READER COMMENTS ON
"WI Supreme Court Justice David Prosser Angrily Snatches Microphone From Local TV Reporter"
(22 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2011 @ 12:41 pm PT...
The incumbent Prosser's new 10-year term is set to begin in August --- unless he strangles a baby on video tape before the date of his new swearing-in.
prosser says...but that baby made me do it...
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2011 @ 3:41 pm PT...
Sheriff Mahoney has recused himself(wednesday) from the investigation, turns it over to his chief deputy.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2011 @ 3:43 pm PT...
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2011 @ 12:48 am PT...
Shades of Clarence Thomas here. What an a#$hole! I suppose if he is somehow removed from office, the governor will get to appoint someone similar instead of Kloppenberg getting put into the position. What a corrupt S.O.B.
Go at 'em Brad, you stick with the story until the real truth is exposed - a true journalist and a true patriot!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 7/2/2011 @ 8:28 am PT...
I would hope that those not fully versed in our legal system would understand why each of the Justices who was approached by the Fox "News" reporter was required to refrain from commenting on this matter while the investigation is pending.
One stark difference that you see, however, is that every Justice who was questioned by the reporter, except Prosser, politely explained why they could not answer his questions.
Brad aptly described Prosser as having a serious anger management problem --- not only in the "total bitch" comment; the alleged "choke-hold" but now in the snatching of the reporter's microphone. But one also has to question the grey-haired Justice's emotional maturity.
It would have been a simple matter for Prosser to have politely informed the reporter, as did every other Justice, that he could not comment on a matter that was under investigation. Instead, he childishly turned his back on the reporter in the elevator.
Here in CA, our state bar is asked to rate candidates for judicial office. The CA Bar has three categories: 1. Well Qualified. 2. Qualified. 3. Not Qualified: Lacks a Judicial Temperament.
Which of those three categories should be applied to Prosser?
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2011 @ 12:56 pm PT...
What's even more astounding is the conservatives claiming, "Prosser was simply taking the microphone from the reporter - since the reporter was handing it to him, but changed his mind about speaking and gave it back to the reporter."
I'm forced to assume that none of them have ever actually used a microphone, otherwise they'd be aware that you speak into the round end, not point it at the floor as Prosser is doing around 0:22.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2011 @ 1:01 pm PT...
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2011 @ 2:55 pm PT...
I'm surprised that some people haven't decided to follow Prosser around with a cell phone camera. He would eventually self-destruct. The same tactic might have been used on Walker, Grothman, the Fitzgerald brothers, etc.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2011 @ 7:23 pm PT...
From democratic underground. What do you think?
isconsin...Is it Possible the 'Found Votes' are being counted twice? Entered as part of the ....
total from another city/several other cities within the county to make the overall numbers of vote jive.
This done with the idea that if the election was close these (isurance) votes could then be found and added back in and any checking would show that yes indeed they handn't been counted FOR THE CITY THEY ORIGINATED IN...however, all the other cities would have to be checked to make sure they were not counted TWICE by adding them into another city's total during the original tally.
Just thinking how they might set this up to make it look legit unless it is investigated the correct way.
So, how could this be uncovered?
If Nikolaus took the total votes from the city in Waukesha that she now claims she didn't correctly enter (Let's call it City A ,14000) and added it to antother city's total (City B or distributed among serveral cities totals) in the same county then City B's total would include all the original votes of city A and it would not be questioned if Posser had a clear win.
Now, if Posser was found in a close race Nikolaus could make the claim she atually made (there by putting Posser ahead) and simply show that those votes from city A had not yet been counted. The Democrate checking over her sholder would have to confirm this.
City A's total is there by counted TWICE, once secretly added to another city's or serveral other cities' totals and then again in the open as a "mea culpa" that just happens to change the results.
Does this make sense?
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2011 @ 10:18 pm PT...
Yes, Molly, it does! (What a great head on you!) Most of what you wrote above is EXACTLY what KarenfromIllinois and I think happened in the SC race...and it took us YEARS to figure out what you just so aptly summarized!
In your scenario, our real world city A would be Milwaukee - home of about 20,000-ish "undervotes". (Jonathan Simon of EDA has called Milwaukee "The New Palm Beach Co., Florida.") KarenfromIll. can probably tell you more about this, but yes, the bad numbers DO seem to be combined counties from within City A (see our video of Manchester Ward 5 / Ward 6 from New Hampshire) - where small numbers of votes are shifted around to pad out the difference.
At first I wasn't sure what you meant when you write that City A would be "counted twice", but now I think I understand. Yes, you would then look at the numbers in those cities with large undervotes (switched around votes, or just "disappeared") to see how many votes you'd need to make up the difference, give your guy the hidden 'win'.
Without poll book signatures, terrible chain of custody procedures, and with WI's REALLY odd practice of just "removing" extra ballots when they have more votes than voters ("Drawdowns") all of this could be easily achieved without detection. Then all you'd have to pad it all out in City C - in this case, WAUKESHA, and never ever tell anyone the TOTAL NUMBERS OF BALLOTS CAST so they can't work the math...
It all works out PERFECTLY for would-be perpetrators of election fraud...
unless there's a RECOUNT.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2011 @ 10:23 pm PT...
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2011 @ 11:19 pm PT...
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2011 @ 11:34 pm PT...
2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court True Vote Analysis
Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
July 2, 2011
In the 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, Kloppenburg (Ind) apparently won by 200 votes. But two days later, 14,000 votes were “found” in Waukesha County. Prosser (Rep) was declared the unofficial winner by 7,000 votes. The subsequent recount was a travesty in which scores of slit ballot bags were photographed, as were poll tapes dated a week before the election. A stack of 50 consecutive Prosser ballots were found in Verona where Kloppenburg won 75% of the recorded vote; the probability is effectively absolute zero (0.25^50).
The True Vote Model (TVM) indicates that Kloppenburg won by at least 50,000 votes. Assuming a 50% turnout of both Obama and McCain voters, Prosser’s margin required that Kloppenburg must have won an implausibly low 81% of returning Obama voters while Prosser had 93% of returning McCain voters. If Kloppenburg had 87% of Obama voters and split approximately 70,000 returning third-party and new voters with Prosser, then she won by 82,000 votes with a 52.7% vote share.
Click for the tables:
The True Vote Model is predicated on determining a) a feasible estimate of returning voters from the prior election and b) an estimate of how voters in the current election cast votes. Typically, the number of returning voters is a function of prior election total votes cast, voter mortality and estimated turnout. The 2008 Presidential True Vote is used as the basis for calculating returning voters. Annual Voter mortality is 1.25%, therefore approximately 3% of 2008 voters passed on prior to the election. New voters were assumed to be split equally between Kloppenburg and Prosser.
Given the 2010 recorded vote, we calculate new voters as follows:
Total Votes = returning 2008 voter turnout + New 2010 voters
New 2010 voters = 2010 vote – returning 2008 voter turnout
As in any model, it is important to see the effect of alternative assumptions. Sensitivity Analysis tables below display various turnout and vote share scenarios.
- If Kloppenburg had 9% of returning McCain voters and just 81% of returning Obama voters, she still wins by 9,000 votes.
- If Kloppenburg had 9% of returning McCain voters and 87% of returning Obama voters, she wins by 107,000 votes.
- If Kloppenburg had 87% of returning Obama voters and Obama voter turnout was just 46% (compared to 50% for McCain voters), she wins by 34,000 votes.
Mainstream media pundits never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote. They accept the recorded vote as gospel and never question the official results . But the evidence is overwhelming that in virtually every election, the recorded vote does not equal the True Vote because of systemic election fraud. It's ten years and counting since Florida 2000 - and the beat goes on.
Kloppenburg won Milwaukee County by 29,700 recorded votes, a 56.4-43.4% split. Assuming an equal 50% Obama/50% McCain voter turnout, in order to match the recorded vote Kloppenburg had to win 80% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters. But Obama won Milwaukee with 67.3%. Obama had a 36% margin compared to just 13% for Kloppenburg. Are we to believe that Prosser won 20% (1 out of 5) Obama voters? If we assume that Kloppenburg won 90% of Obama voters, then she won by 61,000 votes with a 63% share. One must conclude that election fraud cut Kloppenburg’s margin in Milwaukee County by approximately 31,000 votes.
Prosser won Waukesha County by 59,500 recorded votes, a 73.8-26.2% split (Obama had a 37.7% share). In order to match the recorded vote, Prosser had to win 35% of Obama voters and 97% of McCain voters (assuming an equal 55% Obama/55% McCain voter turnout). Are we expected to believe that more than 1 in 3 Obama voters defected to Prosser? That is beyond implausible. On the other hand, if we assume that Kloppenburg won a very plausible 90% of Obama voters, then it appears that election fraud inflated Prosser’s Waukesha margin by around 23,000 votes.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 7/3/2011 @ 6:30 am PT...
Very revealing indeed. Thank you.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 7/4/2011 @ 7:06 am PT...
Richard Charnin wrote @13 [emphasis added]:
The True Vote Model (TVM) indicates that Kloppenburg won by at least 50,000 votes.
Don't get me wrong, Richard. I appreciate and respect the math behind your "True Vote Model."
But there would be no need for models and complex mathematical computations if we would simply apply Democracy's Gold Standard: Hand-marked paper ballots, publicly hand-counted at the precinct level on Election Night.
Properly run elections require only transparency and simple addition. In a democracy, it is not enough for a mathematical model to "indicate" who won and who lost. Both the winner and loser should "know" who won and who lost.
One problem with your "True Vote Model" is that you start with the assumption that the numbers for McCain and Obama from 2008 were accurate. But since the 2008 Presidential Election in WI was conducted on the very same easily hacked and oft failed optical scan systems + 100% unverifiable DREs that were employed in the 2011 WI Supreme Court election, there is no way to know whether the numbers you use for your constants actually reflect the votes that were, in fact, cast for McCain and Obama in 2008.
Any model that relies upon the numbers previously produced by e-voting systems does not provide the certainty that democracy requires.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 7/5/2011 @ 7:10 pm PT...
Ernest, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the various methods used in the True Vote Model. In the Wisconsin SC analysis, I did NOT use the big TVM (see below). I used a small spread sheet calculation model. Yes, the recorded 2008 vote was used as as a basis for the calculation, but I had good reason for that: Obama won the recorded vote with 56.2% and the real TVM gave him 57%. I decided that the minor difference would not impact the results so I used the recorded vote to keep thing simple. In fact, in the Facebook Election Integrity group I indicated that Kloppenburg must have done better than the results indicated since Obama did better than the recorded vote. By the way I provide a full range of scenarios for various voter turnout and vote share combinations.
Have you ever actually used the TVM? This is an introduction to the methodology: http://richardcharnin.co...delDocGettingStarted.htm
This is the link to the TVM: https://spreadsheets0.go...EzC1Ccb7FsEN-EgZhQ#gid=0
And here is a description of the returning voter calculation methods I referred to above:
Using the Model
Required Data Input (entered in yellow background cells only)
There are just three essential inputs.
1, Election year: 1988-2008
2. State abbreviation code (use NA for national)
3. The calculation method determines the number of returning voters from the previous state or national election:
1- Recorded vote, 2- total votes cast, 3- unadjusted exit poll, 4- True Vote, 5- match to the current election recorded vote.
The total vote calculation is indicated as the product sum: Total vote = ∑ mix (i) * vote share (i), where
i =1 for DNV (new) voters, 2 for returning Democrat, 3 for returning Republican, 4 for returning third-party (Other).
Forcing a Match to a Recorded or Hypothetical Vote Share
Selecting Method 5 and National (NA) returns the National Exit Poll (NEP).The exit pollsters always force the Final NEP to match the recorded vote by adjusting the returning voter mix and vote shares. Fnal state exit polls are also adjusted to match the recorded vote.
Methods 1-4 calculate a plausible return voter mix based on previous election vote shares adjusted for voter mortality and turnout. The corresponding vote shares are adjusted automatically. This is a forensic tool for exposing likely vote miscounts.
To determine the vote shares required to force a match to the unadjusted exit poll, enter 1 in cell C27. To force a match to a hypothetical state or national vote share, enter the desired Democratic share in cell C28 (goal-seek). The vote shares will automatically be adjusted to force the match.
In calculating the National True Vote (methods 1-4), the model uses Final NEP vote shares. An exception is the 2004 election, the only one in which preliminary NEP vote shares are available. For each method, the adjusted return voter mix replaces the Final NEP (impossible and/or implausible) mix. Since the unadjusted “How Voted” exit poll cross-tabs are unavailable for states, the model automatically generates a return voter mix and vote shares required to force a match to the recorded vote. The vote shares are derived from the NEP shares by applying a state to national vote share ratio.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 7/5/2011 @ 7:24 pm PT...
Ernest, I forgot this link to the WI SC Milwaukee and Waukesha County True Vote spread sheet:
Remember that in any model the goal is to KISS.
Go ahead and play what if by changing Obama 2008 voter turnout rates and corresponding Kloppenburg vote shares of returning Obama and McCain voters. The McCain returning voter rate is calculated automatically based on the Obama rate. And the Prosser vote shares are just 1- the Kloppenburg vote shares. Have fun.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 7/5/2011 @ 9:01 pm PT...
With all due respect, Richard, I think you've evaded the core point I was making. Models are not a substitute for Democracy's Gold Standard.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 7/5/2011 @ 9:39 pm PT...
With all due respect, Ernest, the spreadsheet models based on exit polls downloaded by Jonathan Simon were the first critical indication that the 2004 election was stolen. Without the statistical models that followed, there would probably not be anything approaching the depth of the election integrity movement.
And all the models that have been created since then confirm that election fraud is systemic.
I don't know what your point is about that "Democracy Gold Standard". Why change thesubject?
Election analysis models tell us where to look. To me that is the gold standard. You are conflating election forensics with another topic (hand-counting paper ballots).
How would you have known about the 2004 theft had Jonathan Simon not downloaded those exit polls which showed Kerry winning? Who would have questioned the theft?
What prompted my response was your apparent ignorance of the True Vote Model. You did not reply to my explanation of how the model works. Instead you changed the subject completely. I don't know what your problem is with election forensic models. You seem to forget: where there is smoke, there is fire. Everyone would like to see hand-counted paper ballots. But that is only because election analysis models have told us that we need them. Were it not for the models, you and I would be unaware of the extent of election fraud. You would not have a reason to even raise the "Gold Standard" hand-counted paper ballots.
You may not be aware that the TVM has indicated that the 2010 senate elections in WI, PA, IL and the Governor races in FL, OH, NJ (2009), WI and PA were very likely stolen. Do you have any additional evidence to corroborate these findings? Or will you just dismiss the TVM out of hand?
Go to http://richardcharnin.com/ and click on these links:
2010 FL, OH, PA, WI Governor True Vote
2010 Senate Comparative Summary
Illinois 2010 Senate True Vote
Pennsylvania 2010 Senate True Vote
Wisconsin 2010 Senate True Vote
Wisconsin 2011 Supreme Court County Vote Analysis
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 7/6/2011 @ 11:25 am PT...
Richard, I am truly disappointed that you would respond to my academic criticism of the limitations of the True Vote Model, and of other statistical models, with personal invective, to wit: "What prompted my response was your apparent ignorance of the True Vote Model."
