And, in Wisconsin, the plot thickens...

[snacker]

Looks like Ramona Kitzinger (the Dem canvasser in Waukesha County) is speaking out.

Article link here:
http://www.orchidforchange.com/parties/waukeshadems.com/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/1343504

[Taverner]

1. Dog I hope our party won't roll over on this one

"What's that you found a bunch of ballots written in crayon? Well you're word is good enough for me!"

[madrchsod]

41. there isn`t a democrat in wisconsin that will roll...

fuck the national party, it`s up to the state parties to take back the real democratic party.

[Taverner]

58. Good. They get my money then

All the way from California

[peace frog]

239. I donated happily

from sickly, not-so-sunny (no thanks to Rick Scott) Florida. GO WISCONSIN!

[MadMaddie]

160. Bingo!

It's the local, town and cities that need to take back the parties.

[mod mom]

199. so glad to hear this because nationally the party has been MIA

on the issue of election integrity.

So glad this 80 year old spoke up.

[russspeakeasy]

205. Absolutely correct. It's up to the states.

[Jackpine Radical]

232. Absolutely. That's exactly what I've been preaching.

The Wisconsin Democrats are proving themselves every day. Even the ones who were voted out last November are still around in the fight. Saturday night our local recently-ex State Senator and Assemblywoman put together a little dog & pony show for the county Dems, not only to rally us but to announce their intention to take back the platform. They've had a little workgroup going (I know some of the members) and have obviously been immersing themselves in Lakoff, for one source.

Wisconsin is on fire.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hlthe2b]

3. Her statement should not be missed...

Statement & Account of Ramona Kitzinger, Waukesha Board of Canvassers member since 2004:
Monday, April 11, 2011

(Waukesha County Democratic Party)On Tuesday night, I received a voice message from someone in the office of Clerk Kathy Nickolaus informing me of a Wednesday canvass meeting, which I returned the next morning and said I would be able to report into the canvass by noon � which I did. Normally the canvass would begin at 9am on Thursday, as has been the general practice for many years. No one explained why they were beginning the canvass on Wednesday, just to please report immediately.

Before this telephone call, I had not been contacted as the designated Democratic observer, and I saw no public notice of the abnormal canvass time. The phone call simply instructed me to report by noon to begin the canvass, which I did. The canvass then proceeded as normal, with no glaring irregularities or mention of a possible 15,000 vote error in Brookfield City.

On Thursday, I then showed up as per normal procedure at 9am and the canvass again went normally and concluded sometime between 4pm and 5pm. During the course of the day, the issue of minor vote corrections in New Berlin and Lisbon came up, but again nothing of a historic nature or reflecting glaring irregularities. In fact, the matter of vote totals in Brookfield City came up specifically during the course of Thursday�s canvass. In retrospect, it seems both shocking and somewhat appalling there was no mention of discovery of this 15,000 vote �human error� that ultimately had the potential to tip the balance of an entire statewide election. How is this possible?

Once the canvass had been completed and the results were finalized, I was called into Kathy�s office along with Pat (the Republican observer) and told of an impending 5:30pm press conference. It was at that point that I was first made aware of an error Kathy had made in Brookfield City. Kathy told us she thought she had saved the Brookfield voter information Tuesday night, but then on Wednesday she said she noticed she had not hit save. Kathy didn�t offer an explanation about why she didn�t mention anything prior to Thursday afternoon�s canvass completion, but showed us different tapes where numbers seemed to add up, though I have no idea where the numbers were coming from. I was not told of the magnitude of this error, just that she had made one. I was then instructed that I would not say anything at the press conference, and was actually surprised when I was asked questions by reporters.

The reason I offer this explanation is that, with the enormous amount of attention this has received over the weekend, many people are offering my statements at the press conference that the �numbers jibed� as validation they are correct and I can vouch for their accuracy. As I told Kathy when I was called into the room � I am 80 years old and I don�t understand anything about computers. I don�t know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from, but they seemed to add up. I am still very, very confused about why the canvass was finalized before I was informed of the Brookfield error and it wasn�t even until the press conference was happening that I learned it was this enormous mistake that could swing the whole election. I was never shown anything that would verify Kathy�s statement about the missing vote, and with how events unfolded and people citing me as an authority on this now, I feel like I must speak up.

[Rex]

Well, I've waited patiently on this topic.

But from what I am reading, Kathy Nickolaus needs to be fully investigated. I have almost no doubt now that she cheated somehow and fudged the numbers coming in from Brookfield. There needs to be an upfront showing of what the rolls say in Brookfield as opposed to what Kathy had on her personal computer at the time when she supposedly forgot to 'save' in MS access (which most of us know is a lie) and could not show her work or anything else.

Sounds fishy...just like it did in the beginning.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

42. Compare this with her press statement last week---Kind of interesting...

(appx video times noted)

10:35 - Nickolaus was asked if the results changed in any other Waukesha election races after the canvass. "The same winners came out. It didn't change the-uh-the outcome of that race" (seemed nervous)

12:00 - Asked when she discovered the error. "We discovered it yesterday in the process of a canvass". (Stammers and stutters when she tells of discovering the problem)

13:00 - Nickolaus asked if there was a Democrat in the room. (More stammering...) "We do have a Democrat and a Republican - one of each".

Reporter asks to speak to the Dem. (Ramona Kitzinger). (Nickolaus's eyes are kind of darting around as she figures out what to say...hedges - mumbles "are you comfortable?" to Kitzinger...)

Ramona steps up.

14:00 - Reporter asked Kitzinger when she was told there was a problem. Ramona hesitates and stammers a bit before saying, "Well, I found out after I came in to do the canvass." (She seems a bit awkward or unhappy saying this. Also she didn't say WHEN after she came in).

Immediately Nickolaus jumps in and takes over, and Ramona stepe back in line. Nickolaus says: "When we go through the canvass process, when we find errors throughout the day we cross em off an make changes to it. Once we verified Brookfield then I knew that we needed to discuss (stammer) the uploading part a little later".

16:30 - Nickolaus states they canvassed from noon to 5 pm then from 9:00 pm worked continuously except for a few breaks and lunch.. Votes were verified late night

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldCVBB-ruKY

[midnight]

172. "I don't know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from"

This seems to be the whole crux of the problem...

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended for the truth coming out.

Thanks for the thread, snacker.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IScreamSundays]

19. lol nt

[PeaceNikki]

31. Yes, I am here!

:hi:

[pscot]

6. Verry Interesting

[themadstork]

10. Indeed.

I don't want to rush into accusations of election fraud, but this makes it look like more than human error could be involved.

Ultimately a hand recount needs to verify the Brookfield votes. My gut tells me they're probably valid votes, but boy is there going to be a shitstorm if there's fraud involved. Would be great to watch some juicy GOP comeuppance.

[Snoutport]

21. that's what i'm hoping for :0)

[elocs]

43. I don't want to rush into accusations of election fraud..." Wow, you are admitting this at DU?

No, if a Democrat or one we support ever loses a close race it is always election fraud until proven differently. But even if it is proven not to be election fraud it is still election fraud. So you can never go wrong sticking with election fraud.

So I guarantee that this is election fraud no matter what.

[pintobean]

46. I really enjoyed this post

:) :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[pacalo]

133. The quick dismissals of election fraud are very baffling, considering the current

political climate in Wisconsin. Walker/the Fitzgeralds/the Koch brothers have made the state a one-stop shopping experience for political buffoonery. And the snarkiness toward the very much-deserved skepticism began the evening Nickolaus' miraculous & beneficial "discovery" was announced. It seems there was a line drawn with a permanent marker by those who are too-quickly & snarkily dismissing legitimate concerns.

A lot of us have been pulling for Wisconsinites from the beginning & to many of us this seems like another chapter of Walker's playbook to set all his eggs in a row. If you are willing to accept Nickolaus' explanation, that's fine. What I'm not understanding is why those who aren't as trusting are being ridiculed with snarkiness.

[PeaceNikki]

134. Some of us whose motives you question are *IN* this battle. Directly.

And YOU snarkily and accusingly dismiss OUR opinions. People like me. I have marched in Madison, I have participated in the recall efforts, this directly affects me, my community, my family, my friends. I LIVE in Waukesha County. I was born and raised here.

Check my post history, read my journal... see my level of commitment here.

Imma refer you here for my "official statement" to those of you who have done that to me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=868826&mesg_id=869204

[pacalo]

139. You know that we respect that, Nikki -- I've personally said so in many of the threads

& I think you might remember that you & I had exchanged pleasantries a couple of times.

I'm asking for some courtesy for those who think differently than those who accept the election as it stands. That's all. I'm not understanding the steadfast attacks toward this legitimate concern.

I admire Wisconsinites for the fight in them for Walker&Co, but I'm not getting the quick acceptance of the election results with the overall circumstances currently in place. My admiration doesn't extend to excusing comments that belittle legitimate, well-deserved concerns.

[w4rma]

200. So you blindly support the numbers from an ideologe who locked herself alone with the vote count in

a room for 24 hours without telling anyone what she was doing and who suddenly releases unauditable numbers that put her candidate ahead by enough to prevent a free recount.

[OnTheOtherHand]

142. it would be great if we all admitted that there's a lot we don't know

I suspect that if you count all the statements that there definitely wasn't election fraud, and all the statements that there definitely was, you'll find more in the latter pile. Neither position really makes sense -- although I do think that a lot of folks in the latter category are ignoring some well-established facts.

Even the comment you replied to doesn't actually say that there definitely wasn't election fraud. It lampoons some people's propensity to claim election fraud at the proverbial drop of a hat. Not very helpful humor, but I did laugh. I've been smeared here many times for challenging people's fraud narratives, and it is fun to be able to laugh about it. It doesn't mean that I'm sure election fraud never happens, that I'm sure election fraud didn't happen in _____, that I'm opposed to people asking questions or stating doubts, that I work for Diebold, etc., etc. It tends to be the more extreme voices on all sides who set the tone, and that's too bad. Most of us, whatever we think or say, are basically just muddling along.

