• 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

Only 75 posts on this topic??????!!!!!!

If this were reversed and a Dem had discovered thousands of ballots which turned the election around we would have already read the announcement of a Mod tell us we are approaching 2,000 posts.
 
yup. just as I feared. You truly do not comprehend the similarity. Oh well.

Your fear is your own prioblem and concern. It is not mine. You attempted to compare things which have NOTHING to do with the topic or situation. It was merely another effort of those obsessed with right wing ideology to introduce their favorite cause celebre - bashing Obama - into the mix.
 
...You pontificate as if the words came from God himself.

Actually, he pontificates as if the words came from Dr. Seuss himself.

With all the goonion birds and lamestream fishes or whatever.

:2wave:
 
Moderator's Warning:
Whovian is thread banned
 
um... you Access experts DO realize that the auto-save can be disabled, right?

I have worked creating Access data bases for many years now. What you just said is not true at all. By it's very nature, once data is entered into an Access form field, it automatically becomes an entry in a table. It is not about auto-saving. You do NOT auto save in Access in data entry mode, any more than you have a save function in data entry mode. It is the intrinsic way that table entries work in Access relational data bases. You enter data in a form field, and it automatically becomes an entry in a table.
 
Last edited:
Hold the presses, there is this from Aug 13, 2010:

Officials dispute reliability of Waukesha County clerk's election data system - JSOnline

Waukesha — Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus' decision to go it alone in how she collects and maintains election results has some county officials raising a red flag about the integrity of the system.

Nickolaus said she decided to take the election data collection and storage system off the county's computer network - and keep it on stand-alone personal computers accessible only in her office - for security reasons. ...​
That's not best practice at all.
The system she was using should have been set up securely enough to start.
Next, "Nonetheless, Director of Administration Norman A. Cummings said because Nickolaus has kept them out of the loop, the county's information technology specialists have not been able to verify Nickolaus' claim that the system is secure from failure."

So the records went from a system that was maintained by IT professionals to one that was created by a local politician.

I am failing to see how this has made the records more secure.
 
Wis. county corrects Supreme Court race vote count to give incumbent Prosser 7,500-vote edge - 4/7/2011 8:32:32 PM | Newser

An audit of Nickolaus' handling of the 2010 election found that she needed to take steps to improve security and backup procedures, like stop sharing passwords. The audit was requested after the county's director of administration said Nickolaus had been uncooperative with attempts to have county experts review her systems and confirm backups were in place.​

Not who I would choose to handle my sensitive data.
 
Last edited:
Wis. county corrects Supreme Court race vote count to give incumbent Prosser 7,500-vote edge - 4/7/2011 8:32:32 PM | Newser

An audit of Nickolaus' handling of the 2010 election found that she needed to take steps to improve security and backup procedures, like stop sharing passwords. The audit was requested after the county's director of administration said Nickolaus had been uncooperative with attempts to have county experts review her systems and confirm backups were in place.​

Not who I would choose to handle my sensitive data.

She is an incompetent, who should have been fired long ago. Because she wasn't, conspiracy nuts are going to have a field day over this, even though the vote in Waukesha County seems to be very legitimate.

"Elections are too important to be left to politicians"

-Georges Clemenceau
 
Last edited:
stop sharing passwords

OK, what the ****...


Seriously, I doubt there was any fraud here, this is explained easier with incompetence, but this is almost asking for trouble. It has all the appearances of fraud.

I find it funny that one member here was making fun of liberals who would cry fraud, but didn't when it looked like the democrat won and a conservative cried it based on no evidence, then made fun of people for saying this is questionable. It does not have to be fraud, and probably isn't, but this woman created the appearance of either fraud or incompetence and throws a lot of questions on the results.
 
The question of fraud is separate from the question of professional conduct.

Actually, the professional conduct issue isn't really a question. It's obvious that questionable, dangerous and non-optimal practices were implemented whether there was any fraud or not.
 
Hold the presses, there is this from Aug 13, 2010:

Officials dispute reliability of Waukesha County clerk's election data system - JSOnline
Waukesha — Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus' decision to go it alone in how she collects and maintains election results has some county officials raising a red flag about the integrity of the system.

Nickolaus said she decided to take the election data collection and storage system off the county's computer network - and keep it on stand-alone personal computers accessible only in her office - for security reasons. ...
Why weren't they keeping the data off the network in the first place? I wouldn't sweat it, no doubt state officials will be involved in reviewing the data anyway.
 
Why weren't they keeping the data off the network in the first place? I wouldn't sweat it, no doubt state officials will be involved in reviewing the data anyway.
The network should already have a place and procedures for sensitive data established. There shouldn't've been any need to do any funny business with it.
 
Apparently with these new totals, at 47% turnout the number of total votes is now more than double what was expected in that area and the percentage is greater than that of areas where there were other active races (in Waukesha there was only this one and a mild circuit court race).

I'm surprised that there is no investigation into this, all things considered. While it may not be fraud, it certainly is suspicious.
 
Apparently with these new totals, at 47% turnout the number of total votes is now more than double what was expected in that area and the percentage is greater than that of areas where there were other active races (in Waukesha there was only this one and a mild circuit court race).

