This post may be outdated by the time you read it. It was completely rewritten once already.

The original mocked Donald Trump for ordering the Justice Department to prevent the certification of the Alaska Senatorial election should the Republican candidate lose. Such an attempt to interfere in the race before the votes were cast was yet another example of Trump’s contempt for democracy.

That contempt remains, but it turns out his concerns about the Alaska vote were legitimate. It is no coincidence there are two Republicans on the ballot whose names differ only by middle initial. One is the incumbent, the other a plant, a dirty trick from the Democratic Party. A criminal investigation is underway.

I first heard earlier this year that incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan was being challenged by, among others Dan. J. Sullivan, another Republican. I thought it was amusing. An interview I read said that Dan J. had decided to run on his own, and wasn’t trying to confuse the voters and siphon support from the incumbent.

No rules broken, no attempt to influence the vote. Was it low-level mischief? Probably – but the incumbent Dan S. is clearly marked as that on the ballot.

Which means I thought Trump was overreacting when he announced the potential Justice Department involvement should Dan S. Sullivan lose the election by a few votes. He was essentially implying he thought Alaskans were stupid and couldn’t figure out who they wanted to support.

If it had been me, I would have monitored the situation and looked at legal action if the outcome appeared to be irregular. After all, Dan J. Sullivan, like any other citizen, has the right to run for public office. His name should not disqualify him.

Then the news broke that Dan J. did not decide on his own to put his name forward. He was in fact recruited by the Democrats. Does that change things?

Despite a criminal investigation and the President’s indignation, I don’t see that any laws have been broken. Political parties recruit candidates all the time. This may be a political dirty trick, but it isn’t against the law, at least as I understand it.

However, legality should not be the only consideration in politics, even as it frequently is. Is running a candidate with the same name, to hopefully cause voter confusion and a vote split, ethical? What would you say?

I’m amused, but that is because I am a relatively impartial observer. It isn’t my vote that someone is trying to influence.

What I do know is that if I were in Alaska, regardless of my opinion on the candidates or their policies, I would be tempted to vote for the Republican incumbent as a protests against unethical political practices. I’m probably not alone in that opinion.

With this attempt to confuse voters, and all the publicity and backlash, the Democrats may have managed to hand a victory to the Republicans in a state the Democratic candidate could have won.

Democracy is a wonderful thing when it works. Those who use dirty tricks eventually get found out and punished.