Skip to main content

Have we forgotten the possible criminal activity occuring in the Alaska vote count?

Please read today's excellent article by Shannyn Moore in Huffington Post:

Ms. Moore details the apparent contradictions and irregularities in the Alaska vote and the ongoing count.

 Quoting Ms Moore:

 In Alaska, more people voted for George W. Bush in 2004 than for Sarah Palin on Tuesday despite an identical 61-36 margin of victory. Yes. Only four years ago 54,304 Alaskans got off their sofas and voted for Bush, but decided to sit home and not vote for Palin in 2008.

 In turn, I have to ignore the 30,520 Alaskans who felt progressive enough in 2004 to vote for John Kerry, but weren't inspired to vote for Barack Obama. I would have to glance past the 1,700% increase in the Democratic caucus in February, the 20,991 newly registered voters, and the three largest political rallies in Alaska's history.
 I would also have to forget the people I stood in a long line with to early vote. It would be helpful not to know every other presidential election since Alaska began keeping records has had a larger turn out than the one we just had with our own Governor on the ticket.

 Try not to remember 12.4% more Alaskans showed up for the August primary as compared to four years ago, before the Palin nomination. Don't think about the Lower 49's record voter turn out this year either. Try to delete the memory file, though difficult, that 80% of us approved of Sarah Palin just two two months ago.

Something stinks. You don't care? Obama won. Yes. He. Did! Free at Last! Wait. Democracy demands all of the votes be counted...if you can find them.

Originally posted to Alec on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:22 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Was the presidential election was called before (0+ / 0-)

    the polls closed in Alaska? I think it was.

    If so, I can accept these results, but I'm not sure about the results for the congressional elections.

  •  Nate Silver does a better job (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Red Bean, KenBee, island in alabama

    Far more credible than HuffPo:

    There are three plausible explanations I can think of to explain this discrepancy. The first and most likely is that the Democratic vote became complacent and did not bother to turn out. The outcome of the presidential contest was not going to be close in Alaska, and Barack Obama's victory in the Electoral College was apparent as of about 4 PM local time. Begich supporters, moreover, may have looked at the polls and concluded that their candidate was far enough ahead that they didn't have to bother to vote. Meanwhile, the Republican base was going to turn out no matter what because of their enthusiasm for Sarah Palin. There seems to be a sort of danger zone at about 10 points wherein a candidate is far enough ahead that many of his supporters assume the race is in the bag, but not so far ahead that he is immune to poor turnout (a similar dynamic affected then-Governor Jim Blanchard of Michigan in his 1990 race against John Engler).

    The second possibility is that a substantial percentage of the Democratic vote is tied up in the early and absentee ballots that have yet to be counted. We know that Barack Obama overperformed among early voters in many states, and Alaska may be no exception. (Although, I would guess that the absentee vote is predominately rural, whereas Begich's base is in Anchorage).

    The third possibility is that a lot of those "questionable" ballots are Democratic ones, and that there have been irregularities in the voting tally. Although this is the least likely possibility, Alaska is a provincial state with some history of corruption, and Democrats ought to be making sure that too many of their ballots haven't been disqualified.

    "This is the twenty-first century. Nations don't just go invading other countries." --John McCain, said without a hint of irony.

    by maynard on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:28:15 AM PST

  •  Sounds like the results.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, El Ochito

    were baked in Alaska.

    Okay, bad pun. But this is beyond bizarre and the only place I've heard word one on this is here. (Well, the Huff Post, but I got to there from here.)

    Considering the election to the Senate of a felon, and the presence of a favorite daughter at the top of the ballot you'd think there'd be a little more outrage.

    It's outrageous. (Okay, I'll stop punning now).

  •  Based on Nate's analysis I think it is very (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    El Ochito, island in alabama

    likely that a lot of votes were taken away and tossed into a shredder.  I really don't see how the turnout could be down by that much in a year when an Alaskan is on the presidential ticket.

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:34:44 AM PST

  •  Regardless of which theory (or theories) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, island in alabama

    is/are correct about the apparent discrepancies, I think it's certainly worth investigating.  I'd like to know for sure that all votes were counted.

    "We are the ones we have been waiting for." - Barack Obama

    by YesBiscuit on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:40:16 AM PST

    •  I agree - needs full investigation (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee, El Ochito

      After all the noise the right made over ACORN threatening the very foundation of democracy - including sending the DOJ after them, it's only fair to have the DOJ get to the bottom of how the votes get counted.

      Mind, I'm not so trusting of the current incarnation of the DOJ...

  •  Smells like week old fish (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, UneasyOne, El Ochito, Susipsych

    using the DK map/scorecard

    2008 pres was     221678
    2008 senate was  220751
    2008 congr was   220315

    2006 congr was   234085

    2004 pres was     311808
    2004 senate was  307892
    2004 congr was   298881

    2002 senate was  229257
    2002 congr was   227274

    2000 pres was     282492

    So... the first time Alaska has someone on the national ticket, a hotly contested Senate AND Congressional seat,  they have a SMALLER turnout than ANY of the previous 4 national elections INCLUDING an off-year congressional only race?

    We're supposed to believe that Alaskans are SO apathetic that over 90,000 FEWER people voted for President in 2008 than in 2004?!?!?!
    That's 28.9% FEWER
    This when an ALASKAN is on one of the tickets?!?!?!

    We're supposed to believe that almost 61,000 FEWER people voted for President in 2008 than in 2000?!?!?!  That's 21.5% FEWER

    So OVER 1 in 4, Alaskans 'sat out' this election compared to 2004 and 1 in 5 sat it out compared to 2000.......

    I don't buy it.

    Sorry but polls DO NOT show the differences we are seeing here......

    when poll numbers are SO far from actual results and votes reported are SO much lower than in past elections, this screams out for closer examination.

    With questionable results in Georgia and reports of LOWER turnout overall than in 2004, you have to ask:

    How many votes STILL got 'lost' or were not counted THIS time?........  do we REALLY know what the margin of victory was for Obama?

    Maybe ther was LESS fraud this time but it sure seems like there was something going in in some states......

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site