I'm surprised that there is no investigation into this, all things considered. While it may not be fraud, it certainly is suspicious.

1) I don't see that as a surprise, since Waukesha is Prosser's home county.

2) The town in question in Waukesha had depressed turnout, inconsistent with the numbers from the rest of the county. The new numbers put that town back in line with how the rest of the county voted.
 
Watch the video of the press conference, and you'll see that the democrat that was present confirms that there was no foul play in this incident. She said the new vote count giving Pressor the 7000 vote lead is correct. Or put another way...

Game, set and match.
 
OK, what the ****...


Seriously, I doubt there was any fraud here, this is explained easier with incompetence, but this is almost asking for trouble. It has all the appearances of fraud.

that it certainly does, and raises more than a few questions.
 
I'm sorry but this seem fishy to me and it raise more questions than answers. Just because a democrat says no funny business happened doesn't mean she not incompetent for what she did. I'd also say we need to do a investigation in too this and I would say the same thing if this were the democrat in this particular race that had magical found 14,000 more unreported votes.
 
Based on the numbers i've seen, as of today and with the canvassing currently taking place in WI, Prosser picked up enough votes to take the lead from Kloppenburg even without this extra 7500 votes being placed in his column.

A bunch of the counties made errors in their vote totals (as always happens) they provided to the AP. Obviously none as big as forgetting a city, but still. It is very common. I think the real problem is Klopenburg declaring victory just 200 unofficial votes up. What a maroon.
 
Watch the video of the press conference, and you'll see that the democrat that was present confirms that there was no foul play in this incident. She said the new vote count giving Pressor the 7000 vote lead is correct. Or put another way...

Game, set and match.
As been pointed out previously, Prosser's term isn't up until July so even if he doesn't win, he would still get to rule on the on the law either way. The sticking point I see, is that the law is being held not on it's merits, but the way it was passed. A violation of the open meetings law in Wisconsin. It seems to me any fair minded judge would need to rule the votes in the legislature must be done over in order to meet the open meetings requirement. At that point, the required votes may no longer be there.
 
As been pointed out previously, Prosser's term isn't up until July so even if he doesn't win, he would still get to rule on the on the law either way. The sticking point I see, is that the law is being held not on it's merits, but the way it was passed. A violation of the open meetings law in Wisconsin. It seems to me any fair minded judge would need to rule the votes in the legislature must be done over in order to meet the open meetings requirement. At that point, the required votes may no longer be there.

I totally disagree. I don't understand what authority any lower court has to rule on this issue. According to the bipartisan Senate Rules Committee Chairman (not a Senator) the rules were followed. What right does any court have to over-rule the Senate Rules Committee? If any court would, it ought to only be the Supreme Court. We have separation of powers for a very good reason.
 
As been pointed out previously, Prosser's term isn't up until July so even if he doesn't win, he would still get to rule on the on the law either way. The sticking point I see, is that the law is being held not on it's merits, but the way it was passed. A violation of the open meetings law in Wisconsin. It seems to me any fair minded judge would need to rule the votes in the legislature must be done over in order to meet the open meetings requirement. At that point, the required votes may no longer be there.

I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
 
The only mis-step here was that the vote count wasn't reported to the Associated Press. Last time I looked, they weren't the Board of Elections.
 
The only mis-step here was that the vote count wasn't reported to the Associated Press. Last time I looked, they weren't the Board of Elections.
You don't think that a local politico creating her own sequestered system in violation of standard safety practices is a mis-step?
 
Thank you for that declaration. You pontificate as if the words came from God himself.

The Mayor is pleased that you could pierce the veil



Last time I looked, this is America and it is up to the electorate to decide what issues are important in an election. Not you.

Looks like the electorate did decide that the goonion whingings weren't important.

So, your point was...?

Oh! You should clean up that spilled milk, shouldn't you?

Franken has not a damn thing to do with this

The word you didn't learn in high school English is "analogy".

Look it up.

and your 'context' is a cheap excuse to dredge up an old right wing cause celebre that you just cannot let go of.

The Mayor appreciates your personal admission on the painfulness of the truth.

What's most funny about that is the frantic posturings of the left, some of which persist to this day, over their delusion that Bush somehow "stole" the election from Gore, yet the Mayor has brought to the table nothing but documented incidents in the election fraud committed by supporters of one particular US Senator.
 
She should be fired period. That is one hell of an error if true, and all those votes are tainted, especially if there is even remotely a doubt on the "chain of evidence" or whatever it is called in English. Checks and balances people.. there must be checks and balances.. and no, a Democrat coming after the fact to check the numbers is not check and balances. The vote information should have been under lock and key and guarded until the result was sent in and verified. Now we have a woman who locks the information in her office on her own PC, with only her having access.. if it had been a murder then she would be going to the chair on that evidence.

Not one of votes was "tainted". The error was clerical in nature, and there's no indication that any ballot was defaced in any way.

That her performance in that position should be reviewed goes without saying. To blindly assume she should be sacked after catching the error is unwarranted.
 
Back
Top Bottom