So the recount begins tomorrow. (WI Supreme Court)

[duffer]

Since we in the Badger State are flush with cash, we've decided to have a recount of the election of a state Supreme Court judge. It's estimated by the left and right to come in at a minimum of a million bucks. A few short years ago this would have been peanuts, but Jim "Hammerhead" Doyle's excesses have come due, and that's real money now. Just ask the out of state labor agitators. Every penny counts.

The day after the election, flush with a victory of just over 200 votes, Kloppenberg was front and center declaring victory (front page of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal). All was well. But then...

The clerk in charge of reporting for Waukesha county noticed the reporting from the entire city of Brookfield hadn't been included. Keep in mind, earlier reporting was only done for the benefit of the A.P. so they would have numbers to report. Nothing had been filed or certified. Suddenly Prosser had a lead of over 7000 votes.

The vice-chair of the Democratic Party the next day conceded it was human error and there was no dirty play involved. She was emphatic. She also trusted her party to do the right thing. Poor girl.

So after claiming victory with 200 votes, this twit wants a7300 margin verified.

[elucidator]

Its those "out of state labor agitators" you gotta look out for! Sure, they start out, its all Woody Guthrie songs, but next thing you know, they call in their goons....

[Simplicio]

Eh, they're within the margin that State law says the State will pay for a recount. It seems kinda silly for the State to then complain about having to pay for a recount when the vote is within that margin.

[gonzomax]

Finding 12,000 votes almost all Republican, after the election was over,on the Republican clerks personal PC, is too fishy to ignore. I would question it.

[Sitnam]

...trying to resist the tu quoque from across the St. Croix...

[duffer]

The election wasn't over. The votes were submitted properly. Affirmed by the Democratic party co-chair. Miss that part?

[duffer]

And yes, it's within guidelines of a recount. Never said it wasn't. Unless you can prove I said otherwise. You're obviously overlooking the fact she declared victory with 200 votes but wants to insure integrity after losing by 7300. The best, I'm sure it's on You Tube, is when she was asked afterward point-blank if she thought she won and there was a13 second pause while she formulated a non-answer.

[duffer]

Keep in mind after the budget battle, all eyes were on this state. Do you really, in your heart, believe something this obvious would be attempted?

[elucidator]

...Affirmed by the Democratic party co-chair. Miss that part?

I had the impression that the statement by the Democrat more or less was an expression of good faith that no shenanigans were afoot, an affirmation I'm inclined to accept at face value. Human error is entirely plausible. Besides which, I am unaware that the Democratic Party co-chair has some definitive power to "affirm" anything beyond her own personal opinion.

Be that as it may, a thorough investigation of the circumstances and an ordinary sort of recount is warranted, if only for the sake of public transparency, something we should demand of any electoral circumstances whatsoever.

[duffer]

So when she was ahead by only 200 why did she declare victory instead of a recount to make sure?

This is academic anyway. Can anyone find any election with this wide a margin that was ever overturned? Anywhere? I won't even limit you to the US. We just had national attention conferred to us over current problems inherited (thanks for the buzzword Obama supporters) from the previous administration.. Do we really need to make the children of Wisconsin and elderly suffer by wasting money on this? Really? Won't you think of the children?

[appleciders]

I don't think there's any reason not to declare victory when there's a tight margin once you've been told the votes are in. Presumably she knew there'd be a recount but was confident she'd win it. If Prosser declares victory now, before the recount, I'd find it equally reasonable. Recounts rarely change outcomes.

[elucidator]

In another state wherein the citizen's cognitive capacities are not clotted by cheese, a Senatorial vote was overturned, and a stupid clown was turned out in favor of a smart one.

[duffer]

Good to see the voice of liberalism has gone even further off the deep end. Buying all your shirts in one color these days I presume?

[elucidator]

Yep, crazy as a duck on acid. Which only means if my ideas are better than yours, yours must really bite the bag. I'm leaning that way.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by duffer

So when she was ahead by only 200 why did she declare victory instead of a recount to make sure?

I don't have extensive personal experience of recounts, but in my memory, it's always like this.

The person who wins the initial count claims victory, and the person who doesn't calls for the recount. Leaving aside for a moment any issues of party politics, would you ever expect the presumptive winner to ask for a recount?

It's the same in football. The team on the "good" end of the call tries to get a snap off quickly so that the officials don't have a chance to overturn the ruling, and the team on the "bad" end of the call throws the challenge flag. Would you expect it to work the other way around?

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Yep, crazy as a duck on acid. Which only means if my ideas are better than yours, yours must really bite the bag. I'm leaning that way.

Bite the bag? Bite the BAG???

Man, I haven't heard that one since 1966. How about "Lick the bag"? That was pretty big among the high school sophomore crowd in those days too. I don't remember your type using those expressions though. Usually it was the semi-athletic, good-lookin', rambunctious party types who threw those silly jibes around. Ah, well, who knows, maybe you were cool back then.

Memries! Lalalalalalalala....

[anya marie]

Why does this woman still have a job and is not being prosecuted for election fraud is epic fail.

Oh hai ... let me pull 7000 votes out of a closet for u, nobody will notice.

This is bullshit that can be smelled from several states away. I cnt wait to see what other fuckups will happen next in Wisconsin.

[Kobal2]

duffer, partisan bullshit aside, you talk like your preferred candidate/party wouldn't have asked for an investigation had their opponent pulled thousands of votes out of a hat. Do you honestly believe it to be the case ? And more importantly would you, as a member of their electorate,have been satisfied had they done so and simply conceded the nomination to the hat puller, no contest ?

Of course you wouldn't. Nobody would - because pulling thousands of votes from under the couch cushions is inherently suspicious. What you should be doing if you weren't blinded by partisanship is welcoming the recount as, assuming your guy remains in the lead, it will categorically rule out foul play and give him a firmer mandate. And if he ends up losing, then you should also welcome the recount, for having avoided undemocratic results to pass.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Nobody would - because pulling thousands of votes from under the couch cushions is inherently suspicious.

Especially considering that the same district, under that person's time there, has had other vote irregularities previously, including more votes between the candidates than actual ballots cast - time for an audit.

And yes, I would expect any vote leader, regardless of party or political race, to eventually declare themselves the winner, and the person trailing to either opt to call for a recount or to concede.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by Ferret Herder

Especially considering that the same district, under that person's time there, has had other vote irregularities previously, including more votes between the candidates than actual ballots cast - time for an audit.

And yes, I would expect any vote leader, regardless of party or political race, to eventually declare themselves the winner, and the person trailing to either opt to call for a recount or to concede.

Also wanted to add in, for those not aware, that the clerk who found the extra votes also worked for Prosser in the mid 90's while he was State Assembly Speaker.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Bite the bag? Bite the BAG???

Man, I haven't heard that one since 1966.

Was that before or after American civilization began its downward spiral?

[Ca3799]

My thoughts are that the "finding" of the missing votes and the registrar's history of keeping her records on on non-network computer for 'security reasons' are odd. Perhaps, and most likely, everything is above board, but since there is doubt, and the law supports it, a recount is called for.

That registrar has a history of irregularities. She should be investigated and probably lose her position for costing taxpayers so much extra money.

"Kathy Nickolaus is a Republican donor who's been involved in a series of controversial elections, including a ballot mix-up in 2004, sample ballots in 2005 that accidentally told voters who to vote for, a 2007 incident involving touch-screen voting, and perhaps most importantly, a 2002 controversy in which Nickolaus was granted immunity as part of a criminal investigation into Republican misdeeds in the State Assembly." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._04/028849.php

[Bricker]

The law says that a margin like this gives the parties the right to ask for a recount at taxpayer expense.

The OP's contention seems to be that because Kloppenberg knows it's unlikely to change the results, she should not ask for the recount, and because she declared victory with a margin of 200 votes, it's now hypocritical to request a recount given that she's down by thousands.

Do you really, in your heart, believe something this obvious would be attempted/

Since you use that standard, let me turn it around. Prosser has criticized Prosser on similar grounds. But do YOU believe, in your heart, that Prosser would not have requested a recount if the law permitted it and he was on the losing end?

I'm confident that the recount will show that Prosser won. But I don't think Kloppenberg has done a thing wrong, and with a race this tight, and one that's seen ballot irregularities, a recount makes perfect sense. More to the point, the people of Wisconsin have clearly expressed their will to pay for a recount when the margin of error is so tight. They are the ones with the right and the power to make that call.

[Bryan Ekers]

At the very worst, and it's not even all that bad, the original declaration of victory was premature.


Big deal.

[Calabasita]

Originally Posted by duffer

So when she was ahead by only 200 why did she declare victory instead of a recount to make sure?

This is academic anyway. Can anyone find any election with this wide a margin that was ever overturned? Anywhere? I won't even limit you to the US. We just had national attention conferred to us over current problems inherited (thanks for the buzzword Obama supporters) from the previous administration.. Do we really need to make the children of Wisconsin and elderly suffer by wasting money on this? Really? Won't you think of the children?

What current problems Wisconsin has were inherited by Doyle? I'm not saying there isn't the possibility that there aren't any, but you are making a pretty strong claim that would seem to indicate that all of our current problems are. Do you have a cite for that claim handy?

This is what the Democrat on the canvassing panel actually said:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/119627189.html

I think that the numerous counts of election errors in Waukesha under Kathy Nickolous have really hurt the confidence of Wisconsin voters in the reliability of election results. That, as well as it falling within the acceptable range for a State supported recount, are enough of a reason for me to agree with a recount as well as an independent audit of her office. I do, however, think that the results of the recount will end with Prosser as the victor. Without the Brookfield vote, the percentage of voters from that county is lower than it would be traditionally as well as compared to a similair county like Outagamie. I think this really was an episode of human error, although it would suggest Nickolous is quite incompetent.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but is it not normal for someone to claim victory when 100% of the counties have been accounted for, and then for the loser to ask for a recount? Perhaps she should have waited until after the canvass, but who could possibly have forseen an entire district being omitted? The contention that the winner would request one is quite odd. I thought it was assumed by all that if the canvassing results had stood that Prosser would ask for a recount, as he should because of the margin and the fact that it was within his right to do so.

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

The real story here that's being missed is that it is absolutely insane to have the office responsible for administering and/or certifying elections headed by a partisan elected official. Seriously, is there a Republican way of running an election, and a Democrat way? There have just been way too many situations like this, where the person who is supposed to make sure it's all fair has a clear interest in a particular outcome.

In Indiana, our recently elected Secretary of State is under indictment for voter fraud. You heard me right, fucking voter fraud. Current state law says that if he is required to step down, the Democrat that he beat in November takes his spot. Of course, the Republicans in the legislature are trying to change it so the (Republican, of course) governor will appoint someone when the time comes.

[jayjay]

Frankly, if Prosser had asked for a recount when it looked like Kloppenburg had won by 200, I'd have considered it entirely proper and aboveboard. If it's within the margin, the purported loser has the option of a recount paid for by the state.

And Prosser HAS declared victory after the extra votes were "found". Twice.

[elucidator]

There is strong enough evidence of sheer human d'oh that I am content, barring further evidence, that these votes are legit and the dumbfuck simply did what dumbfucks do. Hence, I must remonstrate with you, in the interests of utterly non-partisan rectumtude, for your use of suspicious and/or ironic "quotes". Tsk tsk, sir. Tsk tsk.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

In Indiana, our recently elected Secretary of State is under indictment for voter fraud. You heard me right, fucking voter fraud. Current state law says that if he is required to step down, the Democrat that he beat in November takes his spot. Of course, the Republicans in the legislature are trying to change it so the (Republican, of course) governor will appoint someone when the time comes.

Of course they are.

In Massachusetts, the Democratically controlled legislature changed the rules about governors appointing senators to vacant seats several times, denying the advantage to a Republican governor but then switching back to appointments after they had a Democratic governor and control of the Senate was at risk.

Naturally, although always cloaked in the facade of serving democracy, legislatures will seek to maximize their party's advantage. In the Indiana case, I could make the argument that by appointing the loser of the election, the people's will is thwarted, and having the governor appoint a replacement is more faithful to the idea of democracy. I even think that's true! But I also think that if the current governor were a Democrat, and the legislature controlled by Republicans, they'd never go for it.

[Merijeek]

Cool. A statement by a Democratic party official can now trump state law.

And a conservatard endorses it. You heard it here first, folks.

-Joe

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

The real story here that's being missed is that it is absolutely insane to have the office responsible for administering and/or certifying elections headed by a partisan elected official. Seriously, is there a Republican way of running an election, and a Democrat way? There have just been way too many situations like this, where the person who is supposed to make sure it's all fair has a clear interest in a particular outcome.

In Indiana, our recently elected Secretary of State is under indictment for voter fraud. You heard me right, fucking voter fraud. Current state law says that if he is required to step down, the Democrat that he beat in November takes his spot. Of course, the Republicans in the legislature are trying to change it so the (Republican, of course) governor will appoint someone when the time comes.

