Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

Robear wrote:

Well, that could be very interesting. If she's cooking results, that would be a bad thing, although she'd instantly be the new Fox poster child for intrusive government harassment.

Hmm. The justification for how legit the numbers are is that they mesh well with the numbers from the previous election. But if she's been cooking the books for almost a decade, that makes things much more interesting.

There is nothing sneaky going on here.
http://www.wxow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14424215

Reporter Lisa Sink with the online news service patch.com told WKOW 27 News she staffed election night events at Brookfield city hall and received vote totals from the city clerk about two hours after the polls closed.

Sink said she posted the results on patch.com shortly after midnight Wednesday.

Sink said the vote totals she reported were identical to unofficial vote totals released by Nickolaus Thursday.

The reporting of unofficial vote totals by the Associated Press was based on information from individual county clerks. Nickolaus does not post vote totals of each municipality on her county's website, as is done by most counties.

While Nickolaus may be incompetent and not fit for her position, she didn't make up the Brookfield numbers or "find" any votes. She is at the county level, and missed counting Brookfield in the overall county vote totals. The city had them counted, and their counts matched what was reported and what Nickolaus eventually reported. Prosser won the election clean.

In case you're wondering, Patch.com is a subsidiary of the Huffington Post.

It's too soon to tell whether or not there have been any shenanigans with the Waukesha County votes. I'd noted earlier that the numbers Kathy Nickolaus forgot to save jibed with what Brookfield reported just after midnight election night. Nonetheless, I am disturbed by the possibility that there have been voting irregularities in Waukesha since Kathy Nickolaus became clerk.

It may be that there's nothing more sinister going on here than gross incompetence. I'm glad there's an investigation happening, so we can know one way or the other. It's critically important that we be able to trust the electoral process to accurately reflect the will of the populace.

MattDaddy wrote:

There is nothing sneaky going on here.
http://www.wxow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14424215

Reporter Lisa Sink with the online news service patch.com told WKOW 27 News she staffed election night events at Brookfield city hall and received vote totals from the city clerk about two hours after the polls closed.

Sink said she posted the results on patch.com shortly after midnight Wednesday.

Sink said the vote totals she reported were identical to unofficial vote totals released by Nickolaus Thursday.

The reporting of unofficial vote totals by the Associated Press was based on information from individual county clerks. Nickolaus does not post vote totals of each municipality on her county's website, as is done by most counties.

While Nickolaus may be incompetent and not fit for her position, she didn't make up the Brookfield numbers or "find" any votes. She is at the county level, and missed counting Brookfield in the overall county vote totals. The city had them counted, and their counts matched what was reported and what Nickolaus eventually reported. Prosser won the election clean.

In case you're wondering, Patch.com is a subsidiary of the Huffington Post.

Nickolaus also said that the reason the votes were not tabulated were because she forgot to his the "Save" icon in Microsoft Access.

Um... you don't need to hit the save icon in Access. Any data you put in a field is automatically saved.

I work with Access every single day and I have never lost any data by not hitting the Save icon.

She may not be committing fraud, but she is a lousy clerk who probably lied on her resume by stating she was "fluent in MS Office."

Clearly, she isn't.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

She may not be committing fraud, but she is a lousy clerk who probably lied on her resume by stating she was "fluent in MS Office."

Clearly, she isn't.

It's worse than that. As recently as last fall, Kathy Nickolaus blew off criticism of her opaque, non-standard vote tabulation setup - claiming expertise by virtue of her 15 years working as a programmer.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Nickolaus also said that the reason the votes were not tabulated were because she forgot to his the "Save" icon in Microsoft Access.

Um... you don't need to hit the save icon in Access. Any data you put in a field is automatically saved.

I work with Access every single day and I have never lost any data by not hitting the Save icon.

She may not be committing fraud, but she is a lousy clerk who probably lied on her resume by stating she was "fluent in MS Office."

Clearly, she isn't.

If you work in Access every day, then you know that there are ways to code forms so that they don't automatically save changes to the database. She never said anything about a save icon, only that she forgot to save it. Sounds like she had a form that the data was imported into that had it's own save button. Without seeing the database she was using we can't say for sure if her excuse is valid or not.

Lousy clerk or not, the numbers have been confirmed.

MattDaddy wrote:

If you work in Access every day, then you know that there are ways to code forms so that they don't automatically save changes to the database.

Yes, I do. At no point did she indicate she was using a modified coded form that forced someone to save. Considering what a lousy clerk she is, I seriously doubt her forte was coding forms in Access.

She never said anything about a save icon, only that she forgot to save it.

You are correct. I should have just said "save." However, saying she didn't "save" vs. she didn't "hit the save icon" has about, oh, no difference between the two.

Sounds like she had a form that the data was imported into that had it's own save button. Without seeing the database she was using we can't say for sure if her excuse is valid or not.

Lousy clerk or not, the numbers have been confirmed.

Confirmed by whom? The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board has not completed its investigation:

The Government Accountability Board launched an investigation shortly after Nickolaus announced her flub.

The probe's focus is on both the integrity of the election results and on Nickolaus' business processes related to collection of election night results, dissemination to the public and preparation for the official canvass.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Yes, I do. At no point did she indicate she was using a modified coded form that forced someone to save. Considering what a lousy clerk she is, I seriously doubt her forte was coding forms in Access.

At no point did she say anything about how the Access database was set up other than to mention importing the spreadsheet.

As for her coding ability, these are from a post on page 1 of this thread: "...noting that she worked as a programmer for 15 years." and "...claiming expertise as a programmer". That doesn't mean she was any good at it, but it does make it likely that she used coded forms in the database.

You are correct. I should have just said "save." However, saying she didn't "save" vs. she didn't "hit the save icon" has about, oh, no difference between the two.

There is a big difference between the save icon for Access and a save button on a form.

MattDaddy wrote:

As for her coding ability, these are from a post on page 1 of this thread: "...noting that she worked as a programmer for 15 years." and "...claiming expertise as a programmer". That doesn't mean she was any good at it, but it does make it likely that she used coded forms in the database.

By the same token, she has been a county clerk for numerous election cycles and still can't get it right.

Yeah, this isn't settled yet, MattDaddy.

Malor wrote:

Yeah, this isn't settled yet, MattDaddy.

The Democrats will never consider this settled, but realistically it is pretty much over.

Ballots are now totaled: Prosser wins by 7,316

Phoenix Rev wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:

As for her coding ability, these are from a post on page 1 of this thread: "...noting that she worked as a programmer for 15 years." and "...claiming expertise as a programmer". That doesn't mean she was any good at it, but it does make it likely that she used coded forms in the database.

By the same token, she has been a county clerk for numerous election cycles and still can't get it right.

I'm not debating or defending the quality of her work. She sounds like a quality control disaster, which not good for someone that has been a programmer and holds the position she does now.

I was pointing out that there are ways to have an Access databases set up that would require you to hit a save button in order to process any changes into the database.

MattDaddy wrote:
Malor wrote:

Yeah, this isn't settled yet, MattDaddy.

The Democrats will never consider this settled, but realistically it is pretty much over.

Ballots are now totaled: Prosser wins by 7,316

I believe Malor was referring to the fact that the investigation over Waukesha voting irregularities isn't complete (Malor, please correct me if I'm wrong). Kloppenburg can still file for a recount, though if the Waukesha numbers stand it's very likely that Prosser wins. For what it's worth, the investigation is what I'm waiting on.

There are four outcomes to the investigation that seem possible:

* Nickolaus is incompetent, but this didn't impact the Waukesha vote totals by enough to give Kloppenburg a victory
* Nickolaus is incompetent, and the actual Waukesha vote totals give Kloppenburg a victory
* Nickolaus is committing electoral fraud, and the actual Waukesha vote totals give Kloppenburg a victory
* Nickolaus is committing electoral fraud, but the actual Waukesha vote totals still give the victory to Prosser

The goal of the investigation should be to uncover what actually happened, and determine the correct vote totals for Waukesha County.

Based on all the evidence to date, I'd say outcome #1 is the most likely by a wide margin. I'm not against investigations and/or recounts, it just seems pretty obvious that she didn't find or manufacture any votes that were not already counted at the local level.

The final official canvass results give Prosser the win by 7,316 votes. That's under the 0.5% margin which allows for any recount effort to be paid for by the state.

Kloppenburg hasn't declared (yet) whether she'll ask for a recount, but has to decide by Wednesday.

At Prosser's press conference today, he indicated they would fight any recount effort.

Jim Troupis, an attorney with the Prosser campaign[/url]]We will take every and any step to prevent this frivolous matter going forward

When did ensuring that election results are an accurate reflection of the will of the people become a frivolous matter?

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Jim Troupis, an attorney with the Prosser campaign[/url]]We will take every and any step to prevent this frivolous matter going forward

When did ensuring that election results are an accurate reflection of the will of the people become a frivolous matter?

Since he became in the lead.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

When did ensuring that election results are an accurate reflection of the will of the people become a frivolous matter?

They already did that. It's called canvasing.

Estimates are that it will cost up to a million dollars to hold a full recount. There is no logical reason to expect that a recount could somehow yield a swing of 7,400 more votes in Kloppy's favor. The canvasing for every county has been done.

