Alaska On eBay? Election Numbers Update

You don't have to be a coroner to smell a corpse. Alaska needs an election autopsy STAT. The stench persists. When Democracy's infected, there is nothing benign about it. I know Alaska. I know we keep voting for self-professed corrupt bastards. I know it took the FBI to start scrubbing the corruption out of our state legislature. I sat through the trials of men who had sold their votes cheap to big oil. My candidate rarely wins, but I always vote. That said, Alaska's average presidential election voter turnout is 66.7%. With the exception of Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry we have known who the President Elect was BEFORE OUR POLLS CLOSE. You betcha, and we still vote in healthy numbers.

Nationally, I get it. You have Palin Fatigue Syndrome. You're starting to think, "You know that 49th State? Let's put it on eBay." Wait. Remember the dream of a filibuster proof majority? It's not an Ambien haze; we're three contested seats away! Take a deep breath, hold your nose, and help Alaska, Georgia, and Minnesota find their votes. This is not a tin foil hat activity; just math and uncommon sense. This is not a matter to litigate post mortem; Alaskans have been bitching about election fraud for years and there are law suits to prove it. The Republicans whining about ACORN seemed like Jeffrey Dahmer complaining about a burnt hamburger.

In Alaska, the last two presidential elections were decided by the exact same margin of victory; 61-36. The only difference was the number of votes; more Alaskans voted for George W. Bush-Dick Cheney in 2004 than Sarah Palin-John McCain in 2008. Initially there were only 49,000 votes left to count. Now there are 74,527 outstanding ballots. Curious. Even still -- this year's turnout is still smaller than the election of 2004 by 6.1%. Hhhhhhmmmm. I would have to smoke more than Salmon to believe that Alaska, with Palin on the ballot, decided to sit this one out.

Relevant Facts:

1) The 1,700% increase in the Democratic Caucus

2) 20,991 newly registered voters

3) The three largest political rallies in Alaska's history were held in September and October.

4) Early voters set an historic record. 25,000 Alaskans showed up to vote early in 2008 vs 11,000 in 2004; an increase of 127%!

5) 12.4% more Alaskans showed up for the August primary as compared to four years ago, before the Palin nomination.

6) The average Presidential Election turnout since we started keeping records is 66.7%. The 2008 Alaska voter turnout (including the uncounted 74,527 ballots) is 60.1%. THE LOWEST GENERAL TURN OUT save Clinton/Dole 96'.

7) The Lower 49 had a record voter turnout this year.

8.) 80% of Alaskans approved of Sarah Palin just two months ago.

9) Anchorage Daily News front page on Election Day: Personnel Board Exonerates Palin She flew home to vote with Alaskans.

10) An unprecedented 16 point come-from-behind lead for Congressman Don Young over challenger Ethan Berkowitz.

11) Ted Stevens 7 felony convictions.

12) Don Young under investigation; spending over $1 million on legal fees this year.

So, with that... sorry, I forgot to give you a clothespin. I have more faith in my friends and neighbors. I know they don't always agree with me, but they do vote. America, before you break up with Alaska, crown us with El Presidente Palin. Let the "Drill, Baby, Drill" chant become our new anthem. Know this: We need you. You need us. Progressive Alaskans are an endangered species, and should be treated as such. I am fighting for what seem to be Alaskan votes; but they are American votes. You need them.

Previously: Shannyn Moore: Stolen Election from Alaska?

Follow Shannyn Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shannynmoore

Comments

[ngannon]

Something smells really bad in this election in Alaska. It is really hard to believe that the polls were so far off in this one state and that there was such a low turnout.
I think that the AG's office- the FBI- both major parties should investigate the election in Alaska thoroughly- even their neighbor, Russia, can do better than this.

[Michale32086]

@blindjester

{{{
Voting accuracy is not a liberal or conservative issue. It's an American issue.
{{{

If only the majority on the hysterical Left **AND** the hysterical Right would agree with that sentiment..

But if they did, I guess they wouldn't be all that "hysterical" now would they?? :D

Nice discussin' this with ya. :D

Michale.....

