There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
The election in question is for the swing seat on that court.
Prosser, the conservative, was 30 points ahead before the union issue.
As a result of the Walker bill, turnout for Kloppenberg was very high, and when the official results were reported, Kloppenberg won by about 200 votes.
Due to Wisconsin election law a recount was automatic.
Then, the day after the election, a county clerk discovered an error on her part.
14,000 votes she had neglected to save properly.
These votes gave the victory to Prosser, by a margin that doesn't trigger an automatic free recount.
The issue at hand is the clerk's past history.
Shis is under prosecutorial immunity for an undisclosed election offense.
She is a former employee of Prosser.
She keeps all election records in her office. Only she has the passwords. She has been challenged on these practises by various entities, but refuses to change her practises.
She has been involved in several highly publicised errors in the past.
Including two previous times in which a Republican candidate was losing an election until she discovered an error on her part that tipped the outcome for the Republican.
I think that's a pretty even-handed expression of the concerns being expressed on one side.
The fact that the Walker bill issue may hinge on the outcome is why so many care about a State Supreme Court election.
And before anyone says that the Walker case will be before Prosser regardless of the outcome I doubt very seriously that the lawyers on the anti-Walker side couldn't adequately delay the hearing long enough to matter.
1)the results provied to the media were unofficial. This occurs in every election. unofficial vote numbers are provided to the AP. They canvas the vote eo make sure everythign was properly counted and match up with the number of cast votes. a few days later, they provide official results to the state.
2) There is no auto recount in WI.
Last edited by 2K05GT; 04-10-11 at 11:07 AM.
2) There was a considerable amount of talk in the media about a number that provided a free recount as opposed to a paid recount. Something to do with the votes uncovered by Nicklaus not just giving the victory to Prosser but putting the margin beyond a state funded recall. I assumed an automatic recall was what was being discussed. I'll take your word on this.
Free recount is different then auto recount. From what I can tell, it seems that the numbers (even with the net 7500 for Prosser) is still within the margin for free recount - last report I saw was a 6500 (or so) difference. It's just very unlikely she will overturn sich a big difference.
Last edited by buck; 04-10-11 at 12:42 PM.
From HuffPo regarding a story originally posted in an AOL/Huffington run newspaper on election night.
UPDATE: 11:20 p.m. -- Perhaps the most convincing evidence so far that human error explains the initial omission of Brookfield's results comes from our colleagues at the Brookfield Patch. On election night, they reported a vote total for Brookfield that exactly matches the vote total Kathy Nickolaus did not include in the County level count until Thursday. As Joe Petrie and Lisa Sink of the Brookfield Patch reported on Thursday (via Mickey Kaus):
On election night, the City of Brookfield reported that Prosser received 10,859 votes from city residents, or 76 percent of the vote, compared to the 3,456 votes cast for challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. The Brookfield Patch reported those numbers in a story with chart posted about 12:30 a.m. election night.
[Brookfield City Clerk Kristine] Schmidt said her office also posted the results on the city's web site before going home on election night.
Wisconsin Election Bombshell: How Plausible?
Since the votes were real, and since the final correct tally was presented to the officials on time, can you explain what your problem is in a manner that makes sense?
The checks and balances were obtained, so where are you getting off claiminng they were not?
No, the US electoral system's integrity was preserved in 2000, as you might have noticed the team trying to steal the election did not ascend to the White House. In 2008 the team attempting to steal the senate seat for Al Franken succeeded.
In 2011, there was a minor clerical error whose only impact was to dash the hopes of the seeking to repeat Al Franken's theft. Unless you're denying those votes are real, your statements are inconsistent and confused.
Last edited by Mayor Snorkum; 04-10-11 at 01:54 PM.