Skip to main content

View Diary: Wisconsin Recount: Waukesha Stumbles Out of the Gate (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What good is a recount (0+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    lotusmaglite, Wee Mama

    when the issue is those mysterious "found" ballots?

    •  There are no "mysterious found ballots" (2+ / 0-)

      There never were. There was a simple reporting error.

      And I don't see how this error that's being reported has anything to do with the Kathy Nickolaus issues anyway.

      This is about the race being close enough that a recount is being paid for by the state. Errors happen. That's why the phrase "To err is human, to forgive divine" exists, because humans make errors.

      In almost all cases, problems that are at first ascribed to some type of election fraud are later found to be simple human error, and are no big deal. This is yet another example of something that's no big deal - someone in the city of Brookfield - not the County Clerk of Waukesha county - made a simple human error.

      •  Oh, please (12+ / 0-)

        If nothing else, the Waukesha county clerk should be fired for gross incompetence.

        How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

        by skohayes on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 02:43:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, this recount has nothing to do with her (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buckybadger1988, Lujane

          Absolutely nothing. How does that baffle so many people?

          She misreported votes in her unofficial reporting.

          When the votes were reported accurately, the Republican leapt into the lead.

          They're doing a recount now because of the corrected vote totals. It has nothing to do with Kathy Nickolaus and her errors.

          I never said that some people shouldn't be fired for human errors. I simply pointed out that almost all suspected election fraud is actually human error.

          •  Oh, now I see what you mean, you're correct...-nt (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lujane, DollyMadison
          •  Almost all suspected election fraud is actually (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            human error.... sounds like a cautious, generous way to approach discussion of such a hotly politicized issue right now.  You are aware, of course, that there are massive and coordinated efforts underway in numerous states with new Republican governors and GOP majorities in the legislatures, to push through laws that would make it a lot harder to register new voters, register to vote, and actuall, on election day, vote---- all being promoted on the rationale (and this is the GOP explanation for why they are pushing these changes) that they want to address "voter fraud."

            Maybe those GOP legislators and politicians should take a cue from you, Dolly, and stop pushing through such pre-emptively punitive and disenfranchising legislation.  Their response to what is actually "human error," seems very mean-spirited and inappropriate.

            After all, it does seem malicious overkill to address cases of "human error" with a nationally-concerted program of punitive measures designed to reduce Americans' access to the voting booth.

            That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

            by concernedamerican on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:05:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Fact: the Waukesha clerk kept votes (13+ / 0-)

        on her personal computer and she was investigated by her own County not even a year before. It was in the Journal Sentinel.

        Maybe it was a reporting error, but it was very strange how it wasn't reported until 2 days after everyone else did.

        •  No, she did not (0+ / 0-)

          There were no votes on "her" personal computer.

          There were votes on a PC - on "a" personal computer in the offices she and her staff shared. In fact, votes can be accessed from multiple computers in "her" office. It's not "her" personal office, btw - it's the office of the county clerk, which includes her desk space and the working environment that the employees of the county clerk's office shares!

          If you think you can educate me on any aspect of the Kathy Nickolaus story, you're sorely mistaken.

          It wasn't actually "strange" at all. On election night, the results that are reported to the news media are unofficial. It's typical, not strange in the least, that corrected, verified, official results are reported a couple of days later!

          •  I would say that the votes are on the ballots (8+ / 0-)

            So, instead of speculating about what Kathy Nickolaus did and didn't do on election night, people get to actually look at the votes -- which is a good thing.

            I agree with you that The Waukesha Kerfuffle looks like simple human error. But I'm glad that there are ballots to examine. Whatever numbers were on whatever PC really shouldn't matter so much, in the final analysis.

          •  I am only repeating what I read in the MSJ (4+ / 0-)

            I guess you might be right about the "strangeness". However, given the political climate and the underhandedness of the Republican senators in Madison with their quickly called Special Session and also the fact that numerous reports about protesters being "violent union thugs", when I, a pretty conservative mom was one of the people protesting, maybe you can understand my suspicion.  You are right that Kathy Nickolaus is allowed to make an error without being demonized. She did the right thing by taking herself out of this recount.

          •  Dolly Madison Self Appointed Expert (4+ / 0-)

            Please share with the class how you arrived at your comprehensive expertise about Kathy Nickolaus. And clarify why, as usual, when questions are raised about actions and motives of conservatives, you arrive to throw cold water on any and all speculation. It's an interesting pattern. Your sole mission in life seems to be to come to the aid of conservatives whose actions call their motives into question.

