for it. We can't really count on Lieberman, but we CAN count on the senate republicans. We've got a better chance on domestic issues with Lieberman than without him. And that's all I need to know about that. My ego's needs for revenge are not greater than my family's need for health insurance, education and tax relief.
November 11, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going to need every Senate vote he can muster, so granting Lieberman some clemency does make sense, even if the magic number of 60 isn't achieved.
November 11, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The filibuster wouldn't quite such a show-stopping tool if the Dems would just look 'em right in the eye and say "Ok, go filibuster, then."
If they want to hold things up, by God make them go and do it, rather than just taking it as read that they will filibuster and sidelining things.
November 11, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot understand how the non-filibuster filibuster came to be the way things are done, and why the Senate majority and the rest of us put up with it.
November 11, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot understand how the non-filibuster filibuster came to be the way things are done
This NYT guest op-ed yesterday by Adam Ehrenhalt, the editor of Governing magazine, was real good on that history.
November 11, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! That is a good analysis, but it still doesn't answer my question: why is it no longer considered necessary to actually filibuster to pull off a filibuster? It seems to me that the nation is better served - and not just because it serves the political agenda I like - by making the forty-plus actually pull out the cots and pee into bottles all night if they want to block legislation. This article left me feeling more entrenched on this point.
November 11, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I'm in northern England for a chilly week, and so the NYT isn't so much on my exact doorstep today. I appreciate you bringing it to me.
November 11, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and one of the reasons is that the country (including the blogosphere) would be more aware of and interested in Congressional issues if the hullabaloo of filibuster occurred. It's a P.R. thing, come to think of it, that is actually is the intent of a filibuster, to get attention to an issue. Instead now we have this new tradition of individual Congresspersons doing speeches full of spin, basically for the record, to a C-Span camera and an empty room. Some even to seem to use it for CYA, saying stuff the opposite of how they end up voting, or bloviating to appease some special interest lobbying group that requested support.
November 11, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
".... and why the Senate majority and the rest of us put up with it."
The rest of us didn't have any choice about putting up with non-filibuster filibusters. This was the decision of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who, despite all evidence to the contrary, seems to think that appeasing thugs is the way to convince them to behave properly. I suspect, though, that if the Republicans had actually been made to put their mouths where their mouths are a couple of times, they might not have been so nonchalant about obstructing good legislation aimed to help average Americans, rather than their best friends and campaign contributors.
November 11, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who waits a week to count 1/3 of the votes?
November 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to put Alaska up on eBay.
November 11, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then when Putin rears his head and enters our airspace he won't know where the F he is.
November 11, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink