Was that before or after American civilization began its downward spiral?
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/archives/individual/2011_04/028849.php
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.
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.
At the very worst, and it’s not even all that bad, the original declaration of victory was premature.
Big deal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How long have you been reading this board? :p:p:p:p:p
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.
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.
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.