            •  Unless DollyMadison works in Nickolaus's office (4+ / 0-)

              there is no way she can possibly know what Nickolaus does in her work space.

                DollyMadison... "If you think you can educate me on any aspect of the Kathy Nickolaus story, you're sorely mistaken".

              Is that you Kathy?

              "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

              by Mr SeeMore on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 07:15:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I informed myself by informing myself (0+ / 0-)

              It's really not magical - anyone can do it.

              I read every article I could find on this subject. I looked at the recommendations from the US Elections Commission that Nickolaus cited. I did my homework.

              It wasn't difficult. It's simply that I did the work that lazier people weren't willing to do! It's also that I'm smarter than many people, and so I could figure out that when someone wrote "personal computer", they meant "PC", not her personal PC, for example. Again, education, information, and brains were my tools, and with some extra effort, someone who wasn't as smart as I am could have come to the same conclusions.

              I understand that I've cratered your arguments in the past, and so you're still holding a grudge. That's your failing, not mine.

              There's absolutely no evidence of any linkage whatsoever between Nickolaus' errors and the mislabeling of a bag of ballots by an election worker from one polling location. None. I'm throwing water on unfair, ill-advised, unsupported and unsupportable CT - as should any fair-minded person of any political persuasion! The political persuasion of someone doesn't affect the facts and the known evidence, you know.

              Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The fact is that there's no linkage between the ballot bag mislabeling and Nickolaus.

              Do you understand fact?

              It's not my fault that I am fair to a fault. Most people are partisan to a fault - and will believe bad things about their enemies and good things about their friends when the facts tell us just the opposite. I don't behave that way, and so when a conservative is unfairly attacked, I correct the record.

              The problematic behavior on display isn't mine!

            •  fact-checking is good (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              In this case, the disagreement seems to be substantially semantic. As far as I can tell, Nickolaus configured the computer on which she ran the inaccurate tabulation, so it isn't unreasonable that the Journal Sentinel has at least twice (1, 2) referred to it as "her computer." That in itself doesn't mean much one way or another. I would guess that most of the United States' 3000+ counties don't have big enough IT departments for this sort of controversy to arise.

              Daily Kos has both a Democratic orientation and a commitment to being reality-based. To combine those aspects depends on people who are willing to fact-check assertions we would like to be true, but aren't necessarily so. That isn't "com[ing] to the aid of conservatives" -- that's helping us.

      •  It's about more than simple human error. (18+ / 0-)

        It's about loss of trust.  

        It's about hearing that Ms. Nickolaus has long been allowed to tally election results on her personal computer (?!?!?!) with no accountability.  So when she makes her third or fourth "human error" in favor of republicans, this makes people distrustful.  Knowing you can't "forget to save" on the program she was using makes people distrustful.  Add in the fact that she's a former Walker protege, and yeah, people feel distrustful.

        This country was badly scarred by the SCOTUS decision of 2000, and to a lesser extent, Ohio 2004.  Not to mention smaller but ubiquitous examples of the vulnerability of our system---vote caging, ACORN BS, diebold machines et al.
        The distrust is over a decade deep and easily re-ignited.

        While I can believe Ms. Nickolaus made a human error, that she's just sloppy and incompetent,---it is indeed less about her and more about showing voters that we take it all very seriously.  And that it never costs too much or takes too long to make sure we got it right.

        That kind of laser focus on election accountability is the only way we can heal. The belief in the power of the vote is shaky enough, judging by voter turn out numbers.  To continue to add to that with cynicism and distrust is probably the one thing this country can't survive.  

        •  Again, NOT "her" personal computer (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Some news story wrote "personal computer" instead of "PC", and way, way, way too many people leapt to the conclusion that it meant "personal" computer. It wasn't her "personal" personal computer. It wasn't her "personal" PC. It was on one of several PC's in the office she shares with the other employees of the county clerk's office!

          There is, in fact, accountability. She simply didn't want to allow the county IT staff to access election stuff. Now, she could have and should have handled that differently.

          But again, this isn't about Kathy Nickolaus! It's about a recount. The human error cited in this diary has absolutely nothing to do with Kathy Nickolaus. She didn't cause it, she didn't overlook the error, she had nothing to do with it.

          It's simply a coincidence that this error happened in Waukesha County.

