Mickey Mouse and Jesus among write-in votes that helped sink Roy Moore
26 replies, posted
[URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/30/alabama-election-roy-moore-write-in-votes"]source[/URL]
[QUOTE]Votes for Mickey Mouse, football coach Nick Saban and “any other Republican” were among more than 22,000 write-ins in the [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/alabama"]Alabama[/URL] Senate election the Democrat Doug Jones won this month by a little less than that number.
Controversy surrounding [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/roy-moore"]Roy Moore[/URL], the first Republican to lose a Senate race in Alabama in 25 years, prompted the high number of write-ins: 22,852 in total, or 1.6% of the 1.3 million who voted.
Moore, a controversial rightwing hardliner who was endorsed by Donald Trump despite allegations of sexual misconduct towards a number of teenage women, received 651,969 votes.
Jones, who was [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/28/alabama-election-roy-moore-files-lawsuit-to-stop-doug-jones-certification"]certified as the winner this week[/URL] after a legal challenge from Moore alleging widespread voter fraud and casting doubt on high turnout among African Americans, received 673,891 ballots: 21,922 more than Moore.
The outgoing Republican senator, Luther Strange, who was appointed to the post vacated by Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions but lost the primary to Moore, was the top write-in candidate in most counties.
State officials did not tally statewide numbers of write-ins but numbers submitted by counties showed that Strange received more than 7,500 votes, roughly a third of the write-in total.
Many such ballots followed the recommendation of the serving Alabama senator Richard Shelby, who said shortly before the vote [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/10/roy-moore-alabama-election-richard-shelby"]he could not vote for Moore[/URL] and would instead write in the name of another Republican.
[/QUOTE]
Was a nytimes video about this, mentioned chuck norris and the ghost of stonewall jackson as write-ins :v:
The write-ins didn't help either Roy Moore or Doug Jones. How do people not get this?
[QUOTE=geel9;53017108]The write-ins didn't help either Roy Moore or Doug Jones. How do people not get this?[/QUOTE]
Not really. Roy Moore is the kind of repugnant candidate that people would probably be voting for otherwise, but not have the heart to do because he's a disgusting piece of shit. So rather than not going to the polls, they write someone in who would never win. So we can assume that most write-ins would otherwise have been Republican voters. Doug Jones is not the kind of candidate that inspires a lot of protest votes.
[QUOTE=geel9;53017108]The write-ins didn't help either Roy Moore or Doug Jones. How do people not get this?[/QUOTE]
It's assumed, so take it with a grain of salt, that many of the write-in voters were voting in protest of Moore and, with a less-awful Republican candidate, would've voted the GOP ticket in the election. According to the article in the OP, a third of the write-ins specifically supported Moore's defeated primary candidate, Luther Strange.
Jones won by a margin smaller than the write-in ballot total. It would be foolish to assume that [I]every[/I] write-in was a lost Moore vote, but the race is so tight that protest write-ins, such as write-ins for Strange, could've tipped the balance into at least automatic recount closeness.
[QUOTE=geel9;53017108]The write-ins didn't help either Roy Moore or Doug Jones. How do people not get this?[/QUOTE]
There's a good chance (but we don't necessarily know) that most of the write-ins (aside from the joke ones like Mickey Mouse) would have been votes for Moore, if write-ins were not allowed. If that were the case, it could be possible that Moore would have narrowly won, by having more votes than Jones.
People who wrote-in Luther Strange were obviously disenchanted about Moore, but still wanted to vote for a Republican. They might have reluctantly voted for Moore if they couldn't do a write-in.
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
But also, if Alabama had instant-runoff vote or preferential vote or alternative vote or whatever you want to call it, there's a very good chance that Moore would have won instead of Jones - by disenchanted Republicans preferencing a write-in at #1, and Moore at #2.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53017117]Not really. Roy Moore is the kind of repugnant candidate that people would probably be voting for otherwise, but not have the heart to do because he's a disgusting piece of shit. So rather than not going to the polls, they write someone in who would never win. So we can assume that most write-ins would otherwise have been Republican voters. Doug Jones is not the kind of candidate that inspires a lot of protest votes.[/QUOTE]
So they either write in or don't vote.