If you want to go back to Waukesha county, then I'd have to ask you...why? What would be the scenario that Kathy Nickolous cheated? How could she have cheated? There is nothing that points to the numbers being incorrect. The indivdual municipalities did their canvasing and the numbers "jibe". It's over.

Unless of course, Kloppenburg has a van with 7,500 votes for her stashed away somewhere. If she can declare victory when she thought she had a 200 vote lead, why is it now wrong for the other side to point out the futility in a recount when there is a 7,400 vote lead? Sounds like sour grapes at this point.

And the other side was arguing for a recount when they were behind. Big surprise. We'll have to see what she decides.

MattDaddy wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

When did ensuring that election results are an accurate reflection of the will of the people become a frivolous matter?

They already did that. It's called canvasing.

Estimates are that it will cost up to a million dollars to hold a full recount. There is no logical reason to expect that a recount could somehow yield a swing of 7,400 more votes in Kloppy's favor. The canvasing for every county has been done.

If you want to go back to Waukesha county, then I'd have to ask you...why? What would be the scenario that Kathy Nickolous cheated? How could she have cheated? There is nothing that points to the numbers being incorrect. The indivdual municipalities did their canvasing and the numbers "jibe". It's over.

Unless of course, Kloppenburg has a van with 7,500 votes for her stashed away somewhere. If she can declare victory when she thought she had a 200 vote lead, why is it now wrong for the other side to point out the futility in a recount when there is a 7,400 vote lead? Sounds like sour grapes at this point.

Declaring victory is quite a different thing than saying you'll fight any efforts at a recount. The reason state law provides for a recount at taxpayer expense when the margin of victory is less than 0.5% is that it's not unreasonable for a recount to show that much of a shift.

I'd agree that the most likely outcome (barring the investigation into Waukesha irregularities) is a Prosser victory. However, it's critically important in a democracy that we have confidence that election results accurately reflect the will of the people. I would have supported a recount if Kloppenburg had a 7316 vote lead after canvassing was complete. Based on your earlier post, I had thought you would have, too.

MattDaddy wrote:

Based on all the evidence to date, I'd say outcome #1 is the most likely by a wide margin. I'm not against investigations and/or recounts, it just seems pretty obvious that she didn't find or manufacture any votes that were not already counted at the local level.

I still believe they should look into how Kathy Nickolous is doing her job. Not because I think she's trying to rig elections, but because she doesn't seem to have a handle on her processes.

That is separate from determining if a recount is warranted. Based on everything I have read to date, I think a recount would be a waste of taxpayer money. No election in the state that has been held to a recount has resulted in more than a 1,000 vote swing, much less 7,400. There is nothing to indicate that the numbers would be any differnt if recounted. If they are really that paranoid about the Waukesha results, then go ahead a recount those. Even that would be a waste, but it's better than recounting the entire state.

MattDaddy wrote:

I still believe they should look into how Kathy Nickolous is doing her job. Not because I think she's trying to rig elections, but because she doesn't seem to have a handle on her processes.

That is separate from determining if a recount is warranted. Based on everything I have read to date, I think a recount would be a waste of taxpayer money. No election in the state that has been held to a recount has resulted in more than a 1,000 vote swing, much less 7,400. There is nothing to indicate that the numbers would be any differnt if recounted. If they are really that paranoid about the Waukesha results, then go ahead a recount those. Even that would be a waste, but it's better than recounting the entire state.

I agree with you, MattDaddy, that a recount will probably not swing the votes enough to make a big enough difference. Unless there was actual fraud being committed (which I doubt there is), I don't see it happening. However, I agree completely with Dimmerswitch in that it is vital in a Democracy that we are able to trust the democratic process. With the events leading to the situation the state is in now, I think it would be extremely prudent to do a recount to assail peoples concerns.

MattDaddy wrote:

Based on everything I have read to date, I think a recount would be a waste of taxpayer money.

Spending a couple hundred thousand dollars to ensure the results of an election accurately reflect the will of the people is hardly a waste of taxpayer money. What *is* a waste of taxpayer money is continuing to pay Nickolous' salary.

MattDaddy wrote:

There is nothing to indicate that the numbers would be any different if recounted.

If a recount isn't held, we won't know.

MattDaddy, I'd be curious to hear what happened over the weekend to erode your support for a recount. The canvass was complete on Saturday - indeed, you refer to it in your "pretty much over" post, just before the one that says you're not against investigations and/or recounts.

Did something change that I missed? I'll admit to not following events closely over the weekend.

If a recount in Wisconsin hasn't produced a shift of 0.5% before, I'm surprised the Prosser camp isn't welcoming it. Affirming their victory was indeed the will of the people should be a good thing, no?