          I have no issue with the recount, btw.

          •  My understanding (6+ / 0-)

            is that Kathy Nickolaus was tallying votes on a computer that no one else in the office had access to.  That it was in fact a PC in her office, her PC, as opposed to just one of many that everyone shares with equal access.  If you or anyone else here can link me to information that proves this wrong, I welcome it.  I like to know the facts.

            And also do you have a source that cites that "she didn't want to allow the county IT staff to access election stuff?"  Haven't heard that yet, and I'm curious about her concerns here.

            Bottom line Dolly, you think it's all about "human error and coincidence."  (And in this case that may well be, although with Kathy's record, the competency issue does come into play) I think it's all about the cancer of election distrust in this county.  Which you have yet to address.

            We see "the problem" very differently.  But I cheer our agreement that the recount is necessary.


            •  And one more thing, Dolly. (5+ / 0-)

              If she was concerned about allowing the county IT staff to access election stuff, how does that gel with your assertion that she was working on one of many computers with multiple access?

              •  I swear, get a clue! (0+ / 0-)

                Just because multiple people in the county clerk's office have access to the election results and voting software doesn't mean that the Waukesha County IT guys also had access to it!

                She was told by the US Elections Commission that she was not supposed to allow anyone without a direct need to access election stuff to access election stuff!

                Her coworkers had a need to access that stuff, and so not surprisingly, they could access that stuff. The county's IT dept had no reason to access election stuff, and so she didn't want to put election stuff on the county's new centralized computer systems!

                Really, if you're so poorly informed on this topic that you don't even know this, then you need to read some of the diaries on this topic from that timeframe before you try to challenge me again.

                •  This makes no sense, Dolly: ""the county's (0+ / 0-)

                  IT department had no reason to access election stuff, and so she didn't want to put election stuff on the county's new centralized computer systems!"

                  First question:  why didn't she want to put elections stuff on the centralized computer systems?  Especially since multiple people from her office would be having access to the data?  

                  Why store it not on an "official" computer system, but on a single computer to which those officially charged with maintaining computers used for county business would not be permitted access?

                  That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

                  by concernedamerican on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:53:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  this may help a bit (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't speak for DollyMadison, and DollyMadison certainly doesn't speak for me.

                    Director of Administration Norman A. Cummings... said he isn't interested in placing the system on the county network, but he wants to know whether the system is functional and secure and whether the county will have to replace equipment and programs in the next budget year - in time for the next presidential election.

                    "It is not a good idea to have one person in charge of everything," Cummings told the committee. "There should be someone who also reviews things. I'm not saying it should be IT. But there should be more accountability than there is now."...

                    She [Nickolaus] presented information from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission that said voting systems should never be connected to a network not under the election official's control.

                    "Waukesha County to audit election equipment"

                    There's more useful detail -- I'm trying to respect fair use.

                    Notice that Nickolaus and Cummings to some extent were talking past each other. It isn't inherently suspicious that she didn't want to put the data on the county network -- but that doesn't mean that she handled the situation well.

                    More in a bit.

                  •  continuing... (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm not sure what it is you think makes no sense. I don't think it is very hard to understand why an office manager might be willing to give several employees access to data on a computer, but unwilling to put the data on a multi-office network.

                    One of the recommendations from the audit, which Nickolaus resisted, was that she "stop using the same ID and password for three employees." Excellent recommendation. I can empathize with Nickolaus's response, which was basically: gee, it's a big hassle to have to log on every time we switch computers. That's a very common attitude: "security is to protect Us from Them, not from ourselves!" But of course experience has shown that a trusted-tribe approach to security can fail miserably.

                •  oh, peace out (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  A "challenge" based on substantive questions (even if some of them may feel rhetorical) and requests for supporting documentation is generally what DKos needs more of, don't you think?

                •  Dolly--- (0+ / 0-)

                  Well, I certainly learned more about this, which is always a positive thing in my mind.  

                  But I doubt most people in Wisconsin have followed this to the degree you, me, and others here have---and even so, I don't get to every diary on it here.  As you pointed out.  Rather rudely.

                  My original post was to offer a different POV from yours.  You said it's all about human error, I said the bigger picture is it's all about trust.  And that since 2000 the trust in our election systems has soured in this country on many levels.