[nordjak]

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/11/07/12/7senateVote.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf

To me it's pretty obvious what happened when you look at the map: The Mat-su valley (Palin zone) put Stevens over the edge. Personally I'm not surprised by the low turnout at all. As a Democrat I didn't even feel like voting in the first place; it was pretty obvious that Palin would insure that Alaska remained solidly red and my vote wouldn't count for anything. This was confirmed when I cast my ballot at 6:00AKT (empty poll, no lines) and walked back to my car, only to hear McCain giving his concession speech.

You can't conculude that this election was a fraud based on seemingly illogical numbers. There were so many crazy aspects of this election affecting Alaskan voters psychology that the results were impossible to predict.

[Michale32086]

@blindjester

}}}}
Every reasonable person supports an investigation first,
{{{{

And yet, I can point to dozens of posts that already have the GOP convicted of orchestrating a massive campaign of cheating and fraud...

So, while I would completely agree with you, I really don't see much evidence to show that this thread is inhabited with "reasonable" people..

}}}}
and in any case it isn't our opinion that should decide the matter.
{{{{{

Again, agreed.. Isn't common ground a wonderful thing??

I said it before.. If the evidence is incontrovertible, unambiguous and compelling to an OBJECTIVE person, then I wholeheartedly support an investigation..

But it doesn't really appear that the evidence provided meets that criteria.. The very first post in this commentary shows that some of the evidence is extremely subjective..

}}}}
In an election, as elsewhere, we should err on the side of caution.
{{{{

I agree again... Err on the side of caution without ANY partisan leanings whatsoever.

Agreed??

CONT

[blindjester]

"If the evidence is incontrovertible, unambiguous and compelling to an OBJECTIVE person, then I wholeheartedly support an investigation..."

Your standard for starting an investigation is unreasonably high. It's more like the standard needed to obtain a conviction. We're not at that point yet.

Very low voter turnout---­unexpected­ly and unexplainably low---along with a huge discrepancy between polling and results add up to more than enough reason to suspect tampering, or at least error. But it can't be proven without forensic work.

Investigating has no downside. It hurts no one. Failing to investigate, though, could potentially frustrate the will of the voters. In a democracy, that is the greatest wrong.

[Michale32086]

I honestly and truly don't consider incontrovertible evidence to an OBJECTIVE person to be all that high a standard...

The key word there being OBJECTIVE.

To date, there hasn't been any OBJECTIVE person saying that the evidence warrants an investigation..

}}}}
Very low voter turnout---­unexpected­ly and unexplainably low---along with a huge discrepancy between polling and results add up to more than enough reason to suspect tampering, or at least error.
{{{{

You mean like New Hampshire during the Dem primary??

}}}}
Investigating has no downside. It hurts no one. Failing to investigate, though, could potentially frustrate the will of the voters. In a democracy, that is the greatest wrong.
{{{{

Again, we agree.. Investigating hurts no one.. If it is done objectively..

But once again, I am constrained to point out that what is being advocated here is NOT an objective investigation. What is being advocated here is nothing less than a witch hunt. A drumhead trial with a pre-ordained verdict and sentencing already imposed..

I am all for an objective investigation.. But you and I (and a few others) are apparently the only ones who see a need for objectivity..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

CONT

}}}}
That means investigating the vote when official numbers are significantly below estimates and results are wildly divergent from polls.

That's exactly what happened in Alaska. So let's investigate.
{{{{

And, would you support investigations such as this, under the same conditions, in states where Democrats won?? Where it would put the Democrat Senate majority in danger?? Would you pursue such investigations there as furiously, ardently and passionately as you are pursuing an investigation in Alaska??

Would you?? Honestly???

I doubt it...

And therein lies the problem...

Ya'all only want to investigate where it would benefit the Democrats. If such investigations would harm the Democratic Party, ya'all would completely ignore it..

You know it. I know it...

Michale....

[Michale32086]

@MHT73

}}}}}}
Thank you for this post. I've seen nothing in the mainstream media about this,
{{{{{{

There's a reason for that....

}}}}
and have found it so difficult to believe that Alaskans would re-elect Stevens after his conviction.
}}}}

Why do you find this so difficult to believe?? Stevens' supporters simply pooh-pooh the conviction away as nothing more than a political vendetta...

