Skip to main content

View Diary: WI: GAB Failed to Review Minutes from Waukesha Before Certifying S.C. Election (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  certify with confidence? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    What does that actually mean?

    It's swell that Brad has been in talks with the GAB for weeks, but if he can't write more precisely than he did in this article, I don't see how it does the rest of us any good.

    •  re: certify with confidence. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, joe shikspack

      The GAB didn't just look at the math and then certify.  The GAB basically turned a deaf ear to all the irregularities and errors and huge problems and basically said, "hey, it is close enough to the poll tapes so any problems are minor and don't affect the ultimate outcome".

      Yet there is evidence that the poll tapes are problematic, and in some cases, never worked at all.  When brought to their attention that the source of their "trust" is itelf plagued with problems, they once agian just turn a deaf ear.

      By their own words, the result is "certified" because the recount is "close enough" to the poll tapes.  Yet there is evidence the poll tapes themselves are untrustworthy and unverified.

      •  "basically... basically" (0+ / 0-)

        If you get to "basically" make up what the GAB "basically" did, that won't necessarily provide much insight into what the GAB actually did.

        (What is it that you think the GAB should have done?)

        Yet there is evidence that the poll tapes are problematic, and in some cases, never worked at all.

        You may know the difference between op-scan results tapes and DRE VVPATs, but there is no way of telling based on your words here and elsewhere.
        By their own words, the result is "certified" because the recount is "close enough" to the poll tapes.

        Their own words? Really?

        So is it your view that if the recount had shown Kloppenburg to be the winner, then the GAB would have refused to certify because the recount wouldn't have been "close enough" to the poll tapes?

        •  Allow me to clarify (0+ / 0-)

          What would I have the GAB do?  Well, I fail to see how with this many problems in a single state election, the GAB can "certify" anything without some sort of disclaimer or voice of concern.  I also don't see how it is possible for ANYONE to certify ANY election with this many problems without first reviewing the report.  That may not be the responsibility of the GAB but it seems like a massive flaw in the system to have election results certified before ever seeing a report of all the massive problems.  

          Doesn't that make any sense to you?  Am I seriously talking crazy?

          Part of the reason there is so little information out there regarding the problems elections have these days is because the media doesn't cover the local stories that well, if they cover them much at all.  They don't detail all the problems.  What the media relies on is the report from the GAB saying the results are certified, so then the media will continue reporting that everything is perfect and democracy has worked once again!   Yet there is little to no evidence of that, if you ask me.  

          Instead, what we are left with is a system where someone has to go to court and fight against all the problems and technically FIGHT against the fact the results were certified.  This makes it look like the "loser" (since there is zero incentive for the winner to care about election problems) is trying to overthrow the "certified" and therefore "legitimate" outcome.  There is no way for this to be a winning battle.    

          In fact I just looked and Kloppenburg has conceded the election and will not challenge it in court.  Because once the election is certified, the burden of proof to overturn it is so high that not even the hundred of problems is enough to overturn the certified/legitimate result.  Move along now...nothing more to see here people.  Just trust that everything is above board.

          As for your second question, yes, the GAB said if the "recount" numbers generally match Election Night poll tapes printed out by the tabulation computers, they were satisfied that there was no “fraud.”  However, one of those results tapes is dated before the actual day of the election.  And some areas poll tapes, which people are supposed to be able to check to make sure their votes were counted correctly, didn’t even work and nobody noticed.  Do we just assume their votes were counted correctly despite the thousands of miscounted votes that were found by the hand recount?  

          Please note that I put “fraud” in quotes above because I have no interest in whether or not fraud occurred by an individual and group.  That should answer your last straw man comment.  

          My concern is that democracy as a whole is becoming a fraud because of the embarrassing joke it has become.  Because of voting machines (touch screen, optical scan, it literally makes ZERO difference which), and all the barriers that seem to be in place, a single state can’t even hold simple election.  Yet other countries like Canada can have an entire national election, all on hand counted ballots, and results were 100% verifiable and counted the same day?    

          You don’t find it strange that we are supposed to be the shining star of democracy – the envy of the world – and we can’t even hold a single simple state election without literally hundreds of pieces of evidence that something is terribly wrong?   And WI isn’t the first.  Hell, it isn’t even the exception to the rule.  This is happening every time, everywhere.  This is the new normal for elections.  It sure doesn’t seem like a confidence boosting step forward for democracy to me.  