                  Without drowning in the details, it's clear that right up to the top, there were questions as to how this was handled by Nickolaus, and her poor past record didn't help.  Questions of fraud are only part of it, questions regarding competency and systemic problems are also fair game.  In the words of the Director of Administration "it is not a good idea to have one person in charge of everything. There should be someone who also reviews things."

                  I agree, you are knowledgeable about the details.  But imo, you're missing the larger point, telescoping it down to human error.  I said that the recount was needed to rebuild trust.  You never answered to that.  Don't feel the need now.  I don't want to get balled out again.

            •  That's not true (0+ / 0-)

              She was not tallying votes on a computer that no one else had access to - that was a false talking point that got debunked by me in about 20 different diaries on this site in the week after the election. If you don't know that, it's your failing, not mine.

              There were multiple computers in her office, and at minimum 3 people with password access in her office. The links to that info were provided in multiple diaries discussing the meetings that happened between her and the county officials  - again, if you weren't reading about the happenings when they were happening, so that you could have seen the links I repeatedly provided, then that's your failing, not mine.

              And yeah, there are plenty of links that you could find, and could have found 3 weeks ago if you'd wanted to, that discuss the issues she had with the county IT staff having direct access to election data and voting software.

              I know what I'm talking about. It's indisputable.

              And I know that there is not any vast evidence of election fraud. Again, I've posted multiple links in the past from reputable, non-controversial, impeccable sources and think tanks and studies that document that there's almost no evidence of any systemic election fraud going on - that almost all errors turn out to be human error.

              •  So why not let the county IT guys have access (0+ / 0-)

                to checking the data on the computers and making sure that whatever computers were being used to tally votes in her office, were kosher with regard to data management and storage?

                That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

                by concernedamerican on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:54:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  @DollyMadison (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mr SeeMore, neroden

            ** ** ** WTF lower left hand corner of page KOS Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified

            by vet on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 07:15:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They do have a similar writing style... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vet, neroden, Free Jazz at High Noon

              LOL...Erik of RedHate posing as a female.

              Good catch vet.

              "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

              by Mr SeeMore on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 07:19:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, actually not (0+ / 0-)

                There are no similarities, actually. But thanks for showing that you can't refute a thing I wrote, and so all you had left in your arsenal was a baseless personal attack.

                The people "caught" here? You and Vet, that's who.

                Kathy Nickolaus' human error has nothing whatsoever to do with the human error by the election worker in Brookfield. They are totally unrelated. The fact that they both happened in Waukesha county is simply a coincidence. Making something out of a coincidence is the path that recklass people take.

            •  Yeah, you're full of it too (0+ / 0-)

              I simply defend the truth. Sometimes Republicans are unfairly attacked. Kathy Nickolaus made multiple errors. She was also unfairly attacked for things she didn't do wrong.

              See, thinking, intelligent liberals can acknowledge reality. Kneejerk conspiracy theorists can't - they see bad guys around every corner.

              That's your failing, not mine.

              •  You're possibly/probably right (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                But I would like to know why the information was leaked to rightward blogs before the press conference. Further I'd like to know why she didn't tell the Democratic poll-worker about a game-changing error before they both appeared in the press conference together.

                OK, possibly not malicious. But... weird. At the very least really poor form.

                •  separable issues (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  This thing about conservative blogs -- I haven't tried to fact-check the specifics (what blogs ran what, when?). But I think Nickolaus claims that she called the GAB on Wednesday to give a heads-up, so there is more than one possible source for the leak. I haven't tried to figure this out because it seems tangential to figuring out who won the election, but certainly it could influence what we think of Nickolaus.

                  Further I'd like to know why she didn't tell the Democratic poll-worker about a game-changing error before they both appeared in the press conference together.

                  Apparently she told her something, although it isn't clear exactly what: Here:
                  Once the canvass had been completed and the results were finalized, I was called into Kathy's office along with Pat (the Republican observer) and told of an impending 5:30pm press conference. It was at that point that I was first made aware of an error Kathy had made in Brookfield City. Kathy told us she thought she had saved the Brookfield voter information Tuesday night, but then on Wednesday she said she noticed she had not hit save. Kathy didn't offer an explanation about why she didn't mention anything prior to Thursday afternoon's canvass completion, but showed us different tapes where numbers seemed to add up, though I have no idea where the numbers were coming from. I was not told of the magnitude of this error, just that she had made one....

                  Nickolaus may have assumed that it was only too obvious that adding the city of Brookfield to the totals would -- all else equal -- alter the statewide outcome.

