Skip to main content

View Diary: First 6 Brookfield Ballot Bags "appear to be improperly sealed", Counted Anyway (220 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The voters elected the County Clerk. (10+ / 0-)

    If you elect someone who is proven incompetent you are making your bed because in a situation where the anti-tampering seals are broken there may be no way to tell incompetence from fraud. The whole point of the recount is to confirm and verify the vote count totals. If that can't be done because of an incompetent elected official I don't doubt that she will have trouble winning re-election to her position, but your contention that we have to err on the side of counting votes is misguided in my opinion because as I pointed out above counting a fraudulent vote negates a legitimate one. There may be other ways to verify these ballots even if the sealing procedures were followed incorrectly, but that's where the burden of proof seems to me to lie.

    Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

    by play jurist on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:59:10 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  She's going to have no problem being reelected. (6+ / 0-)

      She's got the R by her name, and she's doing exactly what's expected of her.

    •  probably not the county clerk who sealed the bags (3+ / 0-)

      It's the city clerk who was trying to explain how darn hard they are to seal correctly.

      ...your contention that we have to err on the side of counting votes is misguided in my opinion because as I pointed out above counting a fraudulent vote negates a legitimate one.

      Please be careful. That's pretty much exactly the same argument that voter ID advocates make. But I'm not sure we can really say anything very useful about burden of proof in the confines of a DKos comment thread. We haven't actually seen any of the physical evidence.
      •  Yes, of course you're right (0+ / 0-)

        It's simply coincidence that this city where this city clerk works is in Waukesha county, but again, too many here at DK don't seem to understand that correlation doesn't equal causation.

        •  You're begging the question here. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HudsonValleyMark

          The very issue in the line of questioning is whether the seals are opened in such a way as to suggest a snafu or tampering. One side is saying they look like they are just opened. The other is saying it's normal for them to come undone. That's a factual dispute. The line of questioning was toward establishing evidence of tampering. People can certainly disagree on what should count as such evidence without being confused about basic distinctions.

          Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

          by play jurist on Thu May 05, 2011 at 09:15:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I'm not at all (0+ / 0-)

            I'm pointing out that the diarist, and others, flip out over things that are happening in other communities that happen to be in Waukesha county when there's no correlation between what mistakes the county clerk made and what mistakes were made by the city clerk and other elections officials!

          •  yes, that's an important issue (0+ / 0-)

            Not the only one, but well worth clarifying.

            What I took to be DM's point is that the fact that these bags came from Waukesha County -- the city of Brookfield, even -- doesn't in itself constitute evidence of fraud. Brookfield posted its counts on election night, and it is logically possible that those counts were fraudulent on election night, but that would not pertain to Nickolaus's failure to include Brookfield in the unofficial totals.

            (There is also the theory that Nickolaus somehow stuffed a Brookfield's worth of votes in other parts of the county, effectively doubling the Brookfield vote between election night and the canvass. I would take that more seriously if someone at least tried to explain how it would have worked.)

      •  Good point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HudsonValleyMark

        I modified the point I'm making above.

        Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

        by play jurist on Thu May 05, 2011 at 09:07:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is just wrong. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DollyMadison, VClib

      Look, people have a constitutional right to vote.  "Electing someone who is incompetent" cannot take away your constitutional right to vote.   By casting a vote in one election, I don't forfeit my right to have votes counted in other elections.  

      And, not everybody in a county vote for Ms. Incompetent.  Do people who DIDN'T vote for her get their right to vote taken away, too?  

      If the canvassing board thinks a vote is FRAUDULENT, it gets thrown out.  Absolutely.  But that's the point -- you have to prove the VOTE is fraudulent.  Proving that the elected official was incompetent doesn't prove the VOTE is a fraudulent vote.  If you can prove a FRAUDULENT VOTE, that vote gets tossed. If you can't prove that the vote is fraudulent, it stays in, because we then assume that it is a legitimate vote (even if the handler was incompetent).  

      Ms. Incompetent absolutely should suffer consequences.  But the consequences aren't to take away the constitutional right of the people to have their vote counted.  

      •  What would count as "proof" to you? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HudsonValleyMark

        If the seals are very, very failsafe and showed no sign of tampering anywhere else, would that constitute proof? When there's a pattern of anomalies and the people responsible keep saying "we're just incompetent" it does, to me, make for an accrual of evidence. But I agree that it's much more complicated than my initial missives suggest, even though I'm not quite entirely on board with the strength of your supposition.

        Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

        by play jurist on Thu May 05, 2011 at 09:11:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site