South Carolina’s voters face a peculiar conundrum over who will represent the Democratic Party to challenge incumbent GOP U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint in November. An enigmatic candidate with no money conducted an informal, at best, campaign “talking” with people, and defeated a man who traveled extensively campaigning with all the bell-and-whistle accouterments of running for office.
Alvin Greene beat Vic Rawl by a 59 to 41 percent margin.
The winner is an unemployed veteran who declines to comment about leaving both the Army and the Air Force involuntarily, and faces a criminal trial on allegations of showing porn to a female college student. The loser is asking for a new primary ballot. He is a Charleston County council member, a relative unknown on a national level, with a comparably clean public reputation.
Rawl’s request could be granted by South Carolina’s Democratic Party, or an appeal to the state’s Supreme Court. There are anecdotal allegations of improper vote tallies by the computer count, blaming both malfunctions and nefarious manipulation. Greene has been accused of being a plant sponsored by an unnamed Conservative conspiracy.
One candidate is black, the other is white.
At the moment, Republican DeMint is considered almost unbeatable, and the Democrat’s conundrum is whether to pour money into salvaging a race they do not expect to win, or allow DeMint to face an unpalatable opponent lacking party support. Also at issue is whether a majority of voters actually would prefer the unknown man with an unsavory history to an established elected official the party leaders prefer.
Both parties pour campaign funds into the contests they think they can win and predicted losers get minimal support, if at any. In the current economic state, campaign donations are way down, as demonstrated by the tens of millions in personal funds candidates are spending. Turnovers to the opposition are expected to result for both parties in November, but by far favors Republican gains in Congress, state governorships and legislatures.
What should the Democrats do if the computer voting machines counted correctly and the majority of voters knew exactly what they were doing when they voted for Alvin Greene? If fraud is proven or the computers failed, Rawl’s request is justifiable, but how much will this cost taxpayers and the Democratic Party to settle? Greene, so far, has adamantly declined to voluntarily give up his candidacy. In light of all the notoriety voters might choose him again, to great expense and consternation in South Carolina.
UPDATE: George Will writes about California’s questionable new method to blatantly control the names placed on voter ballots in future elections.
Unbelievably, In New York, one citizen, one vote, has been turned on its ear by order of a federal judge.
More on the mystery of Alvin Greene’s election win from the Washington Post.
Selwyn Duke, at American Thinker, writes about the one man, six votes court ruling in New York.
The results are in from the unusual one voter-six votes election as posted in the this Washington Post story. As desired, the election resulted in victories for under-represented minority candidates.
Though used previously, the issue not addressed is voter participation. The turn out in this election was woefully low.
Ross Kaminsky’s article at Human Events analyzes the court ruling and motivation that lead to the odd voter regulation. It’s a convoluted method to arrive at a solution that had other alternatives that would have “fixed” the perceived problem.