Brad, I found the words of WI Director of Administration Norman A. Cummings pertaining to Nickolaus, quoted in your 08/16/2010 article, especially poignant:

"How does anybody else in the county know, except for her verbal word, that there are backups, and that the software she has out there is performing as it should?" he said. "There's no way I can assure that the election system is going to be fine for the next presidential election."

Or, for that matter, the next Supreme Court election or any future election.

I don't think it would do to analyze only the results for Brookfield, all results in Ms. Nickolaus' control would have to be scrutinized. If your reporting is correct, and she only reports the county results, votes could easily be shifted elsewhere to make up new numbers and still have scrutinized precincts look ok. If the question is possible vote counting fraud, (or cover up of errors) the only thing that would convince me the final tally is accurate is a complete appraisal of the vote counting process in her control. And it sickens me to think any citizens of a democracy would accept anything less. I'm even surprised that BradBlog would publish a statement that in any way legitimizes the reported result, and reduces pressure needed to ensure this is properly investigated.

At this point, if computer voting occurred in her district without a paper trail, there wouldn't be anything that could convince me that vote counting fraud did not occur there.

Brad - great job finding that post from Lisa Sink; I feel better about it all (except for Prosser winning and all).

Were the Senator's comments intended to be a fantasy statement?

Well said Brad. I really appreciate following up on the initially reported vote count locally, who would think that would be hard to track down.

I'm rooting for a state wide recount as a good colon cleanse of election systems, we'll see if Klop has the fortitude for that, hope so.

There may not be a thing wrong with Brookfield and hand recount would show that, seems everything indicates that...maybe Nickolaus is just that incompetent, but I tend to think people make mistakes in details when they are scurrying about covering their tracks and lies...so there may be a whole another story uncovered if a thorough investigation launched.

Screw trust, verify.

From poster Morgan at the Brookfield Patch:

Kathy Nickolaus:
- was hired by David Prosser.
- has a well documented history of being accused of voting irregularities.
- the 53% voter turn-out indicated by her "adjusted" election figures would present a historical statistical anomoly (to put it into perspective, only 33% of eligible voters turned out state wide. Exit polling in Brookfield indicated "average" turn-out of 20%-25%, and during the last 4 April elections for hotly-contested Supreme Court seats, voter turn-out did not exceed 24%).
- the +/-7,500 votes represents almost exactly the .05% margin of victory for Prosser that would require the Kloppenburg campaign to pay for the cost of the recount.

The biggest red flag is the difference between the "reported" turn-out of 53% and the exit polling turn-out of 20%-25%. Could those voters represented by the difference have snuck out by a window so as to not encounter those conducting the exit polling?

I agree with the comments of Luddish and Ghostof911. In this situation there are two distinct issues. One is the lack of verifiability of touch screen voting. This is a general issue that plagues most elections in this country, today. The second issue is much more specific. It is the sudden, bizarre appearance of 7,500 additional votes for Prosser two days after the election. Given Nikolaus' sordid history and the fact that 7,500 votes is exactly the number needed to avoid an automatic recount, it is extremely hard for me to believe that purely innocent error is involved.

All I can say is how very tired of this I am!

Shame, shame, shame. Brad, your article states:

"That is no replacement, unfortunately, for Democracy's Gold Standard: hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted in public at the polls on election night, with all parties and the public (and their video cameras) overseeing the entire process, with decentralized results posted publicly at the precinct before ballots are ever moved anywhere."

This is not reporting but rather an advertisement for a voting system that is so impractical it will never be fully realized in this country and even if it were it should not be because it has huge vote buying and vote selling problems because the ballots identified by write-ins can be seen. Worse, continued advocacy of this kind of thing is diverting the election integrity movement, because of its impracticality and unachievability, and leading the good-intentioned down a futile path.

Ms. Jolins,

What exactly is unacheivable about Mr. Friedman's Gold Standard?

A system where the interested parties provide volunteers, where video cameras are allowed to document the proceedings, seems doable to me, and much more reliable than anything going on now. Are you referring to the horrible budget breaking cost of new voting machines and all the paper that would be needed?

When we have results such as that in Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000, proceedings in Kentucky and California and Wisconsin documented at this site and elsewhere, how could you propose anything different?

When we have a polarized citizenry that seems to be trying to decide which cliff to jump from, when there doesn't seem to be any innate need to even jump, these close elections can cause such a drastic change in our trajectory as a nation, I wonder how we can possibly afford to not reform our voting systems in this way.