Which it probably is...

Mush as Democrats who, in their efforts to bring down Karl Rove, pooh-poohed away the conviction of Don Seigalmen as nothing more than a political vendetta.

Which it probably was...

So, what's so hard to believe??

Michale.....

[leftcoastindy]

Mush as Democrats who, in their efforts to bring down Karl Rove, pooh-poohed away the conviction of Don Seigalmen as nothing more than a political vendetta.

Which it probably was..."

I try to ignore you, but...are you sayin that in spite of Stevens on tape telling his benefactor 'that he knew it was wrong, but he wouldn't have to go to prison if they got caught'
You still think is is remotely possible that the guy MIGHT be innocent?

Incredible. You must be a major tool.

[leftcoastindy]

Why do you find this so difficult to believe?? Stevens' supporters simply pooh-pooh the conviction away as nothing more than a political vendetta...

Which it probably is..."

My computor screwed up. I meant to use above quote.

[Michale32086]

@MasterfullyInept

}}}}}
Sure its possible.

I also thinks it's likely that something shady occurred.

After all its not like the polls were wrong all over the country.

So whats the harm in investigating?
{{{{{

I have no problem with investigating..

But that's not what is being advocated here. People have already convicted and sentenced the Right, WITHOUT any investigation...

So much for "Innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law", eh??

Is there enough to investigate??

If things are EXACTLY as claimed and would appear so to the most objective and non-partisan person, then I would agree that an investigation may be warranted..

But being that this isn't getting any play outside of HuffPo et al, I would say that OBJECTIVE evidence is not to be found..

Michale......

[blindjester]

"But that's not what is being advocated here. People have already convicted and sentenced the Right, WITHOUT any investigation..."

Lame. That's a straw man. It's easy to oppose such an extreme position.

Every reasonable person supports an investigation first, and in any case it isn't our opinion that should decide the matter.

In an election, as elsewhere, we should err on the side of caution. That means investigating the vote when official numbers are significantly below estimates and results are wildly divergent from polls.

That's exactly what happened in Alaska. So let's investigate.

[Bonny9]

Yeah, it stinks, wow. Ted Stephenson is going to prision. What are the Alaskan voters thinking. F@#( the rest of the USA we're going to vote for a felon. And Sarah Palin, how did she ever get to be govenor? How can she stay govenor? She is not responsible to the people only her own agenda. How embarassing for the Alaskan People to have been so bamboozaled by this politician. She does not care about the politacal arena except to bend it to her personal will. I do hope there is some force that will see to an honest accounting of the votes. As I have seen on CNN all the projections were spot on. So it has lead me to think there is something that needs to be examined.

[onlyonce]

I just sent the following email message to the Juneau Empire contacts. That's the local newspaper for the Alaska state capital.
"I no longer live in Juneau, but I still have family there. An article in the Huffington Post by Shannyn Moore entitled: Alaska on Ebay: Election Numbers Update, is calling attention to how likely it is that the election on November 4th was fraudulently counted. I would like to see attention paid to this allegation, and explain to people in Alaska who Stephen Spoonamore is and what he does. He STRONGLY ADVOCATES PAPER ballots. It’s the only way to get away from the corruptable Diebold voting machines.
http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/SpoonamoreAffidavit.pdf
Do you pay attention to what’s being said about Alaska’s vote outcome by the rest of the country?"

[FuturePrez]

What's taking Alaska so long to go through the remaining ballots? Good gosh! Give them to a bunch of 1st graders to count - they'd have the votes tallied in a matter of days.

[blindjester]

I saw your post over at Bradblog, too. What people need to know is that people like Brad Friedman (and that includes BBV and others) investigate instances of voting irregularities that disenfranchise republicans, too.

The truth, though, is that it almost never happens. Like these cases in Alaska, it's almost always the republican candidates that benefit from anomalies, from vote-flipping to massive undervotes or wildly skewed polling.

That in itself is a powerful argument for investigation.