Dimmerswitch wrote:

MattDaddy, I'd be curious to hear what happened over the weekend to erode your support for a recount. The canvass was complete on Saturday - indeed, you refer to it in your "pretty much over" post, just before the one that says you're not against investigations and/or recounts.

Did something change that I missed? I'll admit to not following events closely over the weekend.

My support wasn't eroded. You're reading too much into my statement. I'm not against a recount. I just feel that it would be a waste of a million bucks of taxpayer money because there hasn't been any evidence of fraud or inconsistencies that would turn the tide.

If a recount in Wisconsin hasn't produced a shift of 0.5% before, I'm surprised the Prosser camp isn't welcoming it. Affirming their victory was indeed the will of the people should be a good thing, no?

What does he have to prove or gain? He's already had to sit through a Kloppy victory speech and a couple of weeks of waiting for the numbers to be confirmed. A recount does not affirm his win, and only delays the final "official" decision. Do you honestly think the people who doubt the results will accept them any better after a recount confirms the numbers? I'm surprised that you're surprised by that.

Actually, he already stated a week ago that he was open to a partial recount, like of Waukesha county.

MattDaddy wrote:

I'm not against a recount. I just feel that it would be a waste of a million bucks of taxpayer money because there hasn't been any evidence of fraud or inconsistencies that would turn the tide.

It sure feels like those two sentences are contradictory, but I'll take you at your word that you're not against a recount. Do you disagree with the Prosser campaign trying to fight any recount effort, then?

MattDaddy wrote:
If a recount in Wisconsin hasn't produced a shift of 0.5% before, I'm surprised the Prosser camp isn't welcoming it. Affirming their victory was indeed the will of the people should be a good thing, no?

What does he have to prove or gain? He's already had to sit through a Kloppy victory speech and a couple of weeks of waiting for the numbers to be confirmed. A recount does not affirm his win, and only delays the final "official" decision. Do you honestly think the people who doubt the results will accept them any better after a recount confirms the numbers? I'm surprised that you're surprised by that.

Actually, he already stated a week ago that he was open to a partial recount, like of Waukesha county.

I'm not sure if I've been unclear, but I'm not at all concerned about the victory speech. I am concerned about the Prosser campaign characterizing a lawful recount effort as frivolous, and something they will fight to prevent.

A recount only affirms the Prosser victory if the numbers hold. I doubt the results right now, but a full statewide recount would convince me. Why a statewide recount? The fact that there are clear irregularities in Waukesha County doesn't mean that there's no misbehavior (or even honest mistakes) anywhere else.

Ya'll are beating each other up for about a half inch's worth of disagreement.

I think it's normal for the current winner to claim any recount is frivolous -- and if the recount is in their favor, then they were right (and if the recount goes against them, it's time for a new recount!)

It may be normal - but although I wouldn't have been calling for it, I would have supported a recount even if Kloppenburg were ahead, given the margin of victory.

Out of our hands, regardless. If the Kloppenburg campaign wants to have a recount, they have to file today.

Let me put my stance this way: If Kloppenburg decides to go for a recount, then I will respect her decision to do so. That's how I'm not against it. Looking at the facts, I have come to the conclusion that it would not be a productive thing to do. If they see things differently, then it is their choice to move ahead with a recount.

I do think the GAB should be looking into Kathy Nickolaus' job performance and processes. She sounds like someone you wold not want doing the job she is currently hired for. I don't think she's doing anything to try and fix elections, she's just incompetent.

The Prosser campaign is saying the same things the Klopenburg campaign would be saying if she had won by a narrow margin. The fact that she declared victory when she thought she had a 200 vote lead says a lot about how she would have handled this process if the tables were turned.

Why a statewide recount? The fact that there are clear irregularities in Waukesha County doesn't mean that there's no misbehavior (or even honest mistakes) anywhere else.

What are the clear irregularities? The Brookfield counts have been verified. The canvasing process is there to insure that there are no large discrepancies. Some minor changes were found, 10 votes here, 5 there. There are irregularities in every election. Why not recount every one? Because history has shown that recounts in WI have never led to more than 1,000 vote swings.

I don't want to take this thread off course, but I'd love to hear your view on voter ID since you seem to be so concerned with the accuracy and validity of the voting process. You should be all for it based on your last few posts here.

Edit: Seth is right. (You can sig that if you want Seth)

Well, Wisconsin hasn't yet rid itself its case of the Klop

MattDaddy wrote:

Well, Wisconsin hasn't yet rid itself its case of the Klop

It's really hard to take you seriously when you are so derisive in your statements.