                  Regardless, I agree that it's at least really poor form.

                  •  Re: "Conservative blogs" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Here's an article from the "National Review Online" (called out specifically by the Klop camp in their request to have the county investigated.)

                    The error, revealed today, would give incumbent Supreme Court Justice David Prosser a net 7,381 votes against his challenger, attorney Joanne Kloppenburg.
                    ...[T]he addition of the Brookfield votes for Prosser could push the justice’s lead beyond the legal threshold that would trigger an automatic recount. Under state law, Kloppenburg could still ask for a recount up to three days after the official canvass, but would have to pay for it herself.
                    “Waukesha County officials have announced a press conference for 5:30 CST.”

                    The article has a timestamp 5:29 EST (4:29 CST), over an hour before the presser.
      •  Probably human error (12+ / 0-)

        You are factually incorrect about the Brookfield officials, though. Brookfield reported the totals to Nickolaus and reported the totals on the Brookfield website.

        Nickolaus somehow didn't add the Brookfield numbers to the County total and therefore reported the totals incorrectly on the County website. She claims she forgot to save.

        The problem in Waukesha is how to verify that it was, in fact, human error. Her counting methods are non-standard, secretive, and virtually impossible to audit.

        It probably was human error, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Nickolaus's method of counting cannot be easily verified.

        it is hereby DECLARED that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published within the meaning of Wis. Stats. §§ 991.11, 35.095(1)(b) and 35.095(3)(b), and is therefore not in effect.

        by Giles Goat Boy on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 03:53:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What the heck are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

          I am not "wrong about the Brookfield officials".

          The Brookfield officials are 100% responsible for the misnumbering on the bag of ballots!

          Remember, the thing you pointed out in your diary?

          This {the topic of our diary} is yet another example of something that's no big deal - someone in the city of Brookfield - not the County Clerk of Waukesha county - made a simple human error.

          And you're wrong about the issues in the county clerk's office, but again, that's a wholly separate issue! It's a simple coincidence that has nothing to do with Kathy Nickolaus.

          •  It was not clear to me in your comment... (3+ / 0-)

            ...that you were talking about the bag numbering error. I thought you were still referencing the "found ballots" comment. My apology. I was confused.

            As for the problems in Nickolaus's office...if I'm wrong then the Waukesha County Board is wrong too, because they are the ones who criticized her secretive and unsecured method of storing election data, and it's her sloppiness that brought extra attention to her office.

            As far as today's issue, it's an embarrassing start to the recount for the Waukesha County and Town of Brookfield election officers, probably nothing more, but in context of all that's happened, it raises eyebrows. It's not realistic to suggest that people should just trust the Waukesha canvass without asking questions.

            Waukesha is going to receive extra scrutinity, and if they don't like it, they can blame Kathy Nickolaus's cavalier attitutude toward previous audits. She took a risk and it came back to bite her. I have no sympathy for her for any criticism she's getting now.

            it is hereby DECLARED that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published within the meaning of Wis. Stats. §§ 991.11, 35.095(1)(b) and 35.095(3)(b), and is therefore not in effect.

            by Giles Goat Boy on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 07:37:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, you're wrong, (0+ / 0-)

              and no, you misportray what the county officials found.

              They initially questioned what she did. After hearing her explanation, she okayed her methods with some caveats.

              You judging her based upon the mistaken impressions that they went into that meeting with is incredibly, horribly dishonest and you should be ashamed.

              She believed, based upon recommendations from the US Elections Commission, that she should not allow anyone who didn't have a direct need to access election data or voting software to have access. That meant, to her, that she should not put those things on county computers controlled by the county's IT Dept! She could have chosen other ways to preven them from having access, but she wasn't trying to keep anything "secret". She was trying to protect the election process from any unnecessary risks!

              And it wasn't "unsecured" either. You're simply not telling the truth. I understand that you'd like to be able to smear her without being contradicted. Too bad, so sad.

              I fully understand why she got attention. What I also understand is that she was unfairly maligned for many things that she didn't do wrong, as well as fairly maligned for the things that she did do badly. That's my issue here - it is, of course, perfectly okay to criticize someone for things they've done wrong, but it's not okay to criticize someone unfairly for things that they didn't do wrong. She didn't keep election data on her "personal" computer. She kept it on PC's (personal computers) that belonged in her office. But it wasn't "her" office - it was the county clerk's office, which is the office she and her employees work in! They had at least 3 people with access to the election database and the voting software - it wasn't secret or unsecured.