[pacalo]

155. Wow, great post & I appreciate your perspective. None of us know everything

on either side; we are just muddling along on a discussion board, trying to make sense of one episode after another of the Twilight Zone.

I've come to respect & admire Wisconsinites & I really care about their being cheated again, but after reading your wise post, I need to step back & let those with the opposing view vent in their own way, particularly because it affects them so directly.

[OnTheOtherHand]

163. oh noes! a civility outbreak! :)

Thanks for your kind note.

[intheflow]

168. +1

[kenfrequed]

221. When there are so many problems...

…inconsistencies, lies, difficult to believe circumstances, and what not as well as the convenience of these votes being ‘found’ I really don’t want to hear a lot of placation and ‘well lets all just try to calm down’ nonsense or any patronizing talk about Wisconsinites needing to vent.

This election official has been in the center of too many of these screwed up situations and has refused to fix or make more transparent her methods. I am not willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and I am left totally puzzled.

[Doctor_J]

206. Very baffling, treating the current Repukelican party with respect

You can count the honest republicans in COUNTRY on one hand. The continued knee-jerk reaction by some hopelessly naive Dems that the Repukes daily crimes are all isolated incidents and not part of some criminal conspiracy is REALLY destructive to the country.

Wake up, people, these Repukes are criminals, and need to be treated that way.

[FreeJoe]

144. Both ways

Democrats like to claim that the vote counting was rigged. Republicans like to claim that people fraudulent cast votes.

[Dappleganger]

166. Both ways, my white ass.

[bongbong]

222. And....

repigs have a long, long, long and heavily documented history of lying endlessly and committing vote fraud. repigs are "guilty until proven innocent".

[blackspade]

237. Actual evidence of the former exists, but not the latter.

[Hissyspit]

246. GOP election fraud has been very real. Voter fraud is a right-wing talking point joke.

[bigmonkey]

248. "Both ways" is what the right wing says to cover their actions.

Sometimes their "both ways" is as much of a stretch as calling both serial murderers and jaywalkers "criminals." Additionally, election fraud, under the current circumstances, is far more likely to distort elections than whatever voter fraud may be occurring.

To my mind, either should be a felony, BTW.

[Dappleganger]

165. You, Sir...

did NOT just fall off the turnip wagon.

:evilgrin: :kick: :yourock:

[Hissyspit]

245. There was no question about Alabama and Wisconsin sure is stinking to high heaven.

[notadmblnd]

161. especially if it didn't change the outcome for others on the ballot

I think I read on DKos that all those 14,000 people didn't bother to vote for any other office on the ballot. I think it was AG spot?

[OnTheOtherHand]

188. two different sets of people

From memory, about 15,000 votes from Brookfield were added (compared to the unofficial totals), while about 18,000 more votes were reported in the Supreme Court contest than the next highest total. (I think you have "14" in your mind because it apparently is 14.4% of the total votes.)

That next highest total was in a county circuit court race that was decided by a 2:1 margin, so the gap isn't facially all that surprising. But if it is way off, that should be pretty obvious from the ballots. One could probably form a pretty good judgment by riffling through a few wards'-worth.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. Wow...indeed. The plot DOES thicken. Her last paragraph...

Snip>
The reason I offer this explanation is that, with the enormous amount of attention this has received over the weekend, many people are offering my statements at the press conference that the �numbers jibed� as validation they are correct and I can vouch for their accuracy. As I told Kathy when I was called into the room � I am 80 years old and I don�t understand anything about computers. I don�t know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from, but they seemed to add up. I am still very, very confused about why the canvass was finalized before I was informed of the Brookfield error and it wasn�t even until the press conference was happening that I learned it was this enormous mistake that could swing the whole election. I was never shown anything that would verify Kathy�s statement about the missing vote, and with how events unfolded and people citing me as an authority on this now, I feel like I must speak up.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

49. What is the law about having members of Both Parties present

at canvasses? It seems there was NO Democrat or Rethug either for that matter present when Nickolaus was messing around with the data and putting it into her computer.

Not only that, but why was Ramona told to come in at noon Wednesday when canvassing has always started at 9:00am? Was Nickolaus in that room Wednesday AM by herself? What might she have been doing? Were other people "advising" or assisting with whatever she was doing?

[PeaceNikki]

60. Yes, this is very suspicious!

[alfredo]

125. As someone said earlier, Access saves automatically.

How can you forget to do something that is done automatically?

[Plucketeer]

234. Aha!

THAT'S the question I'd like answered. Someone with knowledge of the software needs to go to THAT computer and replicate what this gal says happened. If the count was saved without needing to be told to do so - she's lying.

[alfredo]

235. It can be disabled, but I don't know how.

[in_cog_ni_to]

61. Very good questions and those ALL need to be asked! n/t

[LisaL]

66. Ramona was also not a designated democratic observer, prior

to receiving the call to show up for canvassing. Was Ramona specifically picked as an observer for canvassing, because she is 80 year old and by her own admission does not understand anything about computers?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

73. I think she has been an observer for years in Waukesha Co

I don't doubt that Nickolaus & Co. LOVE to have kind, honest elderly Dems who know nothing about computers as observers... Assholes.

[PeaceNikki]

74. She has been on the board of canvass since 2004

edited for freeper typo

[LisaL]

77. But she was not a designated observer prior to getting a phone

call to show up for canvassing.

[PeaceNikki]

80. Read it again

She said she had not been contacted as the democratic observer. I take that to mean that she was the observer and had not been contacted.

[LisaL]

82. If she were not contacted how could she have been an observer?

[PeaceNikki]

87. Or.... as the the observer she SHOULD have been contacted, but was not?

[LisaL]

91. If she was the observer during the election, wouldn't canvassing

be discussed, so why would she expect to be contacted by phone or public notice?

[PeaceNikki]

101. Here:

"The Waukesha County Democratic Party released a statement Monday ascribed to Ramona Kitzinger, 80, a member of the canvassing board since 2004."

Go Google and see what the Board of Canvass is if it's unclear to you.

"According to the statement, she said she was surprised the canvass board was asked to meet at noon Wednesday, rather than the usual Thursday morning start time. An advance agenda was posted. The Wednesday afternoon canvass "proceeded as normal, with no glaring irregularities or mention of a possible 15,000 vote error in Brookfield City," she wrote."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/119627189.html

[LisaL]

102. That still says nothing on whether she was there during the election.

[PeaceNikki]

104. That is not the job of the Board of Canvass, ffs.

There are different people who observe on election day.

[LisaL]

106. So what exactly are you arguing with me about?

She was not there during the election. She says she was not contacted prior to getting the phone call on Tuesday to show up for canvassing on Wednesday.
So, again, my question is, could she have been selected for canvassing specifically because she is 80 year old and does not understand anything about computers?

[PeaceNikki]

107. No, she's been on Board since 2004 and was selected because of her integrity

and knowledge of the canvass process.

[LisaL]

110. I am not questioning her integrity, but she is also 80 and

by her own admission does not understand anything about computers.

[PeaceNikki]

111. What value would knowledge of computers offer in this scenario?

The asshole clerk didn't even mention the "error" until the canvass was done. By them, Ramona had already compared the tape to the totals that she was given. That's the job of the Board of Canvass.


She's old, but capable. She was an attorney.

[gkhouston]

113. None. A tabulator or voting machine can be hacked to generate a plausible-looking

tape and most computer types would be none the wiser.

[PeaceNikki]

117. Right... if that was done it doesn't matter if it's an 80 y/o Ramona or Bill Gates.

The Board of Canvass doesn't audit applications on a PC with summary totals. She compared the tape to the totals that she was given. That's the job of the Board of Canvass.

[rufus dog]

143. Damn, I was agreeing with you today up til this comment

It does matter, she appears to have taken advantage of an older person to use as a prop at a press conference. If Bill Gates, or I, or you had been called in at the last minute and asked to go to a press conference to visually support her mistake would any of us said yes? I think not! If we did go to the conference don't you think we might have mentioned that we were not given acces to any verifiable records, thus resulting in more questions?

[OnTheOtherHand]

150. do we doubt that the canvass board did the canvass?

The canvass board has access to a lot of "verifiable records." Ramona Kitzinger's specific complaint seems to be that she doesn't have enough information to corroborate Nickolaus's story about why the unofficial results were wrong. That's separate from whether she can corroborate that the official results appear to be right.

I have to say "appear to be" because it's always possible that the scanners were hacked, or that they malfunctioned. That would have been possible with or without the Brookfield drama.

[LisaL]

167. Ramona was canvassing for two days and was not told

anything about the "human error" up until she was told there was going to be a press-conference.
I find that very peculiar to say the least.

[OnTheOtherHand]

191. I agree with that; do you agree with me?

I have no idea why Nickolaus handled it this way. Even if one assumes that Nickolaus decided to "double" the Brookfield votes, I still have no idea why she wouldn't claim almost immediately that the unofficial numbers were sketchy.

I think the distinction between whether the canvass is right, and why the unofficial results were wrong, is pretty important here.

If I remember the press conference correctly, Nickolaus said at some point that she had (my words) walked the canvass board members through the numbers to explain why the canvass totals didn't match the unofficial totals. It seems quite correct for Kitzinger -- even if she were a 25-year-old computer guru -- to say that she didn't see enough to corroborate that.

That doesn't have any direct bearing on whether the canvass is correct. The board is supposed to review the records from every polling place, make sure the numbers all match and the totals add up. If Kitzinger said that she had no idea where the canvass numbers came from, that would be alarming -- and kind of bizarre, since she has been on the canvass board for years.