New York State has its own collection of partisan problems, but I offer their solution to the partisan polls returns issue. In each county, the Republican and the Democratic county chairman each appoint one Election Commissioner (two commissioners per county, one from each party). They take an oath to produce unbiased counts and then jointly do election-night tallies and where needed recounts, each being a check on the other to assure no partisan bias creeps in.

It's not perfect -- third parties are of course screwed by it (Barb and I both cast valid write-in votes one year that somehow managed never to get tallied). But it does assure an honest bipartisan count to the extent that is possible in this imperfect world.

I'd also note to Duffer that it's a party official's privilege to (a) make a totally unofficial claim of victory when his party's candidate apparently wins a razor-thin election, and (b) in a more official capacity, call for a recount when his party's candidate loses a close election, one within the bounds for justifying a recount. I say this not as a Democrat but as an American, raised Republican when the party stood for something worthwhile, who believes in faiorness, and would be unsurprised to see either party's official doing precisely what I said -- and differences in numbers, so long as they're within the recount range, have little to do with it.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Bricker

In Massachusetts, the Democratically controlled legislature changed the rules about governors appointing senators to vacant seats several times, denying the advantage to a Republican governor but then switching back to appointments after they had a Democratic governor and control of the Senate was at risk.

And every change got the system closer to following the principles of democracy. Which you, as a hardened partisan, have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to comprehend.

Naturally, although always cloaked in the facade of serving democracy, legislatures will seek to maximize their party's advantage.

You have never been able to say just what the Mass lege would have done differently if their "serving democracy" had not been a facade.


Bricker is also, btw, the board's most enthusiastic tu quoquist, beyond even Shodan, as this "argument" demonstrates.

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Of course they are.

In Massachusetts, the Democratically controlled legislature changed the rules about governors appointing senators to vacant seats several times, denying the advantage to a Republican governor but then switching back to appointments after they had a Democratic governor and control of the Senate was at risk.

Naturally, although always cloaked in the facade of serving democracy, legislatures will seek to maximize their party's advantage. In the Indiana case, I could make the argument that by appointing the loser of the election, the people's will is thwarted, and having the governor appoint a replacement is more faithful to the idea of democracy. I even think that's true! But I also think that if the current governor were a Democrat, and the legislature controlled by Republicans, they'd never go for it.

That is a good point and actually there are two separate issues here. If White is found to have been legally elected, but is forced to step down by a felony conviction, then state law says that the governor replaces him, which I agree is solidly democratic.

However, the other issue is that if he is found to have been ineligible to be on the ballot in the first place, by law the election goes to his opponent. It is this part of the law the Republican legislature is trying to change, and I think it is much less clear-cut than the first issue.

And it was bullshit when the Mass. legislature was doing it too.

[ElvisL1ves]

It was "bullshit" not to give the losing party a seat, and a majority, that the people had entrusted to the other guys? How, in your philosophy, is democracy better served by one person than by all of the people?

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

It was "bullshit" not to give the losing party a seat, and a majority, that the people had entrusted to the other guys? How, in your philosophy, is democracy better served by one person than by all of the people?

Actually I don't know the details. I assumed Bricker's description was complete and accurate. Maybe that was a bad call. Maybe Bricker can explain his rationale.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

I assumed Bricker's description was complete and accurate.

How long have you been reading this board?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Yeesh Duffer, was this really worth a thread? I mean, I think it is fun to play the partisan hack on occasion also, but this is just lame.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

Actually I don't know the details. I assumed Bricker's description was complete and accurate. Maybe that was a bad call. Maybe Bricker can explain his rationale.

My description was accurate.

Before 2004, the Massachusetts governor had the power to appoint a replacement senator who would serve until the next general election. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry was running for president and Republican Mitt Romney was governor; Kerry's victory would have vacated his Senate seat. The Democrats overwhlemingly controlled the legislature, and they passed a law removing the power of the governor to appoint a senator, replacing it with requiring a special election within a span of 145 to 160 days following a vacancy.

In 2009, with Ted Kennedy's death leaving the Senate seat vacant at just the time the health care debate needed every single vote that could be mustered, the Massachusetts legislature, still dominated by Democrats (but now with Democratic Governor Deval Patrick at the helm), changed the law (mostly) back, allowing the governor to again appoint a Senator to a vacancy until the special election could be held.

Cites on request.

[ElvisL1ves]

You left out the part about democracy.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

You left out the part about democracy.

What, he left out the democratic part of letting the people select the new Senator?