[MHT73]

Thank you for this post. I've seen nothing in the mainstream media about this, and have found it so difficult to believe that Alaskans would re-elect Stevens after his conviction. I really don't care about a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, the more important question is the possibility of a stolen election.

[QoheletParadox]

Perhaps the best way to obtain justice would be to contact folks at Alaska's Division of Elections (DOE http://www.elections.alaska.gov/offices.php#dir) to remind them of whistle blower laws, that we are watching, etc. and our Senators to demand that if evidence of voter fraud that favors Stevens and Young exists and Alaska's DOE still says they 'won,' that the Senate not recognize the result and instead recognize their opponents as the winners. Senators are supposed to be elected by the people. If voter fraud has occurred, the Senate should not allow the seat to be stolen and should assure that the real winner of this election gets seated instead. Frank L. Smith (see "Political Corruption in America" by M. Grossman) was not allowed to take a seat in 1926 because the Senate adopted a resolution to that effect (so it sounds like they avoided the need to expel him).

So, perhaps prior to the next term, the Senate (and House) could adopt a resolution to the effect that if voting irregularities exist in a race, that neither candidate would be allowed to take a seat until matters were settled. Instead of declaring the seat open, however, they could declare that if voting fraud favored the party named as the 'winner,' that person would not be allowed to be sworn in and that the 'runner up' would be instead. This would be just and would cost less than holding a new election.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

An unconstitutional stew of jibberish; the Senate (or House of Rep.) is NOT installed to abjudicate­--especial­ly on allegations or suspicions......

[Michale32086]

Shhhh!!!

You are going to interrupt their fantasies and bring them down to earth with the facts and logic...

Who KNOWS what could happen then!!!!

Michale....

[Michale32086]

Look...

With all the childish Palin attacks and such, we seem to have gotten off track from the main point of the commentary...

It seems that all the same kinds of "evidence" that "proves" fraud in Alaska is the same kind of "evidence" that was available after the 2004 and 2000 elections to "prove" fraud and cheating..

Isn't it even SLIGHTLY possible that this "evidence" is simply nothing more than wishful thinking and that, like 2004 and 2000, nothing will come of it??

Isn't it?? Isn't it even SLIGHTLY possible??

Michale.....

[MasterfullyInept]

Sure its possible.

I also thinks it's likely that something shady occurred.

After all its not like the polls were wrong all over the country.

So whats the harm in investigating?

[Nikola Tesla]

The simplest explanation indicates fraud.

[Michale32086]

Could you please explain the logic that leads you to that conclusion?

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@Myshkin57

}}}}
You still don't get it. I'm through with you, fool.
{{{{

Thank you for your concession that you have no rational or logical argument and must, therefore, resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks.

Your acknowledgment of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant...

Michale......

[Myshkin57]

I'll play your little game once more. If someone says that a person is a hypocrite and your response is "No more a hypocrite than some other persons" then clearly you are implying that it is all right to be a hypocrite if others are as well.

And, do not throw 'logic' around the way you do. I was being generous earlier with the discussion of Occam's Razor. Just saying that you are using logic or demanding logical arguments does not demonstrate understanding of logic.

[Michale32086]

OK Fair enough.. Now we are getting somewhere...

}}}}
If someone says that a person is a hypocrite and your response is "No more a hypocrite than some other persons" then clearly you are implying that it is all right to be a hypocrite if others are as well.
{{{{

Not at all..

What I am saying is that if someone is going to condemn hypocrisy, then it shouldn't matter whether the hypocrisy comes from the Right or from the Left...

Wouldn't you agree with that??

Further, it's ludicrous in the extreme to take ONE instance of possible hypocrisy, committed a couple decades ago, and use that to label a person as a TOTAL hypocrite.

Again, wouldn't you agree with that???

My point has been consistent throughout...

There is hypocritical behavior from the Right *AND* from the Left..

To castigate one without acknowledging the other is simply an example of partisan bigotry....

Again, wouldn't you agree???

Michale.....

[blindjester]

"Your acknowledgment of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant..."

Next you'll say "woot!" and tell us you pwned him.

[HOPE/CHANGE]

LMAO! Thanks, after getting this far into the posts I was in dire need of it!