I had assumed, based on your comments @13 that you had relied upon the official results of the 2008 Obama/McCain electoral contest. I stand corrected. I'll accept that your projection that "indicates" Kloppenburg won by at least 50,000 votes uses, as a constant, 2008 exit-polls and not the official count.
I am not denigrating mathematical models as a means for establishing the improbability of official results. One of the most convincing I've encountered was that employed by Steven Freeman in Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?
Freeman lined up the dramatic shifts between exit-polls and the official count in three key battleground states, all favoring the incumbent George W. Bush. He calculated the odds of these dramatic shifts occurring in all three states by chance at 660,000 to one.
Pretty compelling, as far as statistics go.
I can appreciate your statement that you "do not understand" my point about Democracy's Gold Standard. But you are wrong in suggesting that by reiterating it, I had "changed the subject." It was the principle point I made @15.
So let me try to restate it.
The need for "spreadsheet models based on exit polls" arises only because of the lack of transparency in e-voting systems which are subject to hacks that are 100% undetectable, absent access to the trade secret protected source codes in the 100% unverifiable DREs and which cannot be accurately challenged in the oft-failed and easily manipulated opt scan systems absent a scrupulous adherence to ballot chain-of-custody.
Statistical models are useful only to the extent that they aid in convincing the voting public that e-voting system results are not reliable. They have not, and will not of themselves, either reverse the official declaration of a loser as the "winner" or prevent future election fraud.
The only means for insuring certainty that the candidate who is declared the winner is identical to the candidate who received the most votes is through application of Democracy's Gold Standard --- hand-marked paper ballots, publicly hand counted at the precinct level on Election Night.
When that is adhered to, democracy becomes a matter of simple addition, eliminating the need for statistical models.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2011 @ 10:34 pm PT...
With all due respect, you are stating the obvious: The True Vote Model will NOT reverse the recorded count. So what is your point? AS I indicated above above, in 2010 the evidence provided by rigged FINAL exit polls and the use of plausible return voter turnout and vote shares indicate that the following elections were stolen:
WI Supreme Court
2010 Governor True Vote Analysis:FL,OH,PA,WI,NJ
2010 PA, WI and IL Senate Elections: A Comparative Demographic and True Vote Analysis
What is your source of information that these elections were very likely stolen? Did you consider that any of them were stolen?
I leave you with this:
“Unadjusted exit polls are the gold standard in uncovering election fraud. Ohio’s 2010 unadjusted election exit poll results showed incumbent Governor Strickland defeating John Kasich by 50.1% to 47.4% of the vote. However, when Kasich won the actual vote on the voting machines provided and serviced by private Republican-connected vendors, then the exit pollsters adjusted the exit poll numbers to match the machine vote count.
“Overwhelmingly, the adjustments are red, or Republican, in terms of a beneficial shift in what voters are saying when they exit the polls and what the Republican-connected voting equipment company machines are reporting.”
That’s from “How the Democrats Have Lost Ohio and the Presidency,” by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, which ran on HuffPost on Dec. 14 of last year:
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 7/7/2011 @ 9:50 am PT...
Richard: I am fully of the difference between "unadjusted" (some might call them uncorrupted) exit polls and the "final" exit polls which are "adjusted" to conform to the official results --- a practice pollsters apply to U.S. elections but never to foreign elections where the U.S. elites seek to challenge the results.
You, Steve Freeman and others have made the distinction quite clear.
I do not dispute that stark statistical anomalies between unadjusted exit polls (when such polls have been conducted and the numbers are available) and the official results are indicative of election fraud.
My core concern, however, is not the detection of statistically probable election fraud but the prevention of election fraud before it occurs.
Prevention requires that we scrap e-voting and replace it with Democracy's Gold Standard. That is the one and only point I made in response to your otherwise excellent statistical analysis.
I am simply pointing out the limits to statistical analysis.
While complex statistical analysis provides evidence of likely election fraud, universal application of Democracy's Gold Standard --- hand marked, paper ballots publicly hand-counted at the precinct level on Election Night --- produces certainty of results with the only math required being simple addition.