I don't really care, personally, if states have laws requiring an appointment of a new Senator, requiring an appointment of a Senator that is of the same party as the former one, requiring an appointment and then a special election, requiring a special election . . . Whatever, fuck, it's all the same to me.

My objection is identical to Bricker's -- don't change the rules in mid-stream for what are obviously partisan reasons. It would appear that the voters of Massachusetts also objected.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Frank

What, he left out the democratic part of letting the people select the new Senator?

He left out the part where he explains why that's a bad idea, and we should instead have the replacement chosen by an official of the party he happens to favor. I thought that was clear.

Whatever, fuck, it's all the same to me.

Then you won't mind stepping aside so that our republic can be kept by those of us citizens who do recognize and accept our responsibility for it, will you?

My objection is identical to Bricker's -- don't change the rules in mid-stream for what are obviously partisan reasons.

And you think that's a stronger argument than "Avoid making the system better match the ideals of democracy for what are obviously partisan reasons", huh?

I do think you need to think about this democracy stuff a little more deeply.

It would appear that the voters of Massachusetts also objected.

Where might you have gotten that idea from?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Where might you have gotten that idea from?

They elected a senator of a different party, that's where.

You're arguing that the changing of the law to allow appointment of a replacement senator by the governor was to further democracy. (At least, that's the part of your argument that is not bizarre, incoherent, and illogical.) What a fucking idiot you are.

[Paul in Qatar]

Much ado about not much. It was a close election and there were some irregularities. A recount is simply an administrative necessity in a case like this.

[Musicat]

I just talked to our town clerk after they finished the recount for our county yesterday afternoon. She said that they found 14 errors, but the net change was only one more vote for Kloppenberg.

There might have been more errors, but they were only counting votes for the one office.

Our county uses paper ballots that are fed into an optical reader plus all-electronic voting devices. In most precincts, the choice is up to the voter. In our town, they began to run out of ballots about 10AM due to heavier than expected referendum voting. Since the county's printing press was on the fritz, they got another electronic unit, which isn't dependent upon paper ballots.

No ballots were found under her bed or in the dumpster, but she looked.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Frank

They elected a senator of a different party, that's where.

In what was then the future. And in the further future, they might again. In the operative election, based on information available at the time, no, they didn't. But I think you know that.

You're arguing that the changing of the law to allow appointment of a replacement senator by the governor was to further democracy.

The change of the law to prevent the appointment of a senator of the party opposed to the one chosen by the people in the last election was to further democracy. As I already fucking explained .

(At least, that's the part of your argument that is not bizarre, incoherent, and illogical.) What a fucking idiot you are.

Your cognitive deficits are your own problem. Have you seen a neurologist about treatment methods?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

In what was then the future. And in the further future, they might again. In the operative election, based on information available at the time, no, they didn't. But I think you know that.

Would you care to rewrite this in plain English? Or are you dependent on "1984" English? In the operative election, the citizens of Massachusetts elected Scott Brown (R-MA).

The change of the law to prevent the appointment of a senator of the party opposed to the one chosen by the people in the last election was to further democracy. As I already fucking explained .

There's a simple solution to that, and one which I can support. Pass a law that the governor must appoint a Senator of the same party as the former one. Massachusetts or Utah, same difference. A solution which the Massachusetts legislature did not choose.

Instead the legislature chose to require a special election. (Which I also have no problem with.) What I do have a problem with is that when Kennedy died they changed the law again. In midstream.

Your cognitive deficits are your own problem. Have you seen a neurologist about treatment methods?

My cognitive deficits? Your partisan cognitive deficits verge on lunacy. In fact, I'm fairly certain that your cognitive deficit represents lunacy.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Frank

....There's a simple solution to that, and one which I can support. Pass a law that the governor must appoint a Senator of the same party as the former one. Massachusetts or Utah, same difference. A solution which the Massachusetts legislature did not choose......

What happens if the seat were occupied by an independent?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by elucidator

What happens if the seat were occupied by an independent?

That's actually a question for which I have no answer. I would hope that the relevant state legistlature did come up with an answer. (Though I wouldn't bet money on it.)

There are currently four different methods of providing for a replacement Senator, all of which have been adopted by the relevant state legislature. Any of those methods is fine by me, really, even Massachusetts's method of appointing an interim Senator while waiting for a special election.

I would hope I've made it clear that what does bother me is Massachusetts' going to the current method purely in order to avoid a vacancy after Kennedy's death. They knew, when they voted for a special election while Romney was governor, that that method would allow for a vacancy.