That is, if we really want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. (Disregarding the Supreme Court's strange definition of "people")

Judy Jolins - As I've already had my turn to speak (at length), I'll let others reply to your comments with their own opinions. But I had to flag, and question, this:

even if it were it should not be because it has huge vote buying and vote selling problems because the ballots identified by write-ins can be seen.

Huh? Really? Please explain. I am aware of no such "voting buy and selling problems" with the system of transparent vote counting described above. Please feel free to elucidate. Thanks!

ghostof911, can you post the link to the exit poll numbers? I had not seen them.

Waukesha is a reliably (rabidly?) Republican vote source, one of three that ring Milwaukee, and repeatedly has one of the highest if not the highest turnout rates in Wisconsin. Wisconsin state calculates per cent turnout by comparing number of actual voters to number of election-aged people in the jurisdiction. Some others calculate turnout by comparing number of actual voters to number of REGISTERED voters. Thus, you can see wildly different numbers --- important to compare apples to apples here.

I just want to know why the Brookfield clerk was asked for two versions of her results --- one in a different format. Was Nickelaus forwarding them to somebody else to use for other purposes? Was her Access database formatted differently from the standard state report form? What is the function of this database --- early calculation of results for use by the GOP while others operate off of incomplete data? The only reason this scenario would make sense is if elections were being tweaked - elsewhere.

Elections in the smallest towns in Wisconsin (I think those with only one polling place?) are certified by the same people who ran them --- the clerk, the election inspector aka moderator. doesn't that mean effectively no independent oversight? I'm not so sure the actual smoking gun, if there is one, will be found in Waukesha County --- unless it is that Brookfield's data was shared with others but belatedly reported in the totals.

It's quite possible that Waukesha County is SUPPOSED to be the epicenter, but the real issues took place elsewhere and perhaps on both sides of the fence.

Howz that for a paranoid fantasy?!

IMHO there's a lot more on-the-ground fact-gathering needed to nail the dynamics here.

COMMENT #10 seems to be arguing against itself: there is no doubt that better election systems are needed here and elsewhere! That's just the point, sending those with energy to deal with this issue to be slaughtered by the ultimate failure of this simple-minded but clearly unachievable objective is preventing any real progress --- and there has been precious little progress in the decade during which this approach has been suggested by the self-appointed leaders making a living off of the election integrity energy of concerned citizens.

Fact is, we have not been able to muster the kinds of observers suggested. Even the paid poll-worker force we've got is actually pretty pathetic, with all due respect to the elderly. Observers are allowed in polling places in many jurisdictions, yet the number who actually appear is embarrassing but the length of time they typically stay is what really proves the point; and it's unclear what would change this, considering that Florida 2000 and all has not.

Also the issue of partisan polling places and potential threats against observers from other parties helps make the idea of such observation unworkable in an increasingly polarized setting and only when its most needed.

COMMENT #11 betrays a true ignorance of election integrity basics --- and is a shameful (yes shameful, shameful) admission of such by someone who claims to at least be affiliated with "experts" and uses a journalistic perch to advocate a particular solution and who apparently influences the direction of the "movement" by dolling out recognition and channeling donations and the like.

Is it not obvious, and that is actually part of the problem, that a public showing and even video recording of actual images of complete ballots is undesirable? It would be to a voter who is being intimidated because he or she is the only voter or only one of a few voting in a polling place who is believed likely to support a particular cause. Or to those in Southern Italy where control of elections by organized crime is understood by the whole population. Voters there are required to "identify" their ballots by particular patterns issued them individually of votes on down-ballot contests. Or, as just another example, would it be too hard to understand that if I see a ballot that writes in a unique name/spelling and votes a particular slate that a certain amount of money will be paid or that a certain house will not be set alight.

From Los Angeles Times, Wisconsin to review discovery of votes:

Responding to Judy Jolins, Brad Friedman @11 writes:

I had to flag, and question, this:

"even if it were it should not be because it has huge vote buying and vote selling problems because the ballots identified by write-ins can be seen."

Huh? Really? Please explain. I am aware of no such "voting buy and selling problems" with the system of transparent vote counting described above. Please feel free to elucidate. Thanks!

Jolins then responds @13 with a non sequitor in which she first says that Mr. Friedman is ignorant of "election integrity basics" and then adds a comment that reflects that she is clueless as to what Brad Friedman has in mind when he references "Democracy's Gold Standard," stating:

Is it not obvious, and that is actually part of the problem, that a public showing and even video recording of actual images of complete ballots is undesirable? It would be to a voter who is being intimidated because he or she is the only voter or only one of a few voting in a polling place who is believed likely to support a particular cause.

