It is, of course, far too late to stop Kloppenburg from caving... but has anyone pointed out to her the historical record of the machines screwing up as a good reason for a hand count?

In order to have a state-wide hand count of ballots, as called for by a number of Election Integrity organizations, the Kloppenburg campaign would need to receive a court order, according to WI's recount procedures [PDF]. In receiving such an order, the campaign would have to present evidence to show that a hand count of ballots was likely to change the final results of the election in her favor.

Ok...good luck with that. Isn't that what Vic Rawl did to the Democratic party leadership in S. Carolina with absolutely no results? I believe he presented evidence.

Seems like there is evidence aplenty with the Waukesha nutjob. However, probably none that would show that the election could swing in Kloppenburg's favor.

Just asking here...is this Orwellian or what? How can you provide evidence of an election swinging the other way without a hand recount? And how can you get the recount without showing that the election would swing...(head hurts)

I didn't read the entire manual, but it does say that you can amend your petition for a recount to take account of facts that come to light during the recount. I wonder if that would include evidence of ballot tampering or something else that would make a person want a hand count. I also recall that someone stated that even machine recounts permit observers to examine every ballot, which would allow what amounts to an unofficial hand count.

Was there any indication in the time between the initial report that all precincts had reported and Kloppenberg had won and the magical discovery of (apparently a few too few) unreported votes that Prosser was going to request a recount? That would be par for the course for a Republican to deny to others what he would claim for himself, but I just don't remember if that's what actually happened. Perhaps he knew there was a backup plan. Or not. After all, he's a judge and above reproach. Ask him; he'll tell you himself.

Has anyone asked the City of Brookfield's clerk, Kristine Schmidt, why she inserted columns into the spreadsheet when she was told by Nickolaus not to alter the spreadsheet template? I don't know if there could be any shenanigans in having a column in the wrong place, but it just seems odd to me that Brookfield would go an add a column just like the city of Waukesha did in 2006. What is it about being told not to do it that makes big cities in that county to do it? Or did Nickolaus have a special template made up for the cities (in each case) so that she could do shenanigans with the data herself?

Or have cooler heads prevailed that there wasn't any wrongdoing with the column error? Will we hear anything from the GAB? Are they thorough?

ZapKitty @ 1 asked:

has anyone pointed out to [Kloppenburg] the historical record of the machines screwing up as a good reason for a hand count?

It has been tried. I might urge anyone else who wants to try as well to do so at: campaign@kloppenburgforjustice.com

There are so many WTF moments in this article, I hardly know where to start...

CK, perhaps I'm getting at the same thing as you from a different angle, or perhaps simply in different words, but what I was wondering is the following.

Assuming for the moment that the 14K bonus votes weren't completely fabricated, did Kathy Nickolaus know the results of those votes before magnanimously stepping up to announce her error? Is there any kind of internal log kept for running the numbers? Even if easily hackable, shouldn't someone look?

If it can be proven that she peeked, the implications are dark, indeed. Wouldn't it be nice to have a chain of custody requirement for votes to avoid just such issues? One would think any votes violating that chain would be easily disqualified by a court challenge, at least in any sort of rational system, and the Republicans would have nobody to rationally blame but their own, for not having demonstrated personal responsibility in executing the most fundamental duty to a functioning democracy.

Yay, judicial independence. The independence to exploit partisan power to steal a friggin' supreme court election and obstruct justice for your adversary in the process.

lora said,

Just asking here...is this Orwellian or what? How can you provide evidence of an election swinging the other way without a hand recount? And how can you get the recount without showing that the election would swing...(head hurts)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

exactly

This "logic" is exactly what the Superior Court in Riverside County in 2004 used when denying a challenger the right to see the documents that backed up the claim that a sitting member of the Board of Supervisors won a given election. The court ruled that the challenger would have to show the court that revealing the documents would likely change the outcome of the election! You can view a discussion of this incredible Orwellian court action on the outtakes included in the movie "Hacking Democracy". Fricking unbelievable!

In order to have a state-wide hand count of ballots, as called for by a number of Election Integrity organizations, the Kloppenburg campaign would need to receive a court order, according to WI's recount procedures [PDF]. In receiving such an order, the campaign would have to present evidence to show that a hand count of ballots was likely to change the final results of the election in her favor.

