Skip to main content

View Diary: 20,000 more votes than ballots (Waukesha, 2006) [updated-Tue] (272 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Listen, here's the deal... (20+ / 0-)

    There is an understandable tendency to take a Nate Silver approach to this and operate under an assumption that common sense dictates this is on the up and up, and to find a way(s) to back that assumption up.

    That approach is based on an understandable deference to rationality and reasonableness, based on a sense that to commit a fraud and inpropriety on the scale needed here, in such a brazen manner, is a bit too surreal and "Hollywood" to even contemplate. I get it. And yes, if viewed a certain way, in respect to a certain means of assessing proportionality of vote totals within elections (apples to apples?), you can certainly make a case that "all is Kosher in Waukesha". As if.

    But let's face it. All of that flies out the window if for whatever reason an individual indeed circumvents reason and the law, and pulls off a fraud to swing an election just once. It does so because once that initial effort is undertaken and successful, it swings open the doors wide to a diminished sense of right and wrong, and a distorted view of what is reasonable and doable as future opportunities to repeat the act present themselves. And in the context of having a potential election outcome fruadulently decided once, it is anything but unreasonable to assert that the potential exists for that same individual(s) to make another effort(s) to do the exact same thing all over again -- even in as high profile a case as this, in the same slipshod and apparently "detectable" manner. After all, if this was so detectable, why didn't it get caught the last time? Or the time before?

    It is deplorable that more efforts to assert the validity of prior outcomes weren't made in real time, and that this type of ALLEGED and ASSUMED impropriety could potentially occur. But after all, it is that very failure that very well could have been the seed for another attempt here, in the plain of day, with such high stakes (at least in the eyes of the beholder) on the line.

    This deserves and warrants a full and cynical review by the proper authorities and IMHO the Feds, and at a minimum deserves its rightful label as plausible and "suspicious" by the naysayers here. To do otherwise is an affront to voters and our system of voting everywhere.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site