          •  how can the GAB _not_ certify? (0+ / 0-)

            Does it even have the legal authority to demand the Waukesha minutes as a precondition of certification? Maybe it does, but that isn't apparent to me, and I haven't seen anyone seriously try to make the case.

            Moreover, I think we all know damn well that the minutes won't settle all the questions about Waukesha. What exactly is the point of insisting that the GAB should have reviewed them, other than to have a basis for complaining about the GAB?

            I suspect there will be many opportunities for informed observers to be highly critical of the GAB. I don't know why Brad picked this one, or why you're going along with it.

            Presumably Kloppenburg isn't challenging the election result because she doesn't think she has sufficient evidence to overturn it. As far as I can tell, you don't either. How is that the GAB's fault, or the media's?

            ...yes, the GAB said if the "recount" numbers generally match Election Night poll tapes printed out by the tabulation computers, they were satisfied that there was no “fraud.”  

            What are you quoting?

            Dunno, seems like you're pretty much marinating in FUD. I don't think that's a great way of advancing election integrity.

            •  You are correct. (0+ / 0-)

              It won't settle anything, unfortunately.

              And I also openly admit that the GAB may not have the authority to NOT certify the election.  However, I would ask why we even need to certify elections if any and all problems that creep up are ignored or swept under the rug.  It is no different from all the people who are saying it makes no difference if chain of custody was broken in a number of ways, and ballot bags are wide open or missing numbers...well, if that is the case then what is the point of the procedures?  

              This is what is so frustrating.  We have a number of processes and procedures in place to ensure safe, secure and verifiable elections.  Yet when these procedures are not followed, for whatever reason, people just shrug and count the votes anyway.  It doesn't matter, they say, because objections will be noted in the report.  But then what is the point of the report since the election is over, certified and confirmed with potentially tampered or illegal ballots counted?  

              Again, I ask, is this just crazy talk?  

              Meanwhile, my comments on the media have nothing to do with the court case and more the public perception that allows these problems to be swept under the rug and, actually, makes fighting election irregularities MORE difficult in any forum.

              You can hate what I'm saying all you like, but it is insanity to me that there are rules and regulations in place to assure election results are verifiable and when those procedures are broken, nobody cares and says they don't matter.  As I've said many times before, it is faith based democracy.  We have no way of knowing for sure the voters had their say...we just have to take the word of the people counting the ballots that everything is above board, because we can't prove it and evidence seems to the contrary.

              And to accuse me of FUD, is laughable considering this is a discussion about election integrity and you seeming to have no concerns about the impact all the problems, not just in WI, but all across the country in every single election, have on democracy.  

              Because it seems to me that it is impossible to ignore all the problems, or write them off as not important, and then say you care about election integrity.  That is someone, who in my opinion, only cares about the end result and not necessarily the integrity of obtaining that results.

              •  OK, let's drill down (0+ / 0-)
                However, I would ask why we even need to certify elections if any and all problems that creep up are ignored or swept under the rug.  It is no different from all the people who are saying it makes no difference if chain of custody was broken in a number of ways, and ballot bags are wide open or missing numbers...well, if that is the case then what is the point of the procedures?

                I don't know where all these people are who "are saying it makes no difference if chain of custody was broken in a number of ways," etc. What's important, I think, is to be able to distinguish issues.

                Like it or not, U.S. elections don't get rerun. That being the case, it was necessary and appropriate for people to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to indicate that Kloppenburg probably won the election. Most people concluded that there wasn't -- apparently including Kloppenburg. That isn't because it's inherently impossible for an election conducted mostly on op-scan to yield such evidence.

                That's just one issue. Another issue is whether anyone should face legal and/or disciplinary action because of his or her actions. And another issue is how to improve election procedures in the future. To be frank, people who run around saying "faith-based elections! faith-based elections!" don't strike me as having much useful to say about any of those issues.

                you seeming to have no concerns about the impact all the problems

                Yeah, that's the kind of unsupportable slander that has made election integrity controversial on Daily Kos. Congratulations to you and yours. Damn, it's been a long six years.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site