So they weren't going to vote for Moore anyways.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53017117]Not really. Roy Moore is the kind of repugnant candidate that people would probably be voting for otherwise, but not have the heart to do because he's a disgusting piece of shit. So rather than not going to the polls, they write someone in who would never win. So we can assume that most write-ins would otherwise have been Republican voters. Doug Jones is not the kind of candidate that inspires a lot of protest votes.[/QUOTE]
Okay but it still doesn't help avoid Moore at all. If people actually voted for Clinton instead of writing in "Bernie" or "Harambe" or "Stein," Trump would have lost even worse at the least, with swing states going to her at best.
[QUOTE=geel9;53017192]So they either write in or don't vote.
So they weren't going to vote for Moore anyways.[/QUOTE]
But, working under the assumption that they were Republican voters, we have data showing people specifically not voting for their party's candidate.
[QUOTE=geel9;53017108]The write-ins didn't help either Roy Moore or Doug Jones. How do people not get this?[/QUOTE]
Republicans will vote for anyone but Democrats, Democrats will definitely vote for Democrats, win win.
[editline]30th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=geel9;53017192]So they either write in or don't vote.
So they weren't going to vote for Moore anyways.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps they were but the Child Molesting came about so they decided instead of voting the Democrat they just write in. It's a moral highpoint loophole, get to vote but dont vote for the person you hate less.
This just in, Roy Moore files a lawsuit against Jesus Christ for interfering in Jesus Christ's divine intentions.
[QUOTE=geel9;53017108]The write-ins didn't help either Roy Moore or Doug Jones. How do people not get this?[/QUOTE]
In layman terms, avoiding all other odd variables, Democrats writing in didn't help against Moore, but Republicans writing in did. For them, it would either be Moore or deliberately any option so long as it isn't Moore. Of course, most Republicans voted for Moore anyway.
i think what recent elections have shown is that write in votes can work as effective protest votes, regardless of what that protest is
[quote] “any other Republican”[/quote]
Amazing how the thought of voting... [I][B]Democrat[/B][/I] is such a foreign concept to these people.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53017296]i think what recent elections have shown is that write in votes can work as effective protest votes, regardless of what that protest is[/QUOTE]
I don't see how they can, in any way, help. If anything, they show how they actually don't work. Like in the 2016 Election. Like I just said.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53017355]I don't see how they can, in any way, help. If anything, they show how they actually don't work. Like in the 2016 Election. Like I just said.[/QUOTE]
protesting doesn't always have to be about helping someone in particular, by having registered voters for one party or another writing in, it shows discontent towards their registered party's choice of candidate. whatever the case, write ins in 2016 showed the democrats that their standard bland liberal candidate and "at least we're not the other guy!" campaigning doesn't work even against the worst candidate. people wouldn't have been writing in at the level they did if they didn't have issues with their given candidate or party.
[QUOTE=geel9;53017192]So they either write in or don't vote.
So they weren't going to vote for Moore anyways.[/QUOTE]
What, how do you know they weren't going to vote for Moore? I don't even understand the point you're making.
How is it hard to understand that this is a measure of protest voting, and how much even the Republican voters couldn't get behind their candidate? Sure, it's not especially different from not voting, except that we can get a better picture of how many people were actively turned away by Moore (i.e. in this case, enough that he could have won had he taken them all instead).
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53017194]Okay but it still doesn't help avoid Moore at all. If people actually voted for Clinton instead of writing in "Bernie" or "Harambe" or "Stein," Trump would have lost even worse at the least, with swing states going to her at best.[/QUOTE]
A vote that otherwise would have gone to Moore if he was less terrible does help avoid Moore, it just helps avoid him less than a vote for Jones. If these were Democrats writing in, of course they're making it harder to avoid Moore, but as I pointed out, that's not likely to be the case.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;53017352]Amazing how the thought of voting... [I][B]Democrat[/B][/I] is such a foreign concept to these people.[/QUOTE]
amazing how dem policies don't appeal to everyone
[QUOTE=butre;53017680]amazing how dem policies don't appeal to everyone[/QUOTE]
Maybe they'll pay more attention to rural America after it caused them such a humiliating defeat.
