• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prosser gains 7,500 votes in Waukesha County

MaggieD said:
So now the AP is going to be the gatekeeper of honesty for election results?

It is my understanding that the only thing that happened is that she neglected to report these totals to the AP. Who the hell is the AP?
Click to expand...

AP = Associated Press

And no she did not only "neglect" to report it to the AP but also to the official source. She admits she did not check her numbers as she should have because the result "looked correct".. basically she is a lazy piece of **** who should not have anything to do with elections. And that is the problem.. she neglected to check the numbers first and then suddenly decided to check them when her candidate was loosing and miraculously found many votes that put her candidate into the lead. That is why people smell a rat.. it might have been an honest mistake, but on the face of it, it looks and stinks like rigging an election for your candidate.... especially considering she has a history of doing so. We are again back to.. a total lack of checks and balances. No single person should have so much "power" over the election system.

Did we have a recount when "Dewey beat Truman"??
Click to expand...

No because back then the US election system had integrity.... that kinda went out the window in 2000. Now the US election system resembles more a 3rd world banana republic than a cornerstone western Democracy.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
AP = Associated Press

And no she did not only "neglect" to report it to the AP but also to the official source. She admits she did not check her numbers as she should have because the result "looked correct".. basically she is a lazy piece of **** who should not have anything to do with elections. And that is the problem.. she neglected to check the numbers first and then suddenly decided to check them when her candidate was loosing and miraculously found many votes that put her candidate into the lead. That is why people smell a rat.. it might have been an honest mistake, but on the face of it, it looks and stinks like rigging an election for your candidate.... especially considering she has a history of doing so. We are again back to.. a total lack of checks and balances. No single person should have so much "power" over the election system.



No because back then the US election system had integrity.... that kinda went out the window in 2000. Now the US election system resembles more a 3rd world banana republic than a cornerstone western Democracy.
Click to expand...

Look at this post folks. Full hate, anger and silliness.

Here's a newsflash Pete, humans make mistakes.
 
MaggieD said:
It is my understanding that the only thing that happened is that she neglected to report these totals to the AP. Who the hell is the AP?
Click to expand...
That and she took the data and instead of following established, secure policies, she risked the integrity of security of the data on her own volition.
It was remarkably irresponsible, unnecessary and incredibly suspicious for her to do the things she did with the cyber-security of the sensitive data.
Anywhere in the private sector what she did is cause for summary dismissal and possibly grounds for being sued by the company you used to work for because it's such a remarkably piss-poor idea.
 
Can someone summarize for me, in an unbiased view, what the hell this thread is about? I don't understand whats going on. Votes went from one person to another? Or they were forgotten about? Or what? I just don't understand whats going on. This is a local election issue so I've heard nothing about it on the news.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Can someone summarize for me, in an unbiased view, what the hell this thread is about? I don't understand whats going on. Votes went from one person to another? Or they were forgotten about? Or what? I just don't understand whats going on. This is a local election issue so I've heard nothing about it on the news.
Click to expand...
The clerk didn't fill out the paper work for the press correctly. Then the error was discovered and corrected.

That led to people looking at what else the clerk has done. In this instance she took the voting data and sequestered it on her own system in her office outside of best practices and established procedures.

Apparently, in the not too distant past, this clerk has been involved in other election irregularities. She has been given immunity to gain her testimony against others involved in that previous incident.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Can someone summarize for me, in an unbiased view, what the hell this thread is about? I don't understand whats going on. Votes went from one person to another? Or they were forgotten about? Or what? I just don't understand whats going on. This is a local election issue so I've heard nothing about it on the news.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read the link in the OP??


(i know, i know.....its a crazy idea)


.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The clerk didn't fill out the paper work for the press correctly. Then the error was discovered and corrected.

That led to people looking at what else the clerk has done. In this instance she took the voting data and sequestered it on her own system in her office outside of best practices and established procedures.

Apparently, in the not too distant past, this clerk has been involved in other election irregularities. She has been given immunity to gain her testimony against others involved in that previous incident.
Click to expand...

I wonder why she had access to election data while being investigated for other election irregularities? even if she was given immunity for testimony against others then why was she still given access to recent election data?
 
Cole said:
Maybe you should read the link in the OP??


(i know, i know.....its a crazy idea)


.
Click to expand...

I did. I didn't understand WTF they were talking about so I asked for clarification. Saving votes on a computer? WTF?
 
2K05GT said:
I wonder why she had access to election data while being investigated for other election irregularities? even if she was given immunity for testimony against others then why was she still given access to recent election data?
Click to expand...

Because she was elected as county clerk.

This was just a reporting problem to the media. The discrepancy was noticed during the normal canvassing procedure, and the correct certified numbers were provided to the state elections board. They will probably do a recount in Waukesha, find everything is fine and the left will still claim that the evil republicans stole yet another election.
 
MaggieD said:
So now the AP is going to be the gatekeeper of honesty for election results?

It is my understanding that the only thing that happened is that she neglected to report these totals to the AP. Who the hell is the AP?

Did we have a recount when "Dewey beat Truman"??
Click to expand...