I'm not in a position to vouch for the canvass. But I do think it's important to be clear about what Kitzinger did and didn't say.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

204. Though Bill Gates would be aware of the potential and various methods used to hack elections

i would assume.

[LisaL]

119. Well she clearly felt it was important to bring it up after she

was told of the "human error" before the press-conference, so presumably she herself thinks knowledge of computers might have been of some value.

[PeaceNikki]

105. post fail

oops

[OnTheOtherHand]

130. two clarifications

"when Nickolaus was messing around the data and putting it into her computer" -- preparing the unofficial numbers on election night. Arguably not very important, because they are unofficial. New York City routinely produces grotesquely erroneous unofficial results. Of course one can speculate that Nickolaus was also doing something permanent and heinous, but producing incorrect unofficial results isn't heinous in itself.

Ramona K. said that the canvass usually starts Thursday morning -- she was called in early, not late. That poses its own problems, and it's still fair to wonder what Nickolaus did on Wednesday morning. All the ballots and paperwork are supposed to be secured with tamper-evident seals.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

159. Thank you for your input. You are right re #2

I misspoke. my main point however still stands, and you have restated it at the end of your post

[Parker CA]

8. Kick and Rec. Definitely appears to be much more to this story. nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. This is THE bit of information that should kick off a federal investigation

After hearing about the "found" votes, I immediately wondered what the Dem representative on the canvass board had to say about the totals. Watching the press conference and seeing Ramona, i also immediately wondered if she had ANY experience to be able to spot fraud or if she had any computer experience. She writes,

"The reason I offer this explanation is that, with the enormous amount of attention this has received over the weekend, many people are offering my statements at the press conference that the �numbers jibed� as validation they are correct and I can vouch for their accuracy. As I told Kathy when I was called into the room � I am 80 years old and I don�t understand anything about computers. I don�t know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from, but they seemed to add up. I am still very, very confused about why the canvass was finalized before I was informed of the Brookfield error and it wasn�t even until the press conference was happening that I learned it was this enormous mistake that could swing the whole election. I was never shown anything that would verify Kathy�s statement about the missing vote, and with how events unfolded and people citing me as an authority on this now, I feel like I must speak up."


One would think that Ramona's statement would kick off an immediate criminal investigation. Dems should consider more intensive training for our local board reps to spot fraud.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

54. So Ramona was "called" into the room - by whom? Nickolaus?

Were others in there with Nickolaus? Wasn't a Dem supposed to be in there WITH the repub?

"I don't know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from, but they seemed to add up."

Could the Brookfield election office be in on this with Nickolaus? Where exactly did they get THEIR numbers? (it's getting so confusing I cant remember this detail). Brookfield posted the same numbers as Nicklaus well after midnight Wednesday morning.

"...canvass was finalized before I was informed of the Brookfield error and it wasn't even until the press conference was happening that I learned it was this enormous mistake that could swing the whole election."

Again, how can it be legal to withhold info from the only Dem witness for nearly 2 days?

Boy, poor Ms Nickolaus - she should not have been abused and used like this.

[PeaceNikki]

11. Oh wow!!

:o

Can't wait to get some more info.

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. Am I incorrect, or did you post the other day that your boss knew Ramona and

that Ramona had assured her that the canvass was honest and fair?

[golddigger]

18. Yes she did. See link below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=841948&mesg_id=841948

edited to add link

[PeaceNikki]

27. Uh no. Read that link again.

A) not my "boss"

B) it says:
"She validated the information that she had. She compared the tape to the totals that she was given. That's the job of the Board of Canvass"

[PeaceNikki]

29. No, read the link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=867315&mesg_id=867697

I said my CD chair knows her and that HE said "She validated the information that she had. She compared the tape to the totals that she was given. That's the job of the Board of Canvass"

Which completely is in line with Ramona's statement in OP.... though the statement is more info, as expected

[LisaL]

62. Ramona also states she is 80, doesn't understand anything

about computers, and was not told anything about this "human error" that changed the outcome of the election until before the press-conference. Why wasn't she told anything about this huge error until she was told about the press-conference? You don't find that info at least a little bit fishy?

[PeaceNikki]

71. I absolutely find that to be fishy.

[LisaL]

76. Ramona said she was not a designated observer prior

to getting a call to show up for canvassing. Was there a different observer during the election? Why was Ramona picked to be an observer? Could whoever picked her decided to pick her specifically because she is 80 and does not understand anything about computers?

[PeaceNikki]

81. Read it again.

[LisaL]

83. I have interpreted her statement to mean that she was not

contacted to be a designated democratic observer prior to getting a phone call.

[PeaceNikki]

85. Her exact words:

"Before this telephone call, I had not been contacted as the designated Democratic observer, and I saw no public notice of the abnormal canvass time."

Open to interpretation, but I read it as: she was the observer, should have been contacted, or at minimum seen a public notice, but was neither contacted nor saw such notice.

[LisaL]

88. If she were there during the election, why would she expect

to be contacted? Presumably during the election canvassing would have been discussed, so why would she expect to be additionally contacted? I interpreted her statement to mean that she were not contacted to be a designated observer prior to getting this phone call.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

90. I think you are right. They should have put a comma here:

"Before this telephone call, I had not been contacted <,> as the designated Democratic observer, and I saw no public notice of the abnormal canvass time."

That might have made it read as she intended it (presuming we are right in her intented meaning!)

[PeaceNikki]

92. Right, further adding to her own suspicions... and now all of ours.

[LisaL]

94. Before the telephone call, I had not been contacted...

The election was on Tuesday. She gets a phone call on Tuesday about the canvassing. Why would she expect to be contacted additionally if she were there during the election?

[PeaceNikki]

103. Read the statement yet AGAIN.

"Normally the canvass would begin at 9am on Thursday, as has been the general practice for many years. No one explained why they were beginning the canvass on Wednesday, just to please report immediately."

[LisaL]

108. She was one person selected from the board to do the canvassing.

I presume there are more than one person on that board that could be selected from? She was not contacted prior to getting the phone call on Tuesday evening, after the election. Presumably somebody else could have been selected as the designated observer? I presume she was not the only possible choice?
So, please explain why you are arguing with me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

135. umm, because you're wrong?

The canvassing board does the canvass. She is the Democratic member of the canvassing board. There was no question about whether she would be "selected."

[PeaceNikki]

136. Indeed. And she's been on the board since 2004.

[LisaL]

152. So she is the only democratic member of the canvassing board?

[OnTheOtherHand]

158. yes, canvassing boards have three members

The county clerk, plus two other members, at least one of whom has to be of a party other than the clerk's. I'm not an expert on Wisconsin, but that generally seems to mean one Democrat and one Republican, plus the clerk.

[LisaL]

181. I simply was not sure on whether the canvassing board

had several possible democratic observers to be chosen from as a designated observer. From what I've been told on this thread, it appears Ramona was the only possible choice.
Which makes me curious-what happens if the only possible observer gets sick, etc?

[OnTheOtherHand]

192. the clerk appoints a replacement

"If a member other than the clerk cannot perform his or her duties, the clerk shall appoint another member to serve."

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0007.pdf page 16

I don't see any party requirement for that appointment, although presumably at least eyebrows would rise if a clerk appointed a Republican to replace a Democrat or vice versa. (Notice that a bit earlier, the law says, "One member of the board of canvassers shall belong to a political party other than the clerk's." But that wouldn't necessarily apply to the replacement appointment, unless there is legal precedent to that effect. I don't know about any precedents, I'm just reading the law.)

By the way, "observer" isn't a term of art here. Kitzinger is a member of the canvassing board. I mention this because some jurisdictions allow parties to send "observers" to various election functions on an ad hoc basis, and/or for people to serve as observers on their own initiative. So I think Kitzinger's use of "observer" created some confusion.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

211. mmm hmm... The CLERK decides which Dem she would like to observe

I wonder why she chose Ramona

I'm trying to muddle through all this DENSE legalese from your link. It would take a person DAYS to thoroughly study and analyze this...There is some STRANGE -- and on first glance, alarming -- stuff in here. thanks for posting.

[OnTheOtherHand]

212. "Ramona" has been on the board since 2004

Maybe that's suspicious -- I don't know. (The scare quotes are because personally, I'm not on a first-name basis with Ms. Kitzinger. I think PeaceNikki was the first person to go there, and I don't object, but I feel weird when I do it.)

My main point here is to distinguish between (1) the change from the unofficial returns and (2) how the canvass was conducted. I don't think Kitzinger has withdrawn her statement that the canvass itself was fine. I don't think we do Kitzinger any favors by assuming without evidence that she got snowed during the canvass. Even if she was, it's a distinct issue.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

215. I don't think she was allowed to fully participate in the canvass

She said, On Tuesday night, I received a voice message from someone in the office of Clerk Kathy Nickolaus informing me of a Wednesday canvass meeting, which I returned the next morning and said I would be able to report into the canvass by noon which I did.

This is a confusingly constructed sentence. I take it to mean:

On Tuesday night, I received a voice message from someone in the office of Clerk Kathy Nickolaus informing me of a Wednesday canvass meeting and telling me I would be able to report into the canvass by noon. I returned the call the next morning, and reported for canvassing duty by noon.

QUESTIONS:
- Who is this someone from Nickolaus's office who left Kitzinger a voice mail on election night?
- What time did s/he leave this message? Was it so late that Kitzinger didn't hear it until the next morning? If so, was that an intentional move to keep the Dem observer out of the office on Wednesday morning? They told her to arrive "by noon" according to her statement.
- What time did Nickolaus & other canvass board members (if any) arrive Wednesday morning? WHO was on site when Kitzinger arrived?

KITZINGER: "Before this telephone call, I had not been contacted...and I saw no public notice of the abnormal canvass time. The phone call simply instructed me to report by noon to begin the canvass, which I did. The canvass then proceeded as normal, with no glaring irregularities or mention of a possible 15,000 vote error in Brookfield City."

How is this meaningful participation or observation if critical information was withheld from her throughout the entire canvass process?

KITZINGER: "Kathy didn't offer an explanation about why she didn't mention anything prior to Thursday afternoon's canvass completion, but showed us different tapes where numbers seemed to add up, though I have no idea where the numbers were coming from."

I don't think Kitzinger was "snowed" but this is really BS to expect the canvass board to verify an election based on these potentially phony tapes from a hackable personal computer... ESPECIALLY after critical info had been withheld from them throughout the entire canvassing period.

[OnTheOtherHand]

219. a few things

First, I guess I'm just repeating myself: the canvass started earlier than usual. If the canvass had started on Thursday as usual, presumably Nickolaus would have had even more time to do whatever one supposes that she may have been doing. That isn't to answer or to dismiss your questions; I just don't understand why having the canvass start Wednesday noon is more suspicious than having it start Thursday morning.

How is this meaningful participation or observation if critical information was withheld from her throughout the entire canvass process?...

I don't think Kitzinger was "snowed" but this is really BS to expect the canvass board to verify an election based on these potentially phony tapes from a hackable personal computer... ESPECIALLY after critical info had been withheld from them throughout the entire canvassing period.

Again I'm afraid that I'm just repeating myself, but the unofficial results have no legal force or effect; from the standpoint of election law, they don't exist; the canvass board has nothing to do with them.

Kitzinger's ability to participate in the canvass has nothing whatsoever to do with her knowledge of the unofficial results. This might be clearer if we pretend for a moment that there was no difference between the unofficial and official totals. Of course, there would be no way to know that until the end of the canvass. The fact that Kitzinger told the media "Prosser got X votes, Kloppenburg got Y votes" does not affect the course of the canvass.

People are rightly wondering what Nickolaus knew, when she knew it, and why she seems mostly to have kept it to herself. But the unofficial results have no bearing whatsoever on the canvass. No one was being asked to "verify an election based on these potentially phony tapes from a hackable personal computer." If you change that last part to "from hackable optical scanners," then you have a point, but it isn't about the unofficial results.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

220. It isn't WHEN the canvass started that is particularly suspicious to me

It is how and when Klitziger was informed of it, especially considering that starting it Wednesday was abnormal.

You make a good point - if they had started in Thursday,as usual, Nicklaus would have had more time to work solo on whatever she wanted to do.

Forgive my forgetfulness but at what point do the results become "official" and thus have legal force or effect? Is the purpose of canvassing the results to arrive at the official result?

[OnTheOtherHand]

233. OK

I don't actually find it all that suspicious that Nickolaus took one look at the unfolding statewide results and decided that it might be good to get the canvass underway ASAP -- so the timing doesn't seem that odd to me. Nevertheless, it isn't SOP, so there is no reason not to be suspicious of it. I hope the GAB investigation is going through these questions very carefully.

I'm actually going to fudge on my answer to your q, because the details can vary from state to state, and I don't want to pose as an expert on WI election law. Yes, basically the purpose of the canvass in WI (as I understand it) is to arrive at the official result. Basically the flavor of this process in most states is that results become official after they're canvassed and/or certified. For a statewide election, generally that is a two-step process: the counties issue official results, and then the state combines them to arrive at the official totals. I don't remember offhand whether WI talks about "certifying" per se. (Many of us vividly remember when Harris "certified" the Florida 2000 results....)

[eowyn_of_rohan]

260. That's what I thought - the canvass matters very much to the official results

so it shouldn't be corrupted or improperly managed...which it seems may have happened.

[juajen]

227. I find all of the attention this mis-placed vote is getting a little suspicious.

I am not the first to opine that this could be a red herring. Every vote in Wisconsin should be re-counted. I will personally, even though I am not well off financially, contribute money to a re-count of ALL votes in Wisconsin for this election. While we are looking there, they could possibly be sealing records and destroying information vital to a recount of the entire state.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

228. Many agree with you - including myself.

It is hard not to be nervous about the custody and security of ALL the ballots in the state right now.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

216. I don't think it is suspicious in itself - How many others are on the board?

Are different ones called in by the clerk for different elections? I combed the Waukesha Co clerk website and googled myself silly but couldn't find a list of those on the board. I know there are dems and reps, and that at least SOME members were present at the Nicklaus press conference...

[OnTheOtherHand]

218. WI boards have just three members

It's a little hard to spot that in the legal language; somewhere there is an FAQ that is clearer.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

207. Yeah, this is strange.

There are many details that have not been made clear - I hope this goes to court.

[LisaL]

95. She got that phone call on Tuesday.

The election was on Tuesday. And she says "before this telephone call, I had not been contacted..." Whether comma is there or not, it would be a strange statement to make, IMO, if she spend the whole election there on Tuesday, got a phone call on Tuesday, and yet stated that "before this telephone call, I had not been contacted..."

[patrice]

179. Such phrases are only set off with commas if they are non-essential to the meaning of the statement,

i.e. only if they add extra information that does not change the intended meaning, so the commas would imply that she would have been contacted anyway, designated observer or not, which is not the case, so no commas.

I think the operant word is "contacted". Although it is possible that she meant "contacted to be the designated observer" (before she actually WAS the designated observer) but said "contacted as the designated observer" instead, that doesn't seem very likely to me, so I think she already was the designated observer and was referring to a process in which it is standard to contact the (already) designated observer before a canvass.

[patrice]

180. That is unless the contact for the canvass and the designation coincide, which is possible too, I

suppose, so now I'm wondering how common that sort of thing is.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

203. I think the entire sentence/statement could have been better constructed

I agree with you that she already was the designated observer when they failed to contact her and was "referring to a process in which it is standard to contact the (already) designated observer before a canvass."

If that is her intended meaning, she could have divided this into 2 sentences; eg "Before this telephone call, I had not been contacted, and I saw no public notice of the abnormal canvass time." "As the designated Democratic observer, common protocol suggests I should have been given proper notice"

I was just saying that to bracket "As the designated Democratic observer" with commas may have served as a quick fix to the already constructed sentence.

In this case, a pair of commas would be used to bracket a clarification, rather than a "non-essential" part of the statement, because this IS essential to the statement.

[murielm99]

123. Why would she be designated by the clerk instead

of her Democratic county chairperson? What is the procedure in Wisconsin? Do you know without speculating?

[PeaceNikki]

124. I can't say for sure. I know my CD chair was voted in, and that he said she was "selected"

because of her integrity. I don't know if that was via nomination and vote or by the county chair. I will ask him when the opportunity arises.

[mazzarro]

48. +100%

Bingo!!!!!

[pintobean]

51. .

[PeaceNikki]

53. Bingo what;?

:shrug:

That post to which you responsed wasn't accurate. The link to my words is right in here, though.

[tavalon]

190. Part of me wants you to be screaming, fraud!

But a bigger part of me is really glad that you are being so level headed and methodical. My core values include fairness and open mindedness and you are expressing both. That said, if there was fraud, I want it found and for once, I would like someone prosecuted!

[Rex]

15. I wonder where she got her numbers from that she wouldn't

show the Dems representative. Could she really be so stupid as to save the info on her personal PC and then lose all the information? There has to be backups somewhere of the information. If she didn't follow election rules, then where does that leave us now?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

217. the only backup of TRUE numbers is the pile of paper ballots cast that day

Which have been in the custody of the thugs via Nickolaus since election day, and are all still in her office , albeit "secured" and "locked".... :banghead:

[buddysmellgood]

23. This is all part of the investigation and exactly what PeaceNikki has been talking about.

[golddigger]

25. That's why I was asking for her.

I wasn't calling her out in a derogatory way, just wanted to know if she knows whats going on since she said she knew the person.

[PeaceNikki]

28. I said my CD chair knows her and that HE said

"She validated the information that she had. She compared the tape to the totals that she was given. That's the job of the Board of Canvass"

Which completely is in line with Ramona's statement in OP.... though the statement is more info, as expected.

[golddigger]

33. I apologize. I now see on the heading of the post where you said

my CD chair on the link I posted.

[PeaceNikki]

35. Du is a lot like the "telephone" game.

PeaceNikki said she counted the ballots herself!!

lol

[pintobean]

47. Well

did you count them? :hi:

[PeaceNikki]

56. Yes, there were 42.

:hi:

[pintobean]

75. Ah, the answer to the ultimate question

life, the universe and everything. I guess this falls under "everything".

Sweet!


Edit: Ooops, I forgot....... we can't joke about this. Oh well.

[Kingofalldems]

12. Special Prosecutor needed on retainer to investigate the GOP

K and R

[murielm99]

16. Actually, this info needs to be tweeted or sent in some

fashion to Kloppenburg's attorney. Her attorney is the same attorney who helped Franken with his election problems. I hear he is a good one.

[Enthusiast]

63. He must be a good one

because we have Al. I'm convinced they fiddled with that election also. If we only knew the scope of their criminality.

[Botany]

14. So the mistake was not found in the canvass of the vote ....

..... that the democratic observer had taken part in but she was just told of the error later on
by Kathy Nickolaus in her office prior to the press conference?

:wow:


"As I told Kathy when I was called into the room – I am 80 years old and I don’t understand anything
about computers. I don’t know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from ....

snip

I was never shown anything that would verify Kathy’s statement about the missing vote, and with how events
unfolded and people citing me as an authority on this now, I feel like I must speak up."

[Rex]

17. Sound like to me they are taking advantage of her ignorance

toward PCs and how they work. Why are the Dems not sending an expert in that field? Why send someone that won't understand the situation?

I mean...plz, this is getting a little ridiculous.

[Botany]

20. Well there goes the cover story by the republicans ....

... Democrats were in on the process and said everything was O.K..

The mistake WAS NOT FOUND IN THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE WITH THE DEMOCRATIC
OBSERVER LOOKING ON BUT IT WAS JUST TOLD TO HER PRIOR TO THE PRESS CONFERENCE.


So Nickolaus "found the mistake" all on her own but waited an unknown # of days to tell
the democratic observer about a "human error" that if true would switch the results of
the election.

[Rex]

30. The error that was known the day after the voting took place.

That she would wait all that time until the press conference, is telling imo. I speculate we are about to see someone fall on their sword...ie...Katherine Harris style. Question is, will she get away with it...will Repukes get away with it, AGAIN?!

The question here is, how could she alter the votes if they were already tallied into the count for an entire city? That would take a lot of work imo, not saying she doesn't have the skills (obviously she is in a job to do just that) just how could she manipulate a cities rolls...remote desktop from her on PC (which she conviently kept all the information on) at the time of the vote count?

It would take more than just her imo to do this, so it would at least have to be a conspiracy imo.

I think time will unravel this one for us...and the judical system.

[tblue37]

34. Oh, I am sure there are plenty of Republican minions who could help

her out. nt

[Botany]

36. Well, I am no I.T. expert but tampering w/ the vote totals

..... might be kind of simple by just entering "the new data" into the system and since
she was keeping the vote data on her own P.C., Nickolaus might have had a chance
to do just that but what would be harder to do would be to produce the poll logs
where the precincts workers check somebody in to vote and then crosses the person's
name off the list. There has to be either an absentee, a provisional ballot (If Wisconsin
has them), or the voters name crossed off in a poll log and signed off on by a poll worker
for every vote.

Legit Votes In must = Legit Votes Out.

After Ohio 2004 I have worked very hard on making sure people get to vote and
that their vote will be counted.

[patrice]

185. The problem would be to randomize so many changes quickly enough AND

preferably by yourself, for security (HA!!!).

What if you add a primary key, or what would actually be a secondary key since the records already have a primary key, and then duplicate the table, then add any kind of sortable field to the duplicate, sort on that field, make your changes by duplicating groups of votes, sort on the primary key again and then copy & paste the changes back into the original table?

[patrice]

186. You could grab any sufficiently large enough block of text, say from a novel, export it into

comma separated records and then import that as a new field in your duplicate table, sort that field, make your changes, sort on the secondary key again, copy and paste the changed field into the original table and remove the secondary key.

[patrice]

225. It wouldn't be authentic randomization, but it would pretty much look like it. nt

[patrice]

229. Or, if you're afraid of tipping-off the computer forensics specialists, do the whole thing on the

original table. I don't know the level of change details they'd be able to track in the original table, especially in old software that could possibly never have been on a dedicated intranet, but one thing they would be looking for would be any table creation or any duplication of any tables.

[buddysmellgood]

24. It IS being investigated.

[Doctor_J]

209. There wasn't any mistake. This was a federal crime that was perpetrated

calling it a mistake is a right-wing tactic.

[Blue Owl]

22. TILT

Game over, fuckos.

May this be the last election the GOP ever steals, and may our democracy be restored so that the people's voice is guiding our country, not the Koch Bros.

[Time to Barf]

26. It is past time to indict Kathy Nickolaus for election fraud, electioneering and many vote-related

laws that she has violated.

Ramona Kitzinger, while a wonderful Democrat, should not be their canvasser. She ADMITTED she knows nothing about computers.

Black box voting has been documented over and over, with proof.

I accuse Nickolaus for generating fake votes.

[Rex]

32. I want to know why they sent someone that would not understand

the situation at hand? What are the Dems thinking?

[murielm99]

37. I would imagine that in the past, the canvases have been

so routine that it has not mattered. It is simply a matter of each county chairman or their designee looking at the numbers and signing off on them.

I have done that as a county chairman. If I could not attend, I sent another member of the executive committee. I did not worry about their computer skills as much as I did their experience and ability to understand the process. Of course the laws differ somewhat in my state, but the process is similar.

I know that Wisconsin has a state law that requires a paper trail. I can only hope that all those ballots are intact somewhere. Are they still stored in the courthouse at this time? The GAB should have them by now. Is there anyone here who knows?

[csziggy]

44. The WI Dems are probably in the same situation as everywhere - not enough people

Willing to work the elections. My Mom used to work the elections, as a poll worker not for the party. My sister now does it every election in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Every year they have trouble getting enough people just to man the polls, much less take the more challenging jobs of party poll watchers. Being a poll watcher for the party requires that you be willing to speak up and confront people about any apparent irregularity. Most people are unwilling to do that.

Working the polls in any capacity is a very hard job. You have to train ahead of time. Election day can be eighteen hours or more. If you work the count after wards, it can be long hours for several days.

I will never criticize the poll workers or the Democratic poll watchers. If we want the process to be better, WE should be out there doing those jobs. if I were physically able, I would do it, but I do not have the mobility or endurance to do it much less the temperament.

[Enthusiast]

64. Who sent her? The individual.

The party has been infiltrated, we must remember that.

[PeaceNikki]

99. I am told Ramona was selected because of her honesty, integrity and familiarity with the election

/canvass process.

Knowing computers wouldn't have proven beneficial in this scenario since the lying piece of shit clerk didn't mention it until the presser. She validated the information that she had. She compared the tape to the totals that she was given. That's the job of the Board of Canvass.

[Rex]

254. Ah very true, I missed that point.

Thanks.

[yellowcanine]

38. “Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice ....... But not to worry, there will be no vote fraud as

long as everyone has to show a picture ID.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

65. lol - Good one!!

insanity reigns

[catgirl]

39. If the votes cannot be verified...

There needs to be a new election. There's obviously something fishy here.

[PeaceNikki]

40. We have all ballots on paper.

So there's that.

[murielm99]

45. Where are they right now?

Who has custody of them? They may need to be impounded.

[PeaceNikki]

52. I can't answer that. I am not in charge of them.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

68. SOMEBODY from that office owes it to the public to tell us how they are being safe-guarded

I can picture them shredding the real ones and coloring in thousands of new ones ...

[Tx4obama]

72. They have been sealed and are in custody. It was announced on Friday I believe.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

78. oh-that's right -guarded by KATHY NICKOLAUS-the Waukesha County Elections Clerk

This is just Shit.

“The Waukesha County ballots are in the clerk’s custody in bags that were sealed by poll workers on Election Night, Government Accountabi­lity Board director Kevin Kennedy (who I do not trust at all) said today in a press conference­.

He said the ballot bags will not be opened unless a recount is requested by one of the campaigns. right.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VNfRHlHKNLsJ:www.waukeshacounty.gov/defaultwc.aspx%3Fid%3D38066+%22waukesha+county+clerk%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

How can they turn this over to this known criminal? The chain of custody of the ballots has been compromised.....

[ooglymoogly]

243. 29 hrs late and a ballot short.

though I will admit 29 hrs is just not enough time to do any real damage.

[joeunderdog]

258. Rove has them. He said he'd even count them himself.

Thank God the system is on the up and up.

[SlimJimmy]

57. Forget it Nikki, you can't win with this group. They have their hearts

set on election fraud. So, no matter how many times you tell them that no actual votes were on her computer, that the local paper reported the correct total the night of the election, and that even if she left that city's vote totals off of her computer, that's not a crime ... they will continue to insist that this is election fraud and this repub should be jailed for life.

[Enthusiast]

67. It was election fraud.

That is a veritable certainty. How it was carried off is the only question.

[SlimJimmy]

127. In your mind, maybe. (nt)

[RedCloud]

231. Do your eyes fail to work?

On Thursday, I then showed up as per normal procedure at 9am and the canvass again went normally and concluded sometime between 4pm and 5pm. During the course of the day, the issue of minor vote corrections in New Berlin and Lisbon came up, but again nothing of a historic nature or reflecting glaring irregularities. In fact, the matter of vote totals in Brookfield City came up specifically during the course of Thursday's canvass. In retrospect, it seems both shocking and somewhat appalling there was no mention of discovery of this 15,000 vote "human error" that ultimately had the potential to tip the balance of an entire statewide election. How is this possible?

Once the canvass had been completed and the results were finalized, I was called into Kathy's office along with Pat (the Republican observer) and told of an impending 5:30pm press conference. It was at that point that I was first made aware of an error Kathy had made in Brookfield City. Kathy told us she thought she had saved the Brookfield voter information Tuesday night, but then on Wednesday she said she noticed she had not hit save. Kathy didn�t offer an explanation about why she didn't mention anything prior to Thursday afternoon's canvass completion, but showed us different tapes where numbers seemed to add up, though I have no idea where the numbers were coming from. I was not told of the magnitude of this error, just that she had made one. I was then instructed that I would not say anything at the press conference, and was actually surprised when I was asked questions by reporters.


So they told her to shut up and sing off basically and did NOT discuss the Brookfield anomaly when it was time to. Why not?

[SlimJimmy]

247. My eyes work just fine. And I know a bunch of nothing when I read it.

The votes were NOT on the repubs computer as so many here have said and said and said. That is patently FALSE. The *tallies* were on her computer and she failed to report one city to the press. OMG, what a crime. A city, by the way, that reported their vote totals to the local press on election night. There are NO votes missing, period. And for you and others to make an absolute mountain out of nothing just makes you all look hysterical. Well, I won't buy into the hysteria. I'll use the facts at hand. I'm just not going to cry ELECTION FRAUD every time a vote is close. Your mileage may vary.

[peace frog]

240. [phone]

Exactly so.

[Tx4obama]

97. You are 100% correct!

But there are a few of us here on DU that have been trying to state the facts and the time line so that there is something posted to counter the conspiracy theorists ;)

[PurityOfEssence]

114. Reality is reality.

If they're paper and simply misreported as you say on your thread, then that's the end of it, as well it should be. Frankly, pursuing a real mistake could be more harmful than letting an actual fraud go: it can be touted as "crying wolf" forever.

Facts should be facts for everyone, and those who let their feelings have sway do us no good.

[OnTheOtherHand]

120. there are lessons to be learned, even then

If this turns out to be a simple mistake in the unofficial returns (as I think is most likely), detailed reporting on election night could have either prevented the mistake, or exposed it right away.

It's good to demand answers, as long as we're prepared to live with the right ones.

[SlimJimmy]

128. That's what some of us here have been saying. But we have been

shouted down by the very vocal CT's.

[Tx4obama]

131. Well, we will have to just keep shouting louder than the CTs :) n/t

[rufus dog]

147. I would be very careful about calling out "CT"

when your "facts" are questionable.

edited to add - Out shouting is a Tactic often used by Republicans, as stated many times, all the facts must come in on this situation before ANYONE can come to a valid conclusion.

[SlimJimmy]

226. Wrong on many levels. If the facts include outright falsehoods, like

she had *actual* votes on her computer, then I'm obligated to correct that. By all means, point out *any* fact that I have wrong. (I'll give you a quick answer, you can't). And as far as yelling goes - that isn't confined to just repubs.

[Bluebear]

261. indeed

[SlimJimmy]

162. Yep (nt)

[LanternWaste]

262. You are indeed such the martyr...

"But we have been shouted down by the very vocal CT's..."

You are indeed such the martyr...

[SlimJimmy]

129. I understand. Facts are the only thing that have ever swayed me.

This situation isn't any different.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

153. surely not

Welcome to DU. Take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the rules. The detailed explanation of civility standards may be especially on point.

FYI, discussions about this election aren't restricted to people who live in Wisconsin. Sorry, they just aren't.

[Tx4obama]

156. Yes, you did yesterday. And I reported you yesterday.

I am a liberal democrat, I am NOT paid by anyone.
I have a right to state my opinion here on DU and talk about 'any' state's elections.
It is against DU rules to question other DUer's motives.

Please read the DU rules.

[marions ghost]

50. Go Ramona

why are our elections conducted like the time when we kids stuffed the raffle box to make sure we won the kitten?

This is ridiculous but this is where it's at.

[LisaL]

55. Well that certainly clarifies things, considering

there are posters here who used the idea of a democratic observer being there as proof nothing fishy was going on. The lady in question says she is 80 years old and doesn't understand anything about computers, and appears to be as confused about the situation as most of us.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

69. and they kept her OUT of the office on more than one occasion while they were in there

[Enthusiast]

59. They stole two presidential elections

We let them get away with it. Just imagine, no Bush presidency.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

70. THAT is the rallying cry.

And we must say NOT IN OUR STATE!!!

[Tx4obama]

79. The bottom line is that the county was showing 'all zeros' for the city of Brookfield.

The 14,000+ votes that the city of Brookfield transmitted to the county on election night must be added to the Waukesha county grand total.
There is no evidence that there was any misdoing at the local level in Brookfield.
The county clerk made and error, the error was found, and corrected on canvas day.

Anyone that thinks that the Brookfield numbers the 'CITY' tallied and transmitted to the 'county' are incorrect then please post a link that shows evidence of that or any report that there was any wrong doing at all in the City of Brookfield.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

86. Under the circumstances, perhaps someone should be looking for evidence

Since when are we not allowed to "THINK" or WONDER something without having evidence that it is a fact?

[Tx4obama]

89. My comment included a simple request for a link regarding Brookfield.

There was NOTHING in my comment that said anything about folks not being allowed to think or wonder about anything.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

93. GOOD! I misunderstood then.

[pauldg0]

174. Maybe she's a smokescreen for other misdeeds.

[PeaceNikki]

84. .

post fail

[ChiciB1]

96. Okay, I've Been Waiting To Find Out What The REAL Plan Of Action Is

going to be. Does ANYONE know? Are they going to let the numbers stand and accept fraud as truth? Is there ANY recourse or did they do it to US AGAIN?

I've been away for several days and just don't know where there are with this right now. Is it a stalemate or will there be more investigation?? I have a very bad feeling right now.

[Tx4obama]

100. See comment #98 n/t

[Tx4obama]

98. UPDATE: 4:58 PM: Kennedy: Waukesha County investigation ongoing, but numbers appear to match up

GAB Director Kevin Kennedy says the agency's investigation of spring election procedures in Waukesha County remains ongoing, but that the final canvass numbers in the city of Brookfield match the initial tallies from poll workers on Election Night.

"We don't see, at this point, any criminal activity, but we certainly see practices that need to be changed to bolster public confidence," Kennedy said.

GAB staff is now the process of matching those numbers for all Waukesha County wards after Brookfield ballots were mistakenly left out of Election Night returns from the county clerk. The numbers tentatively turned a razor-thin lead for Supreme Court candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg into a margin of more than 7,000 votes in favor of incumbent Justice David Prosser.

Kennedy also said GAB staff is reviewing Election Night practices in the county, saying he hopes to give the public and the press greater access to the county's results and break them down by voting precinct so that the 24 voting wards in Brookfield wouldn't be overlooked in future elections.

http://elections.wispolitics.com/

[ChiciB1]

109. So... Screwed Again, I Guess!! This Country Is NO DEMOCRACY... I Can't

stand much more of this. I just want to HIDE! I'm so afraid of what ALMOST ALL the politicians are doing to us. ON BOTH SIDES!

[Tx4obama]

112. So you think the mistake of giving the city of Brookfield 'all zeros' was right?

The only people that were getting screwed were the people of the city of Brookfield when Nickolaus showed 'all zeros' on her print out due to her clerical error.
That mistake was found and correct on canvas day.

[ChiciB1]

115. I Suppose I Don't Know WHAT To Think... In The Beginning I HEARD

Prosser LOST, now it seems he really won... after the votes were tallied. THEN they found different stuff from Brookfield. Sorry, just doesn't sound right to me. I suppose I'm clueless and perhaps just don't really understand it all.

[Tx4obama]

149. Well ....

The Brookfield totals are not 'different' today than they were on election night.
The city of Brookfield transmitted their numbers to the county clerk and those numbers did not get added to the Waukesha county's total due to the clerical error made by Nickolaus.

And apparently the numbers will stand, see today's update here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x868826

[shraby]

132. Nickolaus is a person who has clerical errors almost every

election that seem to change the final results. She also lied about forgetting to "save" the data because it doesn't need saved in the program she cited as using.
One lie means she isn't honest and bears further scrutiny. Especially since this has happened in more than one election.

[Tx4obama]

151. But the Brookfield numbers are accurate

See today's update here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x868826

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gkhouston]

116. Sounds like Ms. Human Error knew the "missing votes" would likely put a free

recount of out reach and she was hell-bent on getting that canvass completed before anyone could object to the additional votes. She then had a press conference ASAP to get her human error excuse out there before the shit hit the fan.

At the best, she wasn't honest with her observers. At worst, she knows that a hand recount of those ballots isn't going to match the "official" tally.

[B Calm]

118. Amazing how the cons came up with just enough votes to keep from having a state wide recount. .

[Tx4obama]

121. There will be a state-wide recount and will cost only $5 per ward. n/t

[murielm99]

126. That is incorrect. n/t

[Tx4obama]

145. Anything less than 7,482 is subject to free recount.

If Prosser has a lead of more than 7,482 it will cost Kloppenburg $5 per ward if she requests a recount.

What's Prosser's lead today?
Last I heard he was up by 7,310

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

157. Today's update ---->

WI Update 4:58 PM - Kennedy: Waukesha County investigation ongoing, but numbers appear to match up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x868826

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

164. Prosser's lead today is 7,304

Milwaukee County the only official canvass still to be completed.
Kennedy said the Milwaukee County canvass likely won't be done until Wednesday.

[PeaceNikki]

122. They can't stop a recount.

[hayu_lol]

137. To their credit...the repugs have now obfuscated the results deliberately...

so that no one may ever understand what actually happened. HOWEVER, none of this banter covers why the National Review and other Repugnant sites were advised as soon as the 'error' was caught hours before the mistake/crime was released.

No one else ever had the password to access any material on that puter. Convenient. With 29 hours to release time, would have been easy to substitute another carefully pre-prepared drive to back up her story.

Remember the township in Ohio during Bush/Kerry where more votes were counted than the place had registered voters.

Pretty clever these rascals.

[PeaceNikki]

138. Good thing we have ALL of the ballots on paper!

Taking her computer out of the equation...

[OnTheOtherHand]

140. hmmmmmm

What backs up her story -- at least the part that bears on the election outcome -- is that the vote totals add up. Brookfield city released its vote counts independently on election night. That doesn't settle all the questions, but it's pretty important.

As for why the Brookfield numbers weren't included, she could be fudging about that, or she may really not remember clearly what happened. In fairness, it can be hard to reconstruct exactly what one did on a computer a few seconds later, never mind hours or days. Of course that's why Waukesha should have better procedures in place.

There could be a brilliant fraud scheme behind this, but so far I haven't seen anyone come close to explaining one. Do you have an idea?

Remember the township in Ohio during Bush/Kerry where more votes were counted than the place had registered voters.

Pretty clever these rascals.

What is clever about having more votes counted than registered voters? Those results couldn't possibly hold up, and they didn't. They didn't even help to contribute to an early call for Bush, so if someone rigged them -- which is far from obvious -- it's also far from obvious that the effort did any "good."

[demwing]

169. "There could be a brilliant fraud scheme behind this..."

"...but so far I haven't seen anyone come close to explaining one."

I have an idea - but no one here will like it :) In fact, I don't even like it. :(

Here it goes...

WE were cheating, but not good enough. The Republicans knew, counted on the fact that we would pad OUR totals just enough to make the race look like a narrow Dem victory, and then sand bagged enough Prosser votes to keep the election outside the free recount margin.

• This is why the Brookfield numbers appear valid - they are

• This is why the votes weren't "found" until all other votes had been counted - they either had to know we were done padding before they revealed the trump card, or just had to fish around on election night before they could find a Red city that would give just the right margin...

• This is why the "found" vote totals are so convenient to the Republican cause - because they were designed to be so, but not through fraud

• This is why the whole process stinks like a dead fish, but cannot be proven fraudulent - because it IS fishy, just not in the way we would like to imagine


I sure as hell don't want to believe that, but it seems to explain why everything appears just the way it does.

[Cieran_WI]

187. So your theory is the Democrats were stealing the election but Kathy saved us

with her sandbagging of the Brookfield votes. Wow, go back to freeperville.

[demwing]

189. "Saved us"??? Jesus, the reading comprehension...

How did you get that out of what I wrote?

[demwing]

198. You know, I have to come back to your post , because it just pisses me off

the fact that I have to explain that my post up-thread was just speculative game playing is ridiculous. Do we have to explain every thought, tag every sarcasm, or draw little pictures for readers who don't get a lame attempt at a joke, or risk being called freepers?

You don't get the post? Fine, ask for an explanation, or don't read it.

You don't like the tone? Fine, ask for some clarification, or don't read it.

But to jump in, mid thread, and start calling out people is uncool, especially when a little context might have given you all the perspective you needed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

193. why couldn't that be proven fraudulent?

I dunno, I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a fraud scenario from any angle that makes sense, in light of the canvass results. I'm not saying the canvass is conclusive, but it certainly ought to be more reliable than some unofficial election-night numbers whose main purpose is to appease the media. (Not that that is how it should go on election night.)

[demwing]

196. I dunno, either. Obviously (perhaps to some, I guess not to others) I am PURELY speculating

in response to your post. But to follow through with the thought and respond to your question - IF something like what I described actually happened, then Kathy Nickolaus didn't commit any crimes, or at least none that can be proven. Again, for those who might believe I'm actually promoting this idea - have a seat. I'm just playing with the OPs question, alright?

The basic fact is that this whole thing stinks to high heaven - but it's more than just a loss that worries people. Kathy Nickolaus is not acting in the way that many would expect an innocent person would act. Dems are rightfully touchy about election fraud, and have developed a sense when something just ain't right.

No one made much of a fuss about Feingold losing, or Grayson. We didn't feel happy about it, but the random squeaks about fraud were not very loud, and not very well received at DU. That's because - sad as they were - those elections passed the sniff test.

This one doesn't. And I know that just because we can't nail it down yet, does NOT mean that the fraud ain't there...

[OnTheOtherHand]

213. sure, that's fine

I wish there were some special punctuation mark that meant "this is a question that might be construed as rhetorical, but isn't." :)

Yes, the fact (inter alia) that Nickolaus basically sat on this until Thursday afternoon is rightly raising eyebrows. And it's making things hard for some of us data-driven folks who come across as if we're defending her honor.

ETA: Another thing that stands out for many is her very foggy account of what went wrong on election night. I don't put much weight on that myself, because I've had so many conversations with people -- even very smart ones -- who give similarly foggy accounts of their computer encounters. Of course liars tend to be conveniently foggy too.

[Dawson Leery]

141. We must not let this one go.

[Doctor_J]

208. But we will. If this had happened in the other direction

the official results would have been reversed the day after the missing votes were "discovered". The newly found votes would not even have been considered. Instead, this goes on and on, and will soon be forgotten, and the corrupt Repuke judge will remain in office, and so will the corrupt Ms. Nickolaus.

Our current party is probably the weakest and most useless major party in US history. I am attempting to rally a small band of Dems who have had enough and are ready to start fighting back in earnest, beginning with Big Media.

[matt819]

170. Seems like a nice lady

But it's a little disturbing that at 80 years old she seems more like a patsy than an observer, which is probably what the fraudsters were looking for.

It's all well and good to post this on their website, but this should be a statement for federal investigators.

[Tx4obama]

173. 80 is not old. Also, she's an attorney. There's a 103 year old federal judge still on the bench

in Kansas.

[OxQQme]

175. I feel that I must speak up

Oh...if we only had more of these.
Maybe a 'Most Corrupt Uncovered" award.
Whistleblowers should be rewarded.
'Hero' status for the highest dollar amount.
Or something

[matt819]

230. Okay, I stand chastised - a little

Okay, 80 is not (so) old. My mother reminds me of this whenever we speak.

Being an attorney doesn't mean as much to me as it used to. I think it was Dear Abby who made the observation years and years ago that half of all doctors graduate in the bottom half of their class. Same with lawyers, I suppose. So the designation is not all that significant. And being real estate lawyer is different from being an election lawyer is different from being a county prosecutor, etc.

Also, her observation about what appear to be improprieties is great. I commend her for speaking out. And, as I wrote earlier, I hope her commentary becomes testimony at a trial for this fraud of a county official. But I was struck by what I interpreted as passivity in the face of likely fraud.

[flamingdem]

176. Bravo for her speaking out nt

[patrice]

177. Why are people relying on the totals adding up when the totals don't contain

the information about the amounts relative to candidates? Or the amounts relative to each candidate could change and the totals would still add up.

This seems so obvious; what don't I get here?

[Tx4obama]

184. See comment #183 for a link to an updated article with details.

The numbers that have been added to the county total are the 'correct' totals that the city of Brookfield transmitted to the county on election night. Those numbers have stayed the same and have not changed.

[ooglymoogly]

178. KR and thanks for the post on this so important subject.

My god, there is an arsenal of smoking guns here.
Access does not require save.
Democrat observer was manipulated and not ever there when she was supposed to be by law and K said duplicitously when cornered with the question: were both dem and pug observers there, "we have both" she stuttered, not in any way answering the question. She has done this kind of thing before...what the hell do folks need, to see through the bullshit. There are ways to steal an election that we cannot even know about. But unless investigated down to every click of the keyboard and every message and every email, the stink on this will just keep blooming until is is a radio active mushroom cloud.

[Tx4obama]

183. Bottom line still is that the totals the City of Brookfield transmitted to the county are correct

Excerpt:

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.
----

The WHOLE article and graph is very informative, should be read by all: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/09/wisconsin-election-bombshell_n_847000.html

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

182. Wow. Those are rat tracks. nt

[eomer]

194. I don’t know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from, but they seemed to add up.

If Kitzinger was the one Democratic member of the Canvas Board, isn't her proper role much more than that? Wouldn't she be expected to start from the election returns completed by the Inspector at each ward and then follow the numbers through from start to finish?

Kitzinger describes herself in the body of her statement as "the designated Democratic observer" but in the title as "Waukesha Board of Canvassers member since 2004". She seems to understand her role to be to observe only a limited part of the canvas, one that is so narrow as to be meaningless. In fact she herself uses words that seem to say she understands it to be meaningless:

"I don’t know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from, but they seemed to add up."

So is she really the one and only Democratic member of the Canvas Board and, if so, was the limited role that she played in the canvas a proper performance of that position?

[OnTheOtherHand]

195. I've seen no evidence that she didn't fully participate in the canvass

In her statement, she expresses shock that she wasn't notified earlier of the discrepancy with the unofficial totals. Since the board of canvassers has nothing to do with the unofficial totals, with respect to those she really would have to rely on "the numbers Kathy was showing me."

So, the fact that the difference between the unofficial totals and the official totals basically is the city of Brookfield (plus two smaller discrepancies found in the canvass) could just mean that Nickolaus decided to somehow "double" the votes from Brookfield. Except that it isn't at all obvious how Nickolaus would do that without being detected during the canvass.

But if someone has Kitzinger saying that she didn't really do the canvass, either, I'd like to know.

[eomer]

201. She seems to say she can't vouch for the final result.

Her last paragraph:

The reason I offer this explanation is that, with the enormous amount of attention this has received over the weekend, many people are offering my statements at the press conference that the “numbers jibed” as validation they are correct and I can vouch for their accuracy. As I told Kathy when I was called into the room –I am 80 years old and I don’t understand anything about computers. I don’t know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from, but they seemed to add up. I am still very, very confused about why the canvass was finalized before I was informed of the Brookfield error and it wasn’t even until the press conference was happening that I learned it was this enormous mistake that could swing the whole election. I was never shown anything that would verify Kathy’s statement about the missing vote, and with how events unfolded and people citing me as an authority on this now, I feel like I must speak up.

Isn't it the final results she's saying she can't vouch for? How would it make sense to say she can't vouch for the numbers that everyone agrees are incorrect?

Edit: In her written statement (last paragraph I quoted above), she says: 'many people are offering my statements at the press conference that the “numbers jibed” as validation they are correct and I can vouch for their accuracy.' So she is attempting to qualify or back off from the statement she made at the press conference, or the impression it may have created. That statement at the press conference (I just watched it) was clearly referring to the canvass, not to the election night result. When she says (again, at the press conference) that "the numbers jibed" she clearly refers to the activities of that day and the previous day, which would be the canvass.

[OnTheOtherHand]

214. here's what I think

You may be able to help, because I don't think I can stand to sit through the press conference again.

My recollection is that at some point, Nickolaus says that she showed the canvassing board members how the canvass results differed from the unofficial results -- in effect, substantiating her account that the differences can be attributed to Brookfield and the other two things she mentioned.

I think that is the "jibing" at issue here. I think Kitzinger is saying that while Nickolaus did show her numbers that seem to "add up" to the differences between the unofficial and official results, she has no way of vouching for Nickolaus's version of the unofficial numbers. So (I conjecture) she isn't backing away from the canvass, but she is pushing back against being cited as support for Nickolaus's explanation of the disparity.

That construction makes sense to me for at least two reasons: (1) Kitzinger's statement is rather long, and she had ample opportunity to say that she has no confidence in the canvass result, if that is what she meant. (2) To the extent that the statement describes the actual canvass, it is hard to see why Kitzinger would say she had no idea where the canvass numbers came from -- whereas it is easy to see why she would say she had no idea where the unofficial numbers came from.

Of course if Kitzinger says that she has no confidence in the canvass, that would... change things.

[eomer]

238. Here is Kitzinger's statement at the press conference:

My transcription of a segment of the http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/david-prosser-wisconsin-supreme-court_n_846431.html">press conference:

Q: And is Ramona able to make a statement backing up all this?

Ramona Kitzinger: Yes, we went over everything and made sure that all the numbers jibed up, and they did.

Q: So you had no objections to any of this?

Kitzinger: No, none, everything that we went over yesterday and today, all those numbers jibed up...

Q: Alright, thank you.

Kitzinger: ... and we're satisfied that it's correct. And I'm with the Democratic Party, the Vice Chair of Waukesha County, so I'm not going to stand here and tell you something that's not true.

Q: When were you told there was a problem?

Kitzinger: Well I found out after I came in to do the canvass.

The press conference was at the end of the day on Thursday. The canvass was Wednesday and Thursday so it is clear that when she says "everything that we went over yesterday and today, all those numbers jibed up", she is referring to the canvass.

[ooglymoogly]

244. Gee I wonder why she said something entirely different

after she was out of the shadow of organized crime.

[OnTheOtherHand]

249. so you infer that now she is recanting the canvass?

I find that unlikely, for the reasons I already stated. That endorsement of the canvass is so vehement and detailed that, if anything, it raises the bar for what I would construe as a recantation.

I was never shown anything that would verify Kathy's statement about the missing vote, and with how events unfolded and people citing me as an authority on this now, I feel like I must speak up.

That actually seems pretty clear to me. She was never shown anything that would verify Nickolaus's statement about the missing vote. Not, she recants her role in the canvass.

As long as she is going on the record, maybe someone can get her to say what she actually means. (Or maybe that has already happened, and I just haven't seen it.)

[eomer]

250. Most of her statement is consistent with either explanation, yours or mine, but not this part:

The reason I offer this explanation is that, with the enormous amount of attention this has received over the weekend, many people are offering my statements at the press conference that the “numbers jibed” as validation they are correct and I can vouch for their accuracy.

Clearly there she is talking about the canvass results and saying that she cannot vouch for their accuracy. That wording would just not fit with your theory that she's talking about the explanation of the discrepancy.

[OnTheOtherHand]

253. I think that's only true if you remove it from context

In the context of her statement, what numbers is she talking about?

Kathy didn't offer an explanation about why she didn't mention anything prior to Thursday afternoon's canvass completion, but showed us different tapes where numbers seemed to add up, though I have no idea where the numbers were coming from. I was not told of the magnitude of this error, just that she had made one. I was then instructed that I would not say anything at the press conference, and was actually surprised when I was asked questions by reporters.

The reason I offer this explanation is that, with the enormous amount of attention this has received over the weekend, many people are offering my statements at the press conference that the numbers "jibed" as validation they are correct and I can vouch for their accuracy....

I think the most natural reading of that -- especially given the rest of the statement -- is not that she is suddenly racked by doubt about what happened at the canvass, or that she never intended to vouch for the canvass, but that her statement that the numbers "jibed" wasn't intended to apply to the tapes Nickolaus showed her when explaining the discrepancy. The sentence you quoted is confusing in part because there is more than one set of numbers.

[eomer]

256. There is too much dissonance between the words she used and your explanation.

I just can't see how she would use the words "as validation they are correct and I can vouch for their accuracy" if she were referring to an explanation of a mistake. How would "vouch for their accuracy" be a reasonable characterization if what you were really proffering was an explanation for why the numbers were wrong? That just doesn't seem plausible. Your explanation flies in the face of her wording.

My explanation, OTOH, has no single place in her statement at which it creates such a dissonance between her wording and my interpretation.

Hopefully at some point we will hear a more concrete and detailed explanation. Even if my theory is correct, I still don't know why she says that she can't vouch. Is it because she was not shown the original sources or is it rather that she was shown those sources but realizes that she would have no way of distinguishing a forgery from a true document? In other words, is it because the canvass was not performed correctly or is it because she recognizes the limits of what the canvass could truly prove?

[OnTheOtherHand]

259. Gestalt difference: I see your interpretation as mostly dissonant

Much of the statement is preoccupied with the disparity. It makes sense to me to interpret that sentence as "my comments at the press conference weren't intended to endorse what she says about the disparity, as I just described." (I agree that that isn't the most natural reading of the sentence on its own -- although as you note below, the sentence on its own poses problems no matter what it means.) It makes no sense to me to interpret it as "my comments at the press conference have been misconstrued as meaning what they said, when actually what I meant to say was that, as vice-chair of the Democratic Party in this county and a member of the canvass board since 2004, I don't really know how a canvass works." Or something like that.

It's possible, however, that she was trying to convey something like "I find the revelation of the disparity so shocking that the more I think about it, the less confidence I have even in the canvass." It's fun to bicker politely about how to parse the words, but it would be better to know what she thinks.

Hopefully at some point we will hear a more concrete and detailed explanation. Even if my theory is correct, I still don't know why she says that she can't vouch. Is it because she was not shown the original sources or is it rather that she was shown those sources but realizes that she would have no way of distinguishing a forgery from a true document? In other words, is it because the canvass was not performed correctly or is it because she recognizes the limits of what the canvass could truly prove?

Yep. And even if my theory is correct, there are other things she could clear up for us.

[Larkspur]

197. And per TPM, the current vote totals put Kloppenburg within the 0.5%

needed for a statewide recount paid for by the state.

[Dawson Leery]

251. kick

[Overseas]

202. K&R and Many Thanks !

Thom Hartmann and Brad Friedman did an excellent segment on The Big Picture last night about the voting irregularities in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

[bertman]

210. REC. nt

[reggie the dog]

223. you think there would be enough for the feds to bust her

her already and interrogate her, you know, get an arrest warrant issued.

if she were growing or selling medical marijuana, or pipes to smoke it in, she would likely have had problems already


priorities


move along, nothing to see here


how much cheating goes on? are republicans the only ones who cheat? many dead people in chicago are said to have voted for JFK....


we should try to build a bipartisan truth in voting movement amongst the people of this country

how can we go about doing that?

does it exist already? i am very ignorant about solutions but

1. going back to hand counted paper/cardboard ballots.
2 perhaps making a system in which you put one ballot in an envelope from a display of ballots of all candidates names and that is your vote, putting more than one ballot in the envelope voids the vote but
3 votes are counted by multipartisan groups of "democratic_republic" minded (not the political party, just people who belive in their democratic republic.)


do you think these 3 demands could be of use? pretty basic i know but most people in the usa should be more confortable with having people do the counting not some machine.

I know plenty of republican voting people in the usa from my family and friends who think that computer voting is bullshit for various reasons as do the democratic voting people i know.


you have bipartisan issues that could be addressed today in a divided government

1. vote counting reform
2. election reform (funding of ads etc.)
3. real health care reform in the good sense
4. making social security stronger not weaker
5. JOBS???? i know how the tea party people are but many republicans like "energy independece" so lets work with them and have a green revolution in energy sources and put our people to work making it happen
6. drug law reform (about half of america wants pot legal already, serious drug war reform is needed incuding drug testing which only shows if you are high WHILE at work, a shitload of middle and working class people hate drug testing because they would like to smoke a bit of reefer now and again and these people vote republican and democrat)
7 gay marriage reform, over half of the usa wants it leagal and i know republicans and tea party types who have nothing against gay marriage, some will even abuse the system and marry their friends and business partners to save on taxes i think even if they are not gay.

[tcaudilllg]

224. None of this would be an issue if Prosser was not insane.

He should be disbarred and removed.

[blackspade]

236. Oops!

Looks like the rethugs have a problem!

[cui bono]

241. I don't know.... there's an awful lot of question marks in her statement.

Once the canvass had been completed and the results were finalized, I was called into Kathy�s office along with Pat (the Republican observer) and told of an impending 5:30pm press conference. It was at that point that I was first made aware of an error Kathy had made in Brookfield City. Kathy told us she thought she had saved the Brookfield voter information Tuesday night, but then on Wednesday she said she noticed she had not hit save. Kathy didn�t offer an explanation about why she didn�t mention anything prior to Thursday afternoon�s canvass completion, but showed us different tapes where numbers seemed to add up, though I have no idea where the numbers were coming from. I was not told of the magnitude of this error, just that she had made one. I was then instructed that I would not say anything at the press conference, and was actually surprised when I was asked questions by reporters.

The reason I offer this explanation is that, with the enormous amount of attention this has received over the weekend, many people are offering my statements at the press conference that the �numbers jibed� as validation they are correct and I can vouch for their accuracy. As I told Kathy when I was called into the room � I am 80 years old and I don�t understand anything about computers. I don�t know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from, but they seemed to add up. I am still very, very confused about why the canvass was finalized before I was informed of the Brookfield error and it wasn�t even until the press conference was happening that I learned it was this enormous mistake that could swing the whole election. I was never shown anything that would verify Kathy�s statement about the missing vote, and with how events unfolded and people citing me as an authority on this now, I feel like I must speak up.

:shrug:

[Doctor_J]

252. This thread exhibits a big problem we have

we have spent hundreds of posts parsing the minutiae of Ramona's statements, while the teabaggers carry out their radical agenda every day. We talk, they do things.

[ooglymoogly]

255. There is a cancer growing on the fantastic manipulation of the results of this election.

[golddigger]

257. I have heard somewhere that all 14,000 ballots in question

only had the AG race marked. Can someone verify that little tidbit?

[arrestblankfein]

263. Nickolaus blatantly lied "We discovered it yesterday in the process of a canvass"

when she did not even tell Ramona until the press conference?


How can anyone justify that?

She lied.

She lied to cover up election fraud.


She must be held accountable and every Wisconsin election with her involved must now be re-examined.