              And no, coincidences don't raise the eyebrows of people who understand what coincidences mean and don't mean. The fact that an elections worker in a polling place in Brookfield made a simple clerical error has nothing to do with the errors Kathy Nickolaus made. The fact that Brookfield is in Waukesha County means nothing! Somehow you can't get that simple concept through your thick skull - that's your failing, not mine! An error by that election worker is totally and completely unrelated, in any way, to what Nickolaus did on election night!

              And no one is saying that she should get sympathy for the attention she brought on herself - that's your bogus strawman argument since you can't actually refute a single thing I've ever, ever written on this topic in any one of 20 diaries! What should not happen is diaries like this, where two unrelated items get unreasonably linked together.

          •  town of Brookfield, not the city of Brookfield (0+ / 0-)

            The bag discrepancy was in the town of Brookfield (according to news accounts), whereas the election week controversy involved the city of Brookfield. Two different places. It's little wonder that GGB was confused about your meaning.

        •  You are more eloquent than I-nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  My favorite spin on "To err . . ." (5+ / 0-)

        At UW-Madison on the library bathroom wall . . . "To err is human, to forgive is against University policy."

      •  yeah, not my definition of "shenanigans" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DollyMadison, buckybadger1988
        a. mischief; prankishness: Halloween shenanigans.
        b. deceit; trickery.

        Some of "those who predicted shenanigans" probably won't admit to disappointment no matter what happens, but having an inspector write a "2" instead of a  "3" doesn't look like shenanigans, unless the inspector has an extremely tame sense of "mischief."

        (If there are shenanigans to be discovered, I'm all for it.)

        And you're quite right that -- based on the available evidence, at least -- there were no "mysterious 'found' ballots." We might as well get the facts straight.

        •  I agree. (4+ / 0-)

          My point was not that this is an example of shenanigans, just that the misreported bag number did nothing to ease the minds of those who think there were shenanigans.

          "What a great way to start," one official tabulator said.

          Exactly. People are already suspicious and then the first bag of ballots to be counted is misreported. Not a confidence-booster.

          it is hereby DECLARED that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published within the meaning of Wis. Stats. §§ 991.11, 35.095(1)(b) and 35.095(3)(b), and is therefore not in effect.

          by Giles Goat Boy on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 07:50:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  People who believe in coincidences being relevant (0+ / 0-)

            Are wrong.

            If one links things, as you did, that shouldn't be linked, that unfair linkage fosters CT, and is wrong.

          •  for what it's worth (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Giles Goat Boy

            I suspect that most people would construe the phrase "did not disappoint those who predicted shenanigans" to mean "provided evidence of shenanigans." But it certainly doesn't have to mean that. If you had written, "The bright lights in the sky did not disappoint those who predicted an extraterrestrial invasion," probably most readers would look for contextual clues to clarify your intent.

            Here you don't seem to have provided any contextual clues, so readers have a lot of leeway to interpret your comment however they like. That could be construed as a strength, a weakness, or maybe even both.

      •  Kathy (5+ / 0-)

        flipped 3 elections with her mistakes, yes? We all agree there's a problem with her methods.
        I will say that it was Kloppenburg who requested a recount not only because of the closeness of the race but because of "anomalies" in Waukesha and other districts. She also requested an investigator to look into Waukesha specifically. Requesting a recount and calling for an investigator are two very different things.

        I have never claimed this is anything but human error but the reasons for recount appear to be quite a bit about verifying human errors and, perhaps, unacceptable practices (Kathy, photocopied ballots, more?).

        Wisconsin's New State Motto: DRAWROF

        by One bite at a time on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 05:54:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, Kathy didn't "flip" any elections (0+ / 0-)


          There's no evidence that there was ever any bad intent in anything that she did with respect to counting votes. None. Zero. Zilch.

          There's evidence that she made human errors. There's evidence that she failed to have a good process to ensure that she didn't make an error like she did on election night, totally omitting some vote totals, but no evidence that she did it to influence the election.

          And there's no evidence that she ever "flipped" any other election either.

          •  Some investigations are certainly in order, (0+ / 0-)

            however.  Enough irregularities and "human errors" over a period of years have occurred in her office, under her responsibility and control, that many people think there should be an investigation into her string of "human errors" around elections in which thousands of votes for Republican candidates are "found" after the election and added to vote totals.