In this age of questionable voting machines without a verifiable proper paper trail, yes, possibly the AP needs to fill a role that seems to be left wanting.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Can someone summarize for me, in an unbiased view, what the hell this thread is about? I don't understand whats going on. Votes went from one person to another? Or they were forgotten about? Or what? I just don't understand whats going on. This is a local election issue so I've heard nothing about it on the news.
Click to expand...

Real quick, the union busting law in wisconsin is going to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The current ideologocal balance is 4 cons. 3 libs..

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.
:2wave:
 
What if...? said:
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.
Click to expand...

At least two problems with your explanation.

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.
 
buck said:
Because she was elected as county clerk.

This was just a reporting problem to the media. The discrepancy was noticed during the normal canvassing procedure, and the correct certified numbers were provided to the state elections board. They will probably do a recount in Waukesha, find everything is fine and the left will still claim that the evil republicans stole yet another election.
Click to expand...

Got it, she was elected to a second term even though she was investigated back in 2000? She claims so many computer issues yet she is a data analyst and computer specialist. I am not saying that there was fraud because the article even quoted democrats that said they we're satisfied the votes were correct. I am questioning this woman’s competency. I hope that she does not win an other term.
 
Last edited:
2K05GT said:
Got it, she was elected to a second term even though she was investigated back in 2000? She claims so many computer issues yet she is a data analyst and computer specialist. I am not saying that there was fraud because the article even quoted democrats that said they we're satisfied the votes were correct. I am questioning this woman’s competency. I hope that she does not win an other term.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably fair. I started out thinking that she should definetly be fired / asked to resign. As it became clear that it really was just a reporting problem to the media and the official county forms were all completed properly, i've softened my stance on that quite a bit.
 
buck said:
At least two problems with your explanation.

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.
Click to expand...

1) Point taken, reported as opposed to official I guess. I personally felt Kloppenbergs announcement of victory was premature. Again, its how it looks that smells. I really like the idea of recounting the votes Nicklaus was responsible for. She obviously sucks at her job. I would not oppose a recount if the shoe was on the other foot. To keep this from becoming another conspiracy, if nothing else.

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.
:2wave:
 
What if...? said:
1) Point taken, reported as opposed to official I guess. I personally felt Kloppenbergs announcement of victory was premature. Again, its how it looks that smells. I really like the idea of recounting the votes Nicklaus was responsible for. She obviously sucks at her job. I would not oppose a recount if the shoe was on the other foot. To keep this from becoming another conspiracy, if nothing else.

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.
:2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes, the annoucement, based on a 200 vote difference of unofficial numbers, seems ridiculous. Doesn't seem like a good decision for someone that hopes to be a judge. Could help explain the reasons why she was passed over for a judgeship so often.

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:
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.
Click to expand...


Wisconsin Election Bombshell: How Plausible?
 
PeteEU said:
AP = Associated Press

And no she did not only "neglect" to report it to the AP but also to the official source. She admits she did not check her numbers as she should have because the result "looked correct".. basically she is a lazy piece of **** who should not have anything to do with elections. And that is the problem.. she neglected to check the numbers first and then suddenly decided to check them when her candidate was loosing and miraculously found many votes that put her candidate into the lead. That is why people smell a rat.. it might have been an honest mistake, but on the face of it, it looks and stinks like rigging an election for your candidate.... especially considering she has a history of doing so. We are again back to.. a total lack of checks and balances. No single person should have so much "power" over the election system.



No because back then the US election system had integrity.... that kinda went out the window in 2000. Now the US election system resembles more a 3rd world banana republic than a cornerstone western Democracy.
Click to expand...

Are you claimng the final corrected tally contains over 7000 imaginary votes? Or are you in agreement that the votes were real?

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:
haymarket said:
In this age of questionable voting machines without a verifiable proper paper trail, yes, possibly the AP needs to fill a role that seems to be left wanting.
Click to expand...

So you're claiming an unelected private company with a pronounced left-wing bias should be the arbiter of US elections?

No, that's what we have election officials for.

It is amusing to watch you all gasp and flop once those 7500 real votes drained the pool of hope you people were swimming in. Is there some particular reason the decided outome of the election of a minor judgeship in Wisconsin has all you people so angry and upset?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
The link was provided, as was the proverb.

Deal with it yourself.
Click to expand...


Translation - I never provided a link to a reputable source, because I don't have one, so now I am lying about it.
 
Cool, the you are thankful the ballots have been found.

Redress said:
My Acorn? Wow, you don't know me at all well. Hint: I stated earlier this week that Acorn brought their problems on themselves and I did not feel bad for them. Further hint: I made nothing of the link, just presented it since it will be part of the conversation. Words have meaning, and if you read the words in my post you would understand that I in fact did not make anything of it.

By the way, this is a political debate site. That means we care about politics. Now you know why I would care about election results. It's not hard to figure out, you probably could have done it yourself.
Click to expand...
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
So you're claiming an unelected private company with a pronounced left-wing bias should be the arbiter of US elections?
Click to expand...

sure! nothing can possibly go wrong with that plan!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom