Go for the recount, and try for the hand-count. In light of the track record, I would hope the judge would want a clean count.

Damn..

I agree with WhichTruth, "Go for the recount, and try for the hand-count."

Brad,

We need a full statewide hand recount. Waukesha is just the tip of the iceberg.

WI election officials are the most prominent propagandists for non-existent "voter fraud" while they engage in systemic election fraud.

Let's take a closer look at the 2004 WI presidential race.

The impossible 97.3% turnout of registered voters in the 2004 Waukesha County presidential election neans that we need an analysis of the Wisconsin 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

Of the 236,642 registered voters in Waukesha, apparently 231,031 voted. That is unheard of turnout.

The True Vote Model (TVM) is a spreadsheet that anyone connected to the internet can use to analyze presidential elections from 1988 to 2008.

https://spreadsheets.goo...EzC1Ccb7FsEN-EgZhQ#gid=0

In the six elections from 1988 to 2008, the Democrats won the average Wisconsin presidential recorded vote by 49.2-43.7%, a solid 5.5% margin.

In 2004, Kerry barely won the recorded vote by 49.7-49.3%, a measly 0.4% margin. Wonder why?

Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 52.1-46.9%, a solid 5.2% margin. That's a 5.2% Within Precinct Error (WPE).

The Census Bureau 2004 vote survey survey indicated that in Wisconsin approximately 13,000 more votes were cast than recorded (net uncounted votes).

Net Uncounted Vote = 13,000 = Uncounted – stuffed ballots.

We do not know how many ballots were uncounted or stuffed – only that the uncounted ballots exceeded stuffed by approximately 13,000.

Consider three scenarios, assuming that the unadjusted exit poll was a close approximation of the True Vote.

1) 1% of total votes cast (30,000) were uncounted:
Then 17,000 ballots were stuffed and 56,000 votes were switched (electronically?) from Kerry to Bush.

2) 2% of votes cast (60,000) uncounted:
Then we have 47,000 stuffed ballots and 34,000 votes were switched.

3) 3% of votes cast (90,000) uncounted:
In this scenario 77,000 stuffed ballots were stuffed and 11,000 switched.

It never ends:The travesty of systemic election fraud.

Waukesha is not the tory. What about all the other counties?

This reminds me of two things: 1) the time I was forced to live on food and water for three days, and 2) that Obama has not proven his gender yet.

We will never have a kinder and genital nation until that happens.

Once that happens, we can deal with the fact we do not have a damn clue as to who was or was not elected for the past decade.

But it does sell books.

By recount, I meant statewide, not just one county. Hell, I'll donate to the cost if cost is the issue. An honest count is worth it. Then the winner is the winner.

TruthIsAll @ 3 said:

The impossible 97.3% turnout of registered voters in the 2004 Waukesha County presidential election neans that we need an analysis of the Wisconsin 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

Of the 236,642 registered voters in Waukesha, apparently 231,031 voted. That is unheard of turnout.

Richard - Please read my article yesterday investigating that reported 97.63% turnout, as I offered potential reasons for that number being reported as it was. Largely, the "REGISTERED VOTERS" as reported on Kathy Nickolaus' Waukesha County report did not include those who registered at the polls on Election Day as they are allowed to do in WI.

Additional investigation seems to bear out that hypothesis. Not that that means we shouldn't investigate the county's numbers (or, hell, just actually bother to count them!), but there is a feasible explanation for that seemingly impossible "97.63%" reported turnout.

WhichTruth @ 5:

You speak for me. And much briefer, too! Thank you.

At this point I'm inclined to interpret all of this as incompetence and extreme sloppiness (e.g. the 2006 ballots vs votes discrepancy has a plausible explanation http://justmyopinion-mic...om-kossacks-httpwww.html)

Here's the latest. The City of Waukesha has added over 800 votes relative to what they reported election night. Apparently they claim they left aldermanic district 7 out of the vote totals.
http://waukesha.patch.co...waukesha-had-345-turnout.

This is what you get when Republican hacks administer an election.