Catch 22

The best, and perhaps only, evidence sufficient to show whether the computers "accurately counted" or for that matter (engaged in counting) lies in the hand counting of the paper ballots.

WI election laws require proof without pointing to the evidence in which the proof may be attained.

A nation of technologically sophisticated idiots?

I sent an email to Kloppenburg, urging her to ask for a recount, and citing the 2006 Waukesha County election results. Maybe it will have some effect.

If we learned one thing for certain from Bush v. Gore, it is that when elections are decided by the courts rather than the people, it is democracy that suffers the most. Let's hope that is not where this ends up.

from the article,

Prosser campaign attorney Jim Troupis said, "We will take every and any step to prevent this frivolous matter going forward."

you notice they dont say any LEGAL means

how far down the rabbit hole we have slid....the counting of votes is now frivolous

i wonder if the court order requirement was put in by the gab or by legislation?

dear candidate,
count the ballots with human hands,human eyes watching,mathmatically the outcome could be changed with less than a 2 vote swing per precinct and those votes are available in the undervote

RE: Q: I wonder if the court order requirement was put in by the gab or by legislation?
A: Legislation.

WI Stats. 5.90(2), upon simplification to the case at hand, reads:
Candidate Joanne Kloppenburg may, by the close of business Thursday, April 21, 2011, petition the circuit court for an order requiring ballots under sub. (1) to be counted by hand or by another method approved by the court. Candidate Kloppenburg in such an action bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that due to an irregularity, defect, or mistake committed during the voting or canvassing process the results of a recount using automatic tabulating equipment will produce incorrect recount results and that there is a substantial probability that recounting the ballots by hand or another method will:
A. produce a more correct result and
B. change the outcome of the election.

Isn't doublespeak so obviously wise?

There must be 50 ways to leave our lovers who have taken us to the deep waters of no (election) return.

But I digress ...

The modern election world:

My computer can kick your computer's ass in an election...

More possible vote anomalies in Waukesha county.

http://goo.gl/PoJB8

Interesting article out this morning showing that in Waukesha county as the vote total for a particular ward increased the margin of victory for Prosser over Kloppenburg increased in a rather non-random way. Comparable partisan counties that overwhelmingly voted for Kloppenburg were however completely random when looking at these to voting characteristics. Don't know what to make of it. I would think that this would be a good way to hide partisan votes in wards that had very high vote totals and had to use electronic voting and/or tabulation devices.

Hey Brad, did you see this? Supposedly uploaded to YT today.

"Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections"

http://www.democraticund...;address=385×574947

Here's another try at the link... Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections

To both HankyDub and Runnerchk:

That is video of Clint Curtis' testimony to U.S. House Judiciary Committee Democrats in 2004, after The BRAD BLOG broke his story way back when.

You can read the entire sordid affair, as we reported it over the years, here: http://BradBlog.com/ClintCurtis

Or watch the award-winning documentary on it all (in which I appear a great deal, but it's a good film anyway), here: Murder, Spies & Voting Lies: The Clint Curtis Story

Figgered you must be aware of it since it happened in 04, just wanted to make sure.

Nuke em till they glow Brad!

I'll bear witness that Brad carried the water in getting the story of Clint Curtis out there. That and my absolute certainty that something truly nefarious had happened in the 2004 elections to keep GWB in the White House was what brought me here in the first place.

Wow. I received that link to Clint Curtis' 2004 testimony several times today from friends (unrelated to E.I.)

One with a sweet note that read, "I know you'll wanna jump on this!"

I'm thrilled to see it getting circulated wide, it's been online for years. Is it finally going viral? ...

(And would like to *highly recommend* Dorothy Fadiman's amazing thriller-doc MURDER, SPIES AND VOTING LIES: THE CLINT CURTIS STORY - linked above - starring our own Brad Friedman, one of the best films on election fraud to date. An entertaining yet mortifying way to catch up on this mess.)

Brad broke the Clint Curtis story in this 12/6/2004 exclusive which links to Curtis’s sworn affidavit in PDF format.

For those who haven’t seen it, here’s a trailer of Murder, Spies & Voting Lies.