SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This recent supreme court decision made me think of a political situation and lawsuit from 2010 from the Senate campaign up in Alaska. I wanted to discuss the voter intent and you alls ideas on it.
In the states Republican primary it was sitting Senator Lisa Murkowski against Joe Miller. Miller won the primary running as the Tea Party candidate. Liza went on to run third party write-in and beat Miller and Dem Scott McAdams. Miller sued because Lisa won because they counted votes where her name was spelled wrong.
In general I think it is reasonable to accept the intent of the voters on this issue because I myself suck at spelling and it seems reasonable to me that merkowski/mercowske/whatever seem to be poor attempts at voting for the candidate.
On the other hand if a voter can't spell the candidate they support then are they informed enough to be making such a decision?
Alaska Supreme Court ruled in favor of Murkowski
Thoughts?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:38AM (3 children)
The fact that someone can't spell a name like that is not an indication that they know nothing about that person's policies.
Also, fortunately, we allow even the uninformed to vote, because anything else leads down a very, very bad road.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 14 2018, @04:26PM
Actually, the fact that someone can't spell a name like that indicates that you have no Slav background, and therefore, should be ineligible to vote. Skis rule, forever!!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @04:49PM (1 child)
Well, then. If you are going to complain that people need to spell a name correctly and only then can their intent be divined, then the ballot should all be write-in votes only and no check boxes, or whatever as a shortcut. After all, if you cannot remember who you want to vote for in every race and how to spell their name, then they shouldn't be voting. Also, no partial votes should be accepted in a race. If your race requires a checkmark, it better look like this ☑
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @05:03PM
Oops, clicked the wrong button. What I meant to say:
Well, then. If you are going to complain that people need to spell a name correctly and only then can their intent be divined, then the ballot should all be write-in votes only and no check boxes, or whatever as a shortcut. After all, if you cannot remember who you want to vote for in every race and how to spell their name, then they shouldn't be voting. Also, no partial votes should be accepted in a race. If your race requires a checkmark, it better look like this ☑ and not like this ☒. Also, if you require people to fill in ovals or punch holes, better not count any partially-filled ones or hanging chads. Nope, anything short of writing in all names for all races cannot be trusted. We'll just ignore the fact that even full write-in ballots are not fool-proof. What if you mean a different Joe Miller, better include a middle name too, but that might be ambiguous too. Oh, and any assistance for the illiterate or disabled is a no-no, they'd have an unfair advantage or their intent may not be properly conveyed if they wanted a different spelling or didn't offer a spelling to the name. I could go on, but I think I made my point.