            That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

            by concernedamerican on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:58:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Didn't say there was bad intent (0+ / 0-)

            said there were problems with her methods. Don't put words in my mouth.

            Also said it was Kloppenburg who called for an investigation. Which is something more than a recount. Would you say her request for an investigation is not warranted? or would  you say it's warranted because of human error? or would you way the request is frivolous?

            Pretty sure MSN reported there were local elections that resulted in flipping the results (as in who was first declared winner and who ended up being the winner).

            Wisconsin's New State Motto: DRAWROF

            by One bite at a time on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 07:37:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The Brookfield clerk did not make the error (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Free Jazz at High Noon

        She released her data to the media on election night, and that was the data that ultimately had to be "found" because Nickolaus did not at first report Brookfield.

    •  This *should* clear up (4+ / 0-)

      whether or not those votes actually exist

    •  HOS Troll n/t (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:

      The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

      by lotusmaglite on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:35:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  HR abuse. (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
      •  no consensus on that (0+ / 0-)

        I can understand the point of view, but this comment really isn't a good spot to put it to the test, as far as I can tell.

        •  HOS (0+ / 0-)

 HOS. Less than 4 months and 260+ HRs? Troll. HOS. When an admin tells me otherwise, I'll apologize,

          The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

          by lotusmaglite on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 08:35:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not looking for an apology (0+ / 0-)

            I just wandered into a donut toss and had to try to figure out what to do about it.

            The exception to the normal troll rating golden rule of "rate the comment, not who makes it" is for people so disruptive to the community that they need to be quickly autobanned. This is a very difficult threshold to reach, and is reserved almost entirely for freepers or other trolls here only to disrupt. "Troll rate on sight" is not intended to be used against anyone but the most obvious and egregious of trolls -- if your definition of obvious and egregious is not the definition used by the rest of the community or by the site administrators, expect your rating ability to be suspended.

            Under site policy at this time, volfied's prodigious HR record apparently doesn't even qualify for revocation of TU status, much less for autobanning. Does that make sense to me? not so much, no. But, for me, it's a pretty strong argument against applying "obvious and egregious" here. I don't see an emergency.
            •  I understand. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              It's a judgment call.

              For me, 260+ HRs in less than 4 months, plus the bragging about having been here before, plus having "day one" knowledge of other kossacks and the ratings system equals zombie troll. I'm not the only one who thinks so, just the only one here right now.

              If site policy has changed to the point that what would have been a zombie troll is now a legit TU who isn't gaming the system to stay undead, then I am wrong.

              I respect your decision to give the benefit of the doubt, as I have done so many times in the past - with this particular zombie being an example.

              The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

              by lotusmaglite on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 09:39:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think it's good to discuss such matters (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                It's certainly a drag to discuss whether individual posters are zombies or not -- but if it's going to be (almost) all "community moderation" all the time, I don't know what else to do. Some posters just specialize in being Edge Cases from Hell.

                •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  If the onus of moderation is on the community, then we must discuss if we're going to have anything but an anarchic free-for-all.

                  It's especially important in the Edge Cases from Hell (well said), since some are simply cases of somewhat misanthropic people who rub others the wrong way. I know a few of those, and they collect their share of HRs, shrug, and move on. Being less than diplomatic doesn't necessarily make one a troll, IMHO.

                  There are a number of things that will move me from thinking, "That was an ill-advised remark; someone is having a bad day" to thinking "Troll, troll, troll-ey troll troll". The first and foremost is a pattern of behavior. A handful of HRed comments spread out over a long time is no big deal to me. When it becomes a large number, OTOH...
                  Or tight groups of HRs followed by a quiet period, followed by another tight grouping of HRs. This - to me - sets off "gaming" alarms.
                  All of this doesn't count the pie war diaries, wherein lots of HRs are thrown around that say more about the thrower than the recipient.

                  I've been here for quite a while now, and up until DK4 - with it's various calculation issues and emphasis on community moderation - I threw maybe 3 or 4 donuts in all that time. Since the switch, I've had several occasions to unload the whole quiver in a matter of hours.

                  That - again, to me - would suggest the need to keep talking about what parameters and metrics are being used for moderation.

                  The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

                  by lotusmaglite on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 10:51:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Apparently (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not alone in thinking this one a zombie.

          The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

          by lotusmaglite on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 09:13:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site