[QUOTE=butre;53017680]amazing how dem policies don't appeal to everyone[/QUOTE]
indeed it's pretty fucking amazing anyone wouldn't find dem policies appealing in the face of current republican lunacy
[QUOTE=butre;53017680]amazing how dem policies don't appeal to everyone[/QUOTE]
Straight up you take their terrible stance on fire arm ownership away, what else do people like you have to say then? Because that's literally the only big issue I've seen people vote Republican on despite leaning toward Democratic lines of thinking.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;53017944]Straight up you take their terrible stance on fire arm ownership away, what else do people like you have to say then? Because that's literally the only big issue I've seen people vote Republican on despite leaning toward Democratic lines of thinking.[/QUOTE]
that's kinda their biggest distinguishing characteristic from republicans. take that away and they're just slightly left-leaning libertarians. do the same with weed to republicans and the two parties would be nearly indistinguishable other than how the nuttier members of the parties go about pretending to be good people
[QUOTE=butre;53019370]that's kinda their biggest distinguishing characteristic from republicans. take that away and they're just slightly left-leaning libertarians. do the same with weed to republicans and the two parties would be nearly indistinguishable other than how the nuttier members of the parties go about pretending to be good people[/QUOTE]
Yeah, no. On basically every important issue, the 21st century Republican party stands diametrically opposed to everything the Democrats support. Only one party is currently voting to screw over the environment, poor people, minorities, and basically everyone and everything else other than rich people and their bank accounts. I'll give you a hint as to which party that is: it's the one that is currently in power but is hopefully going to get its ass kicked in the 2018 and 2020 elections.
[QUOTE=CyclonatorZ;53019400]Yeah, no. On basically every important issue, the 21st century Republican party stands diametrically opposed to everything the Democrats support.[/QUOTE]
not really. donald trump stands diametrically opposed to everything the democrats support sure, but for example obamacare is almost word for word john chafee's 1993 health care bill.
[QUOTE=butre;53019413]not really. donald trump stands diametrically opposed to everything the democrats support sure, but for example obamacare is almost word for word john chafee's 1993 health care bill.[/QUOTE]
Cool, except not a single Republican congressperson voted for the ACA, so what does that have to do with anything
[QUOTE=butre;53019370][B]that's kinda their biggest distinguishing characteristic from republicans.[/B] take that away and they're just slightly left-leaning libertarians. do the same with weed to republicans and the two parties would be nearly indistinguishable other than how the nuttier members of the parties go about pretending to be good people[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously saying that if Democrats dropped gun control and the Republicans dropped the war on drugs they would be indistinguishable? Do you just now follow politics at all?
[editline]1st January 2018[/editline]
Republicans and Democrats differ on guns, drugs, voting rights, workers rights, regulations across the board (food, environment, safety, travel, workplace etc), net neutrality, energy, the environment in general, and certain aspects of foreign policy like stances towards Israel. To suggest that they are similar if you just drop the guns thing is absurd and I doubt you even believe it. Why not just come out and say that you prefer the Republican party because you like guns?
[QUOTE=butre;53019413]not really. donald trump stands diametrically opposed to everything the democrats support sure, but for example obamacare is almost word for word john chafee's 1993 health care bill.[/QUOTE]
Cool, the Republican party of 1993 doesn't exist anymore. It's been replaced by a bunch of old greedy white men who've, by their actions, declared war on the poor, the left, ethnic and other visible minorities, women and specifically their cervixes, the environment, health care, education, and democratic participation by anyone but Republican voters. With the election of Donald J. "grab 'em by the pussy" Trump and the widespread support and close defeat of Roy "I asked that 15-year-old's mother's permission" Moore, we can add basic human decency to the list of concepts the GOP is incompatible with and looking to eliminate from the national landscape.
Republicans loved the Affordable Care Act when it was Romney's plan. When Obama lifted it, they became obligated to hate it and have spent eight years wasting ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money and Congressional time trying to unsuccessfully repeal it. If they really loved it, the fact that the nigg-- the black Democrat President was overseeing its implementation wouldn't matter, but they don't care about people, it's party above all else. And by party I really mean the sponsors of the party, aka rich corporate donors like the Kochs.
The Republican Party of 1993 more closely resembles the Democratic Party of 2017 than anything else in the US political landscape, thanks to the Overton window shifting that far since the 80s.
[QUOTE=butre;53019413]for example obamacare is almost word for word john chafee's 1993 health care bill.[/QUOTE]
i thought that was debunked? the 93 bill was supposed to be a response to clinton's healthcare bill but afaik it never got off the ground or any sort of mainstream republican support
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.