Hmmm - I'll modify my initial comment above. The conservative blogger who claimed to have resolved the 2006 discrepancy is now acknowledging that his analysis is incorrect (i.e. see comments to the linked post).

Affinis - I looked into the anomaly you noted in the City of Waukesha in the earlier thread and reported back my findings on that to ya here, in case you missed them.

Good eye, btw. And thanks for your vigilance!

While she may not have formally announced it, I have no doubt that Joanne Kloppenburg will request, at a minimum, a machine "recount." She has retained the very able Marc Elias, who represented Al Franken during Norm Coleman's protracted legal challenge to the hand count in MN.

One would hope that Elias' first order of business would be to seek a court order mandating actions to protect the chain of custody for a statewide hand count.

Justice Prosser has retained Ben Ginsburg, who represented Norm Coleman.

If this proves anywhere near as protracted as Coleman v. Franken, the WI Supreme Court may have one empty chair come August when Prosser's term expires.

In re: Ernie @ 11:

I'm not as confident as you are about Kloppenburg asking for that "recount". She's kept her cards pretty close to her vest on this, and hasn't given any indication of her plans during conversations with the campaign. I've been troubled by what the campaign has done (or, more specifically, hasn't done) during the interim of the past week and a half.

That said, even if she asks for one, I can't imagine it'll go as long as Coleman/Franken because much of that count was taken up by bullshit legal maneuvering by Coleman's camp meant simply to eat up the clock and keep Franken out of the U.S. Senate as long as possible.

I can't imagine Kloppenburg (and/or her counsel, Marc Elias) playing that particular game.

Yes --- statewide handcounted recount. Even if Kloppenburg doesn't think she can win, she should be urged to stand up for the truth and go for this.

Here is an opportunity to learn what is going on, in a state where they are lucky enough (or smart enough!) to have something available that actually CAN be recounted.

But even if this 'recount' just reconciles poll books with machines, it may still be useful in terms of building the knowledge base. Here in PA alarming discrepancies showed up in citizen audits done in three large counties, comparing the number of voters who signed the pollbooks to the number of voters the paperless machines said cast ballots.

As far as actual vote totals, even though PA has both a statewide audit law and a mandatory recount law, it's pretty much hopeless because about 85% of our voters are on totally paperless DREs.

But WI has paper to count. It needs to be counted. It's time we got to the bottom of some of this BS.

How about a hand count of the 2010 votes for U.S. Senator from Wisconsin?

If kloppenburg meant to win, she would have actually had a strategy and tried to win Milwaukee County Votes.

These people overwhelming rejected scott walker's replacement, but there is at least a ten point drop from his support to hers. Even worse, many ballets skip supreme court race.

Is this yet another anomolie in the data, demanding a recount or does this really just tip her hands here - she is going to STAND DOWN!

If anybody is interested in reading the administrative procedures for recounts in Wisconsin, here's a link to the GAB document:

When you read it, note that some areas say "the GAB recommends that..." and others are headed by citation of Wisconsin election statutes or an EB number, which I think is probably a regulation or administrative rule by the forerunner to the GAB, the Elections Board. I am assuming that the "we recommend" areas are NOT written into state law and thus it is not clear whether they are enforceable and how/by whom. It probably depends on the powers granted to the GAB (what laws, procedures or administrative rules they can enforce).

I see in the manual that candidates involved in a recall can challenge a number of areas:

Both sides must be given the opportunity to object and provide offers of evidence on:
all objections to the recount itself,
the composition of the board of canvassers,
the procedures followed,
any ballot cast at the election, and
any other issues presented to the canvass board during the recount

I would note, for example, that:
For state and federal elections, the county boards of canvassers for the counties in which the contested votes are cast conduct the recount.

Election inspectors (aka moderators) and the clerk are members of the canvassing board.

Thus, if there is an underlying questions on the integrity of a particular county clerk, that person and his/her handpicked inspectors and board members do the count, unless a candidate successfuly raises an objection to that party's doing the work. The documentation to be presented for that meeting is one of those "it is recommended" lists.