First, Ms. Jolins, we are talking about public filming of votes being counted --- not votes being cast.

When Brad is referring to "transparency" he is doing so with respect to the process by which already lawfully cast votes are being counted. Nowhere in any of the numerous, carefully researched and written election integrity articles which Brad has written will you find a single instance in which Brad has suggested intruding upon the right of individual voters to cast their vote in secret.

Election integrity, however, entails the right of each of those same voters to be assured that their lawfully cast votes were accurately counted.

The paper ballots that are fed into the optical scan machines do not identify who cast the ballot. The only way that one can insure that they are accurately counted is to have them publicly counted by-hand at the precinct level, just as many towns in New Hampshire do, often reporting results more rapidly than many jurisdictions who entrust counting to easily hacked computers. See, New Hampshire Town Citizens Prohibit Concealed Vote Counting by Computers or Any Other Method.

It is obvious, Ms. Jolie, that you failed to follow Brad's link for Democracy's Gold Standard which was based on a finding by Germany's highest court that the e-voting systems we routinely utilize in the U.S. violated a post World War II German constitution that was patterned on our own constitution.

The court's findings were summarized as follows:

Finally, Ms. Jolins, this is not the right-wing world of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. The BRAD BLOG deals in an evidence-based reality.

You can't come into this site and say something like there's "a huge vote buying and selling problem" and expect others to accept it as fact, sight unseen.

If you have evidence to support that claim, by all means, now is the time to present it together with links to the source of your evidence.

"COMMENT #10 seems to be arguing against itself: there is no doubt that better election systems are needed here and elsewhere! That's just the point, sending those with energy to deal with this issue to be slaughtered by the ultimate failure of this simple-minded but clearly unachievable objective is preventing any real progress

Can you stop with the overly broad generalizations long enough to detail what you think you are arguing against and then explain why you think that what you think you are arguing against cannot be done?

"and there has been precious little progress in the decade during which this approach has been suggested by the self-appointed leaders making a living off of the election integrity energy of concerned citizens."

Wow... and the plutocracy seizing de facto control of the election process had nothing to do with it?

"Fact is, we have not been able to muster the kinds of observers suggested."

The fact is that the only places where your generalization applies is in places where public counting isn't practiced. Localities that have a tradition of publicly counting ballots seem to be able to get the people to do it.

Saying that it can't be done because it hasn't been tried is rather lame, don't you think?

"Even the paid poll-worker force we've got is actually pretty pathetic, with all due respect to the elderly."

Wow... slamming poll workers as an argument against election reform. How very unoriginal of you.

"Observers are allowed in polling places in many jurisdictions, yet the number who actually appear is embarrassing but the length of time they typically stay is what really proves the point;"

A word salad of vague generalizations does not a coherent argument make.

" and it's unclear what would change this, considering that Florida 2000 and all has not."

Perhaps it was the fact that 2000 was used as an excuse to ram unworkable technological solutions down everyones throat?

"Also the issue of partisan polling places and potential threats against observers from other parties helps make the idea of such observation unworkable in an increasingly polarized setting and only when its most needed."

Beyond wonderment now... your solution to a non-problem is to let the terrorists win?

"COMMENT #11 betrays a true ignorance of election integrity basics --- and is a shameful (yes shameful, shameful) admission of such by someone who claims to at least be affiliated with "experts" and uses a journalistic perch to advocate a particular solution and who apparently influences the direction of the "movement" by dolling out recognition and channeling donations and the like."

A word salad of vague accusations does not a coherent argument make. What little I can sort out of that sounds like nonsense given the facts in evidence.

Can you please list and explain each of your accusations?

"Is it not obvious, and that is actually part of the problem, that a public showing and even video recording of actual images of complete ballots is undesirable?"

I take it then that you missed out on the Franken-Coleman recount in Minnesota...

"It would be to a voter who is being intimidated because he or she is the only voter or only one of a few voting in a polling place who is believed likely to support a particular cause."

Now you're just babbling. The voter will mark their ballot in privacy. That is the law now regardless of all else. The ballot will not have personally identifying information. That is the law now regardless of all else.

"Or to those in Southern Italy where control of elections by organized crime is understood by the whole population. Voters there are required to "identify" their ballots by particular patterns issued them individually of votes on down-ballot contests."

Hmmm... evidence for this assertion?

"Or, as just another example, would it be too hard to understand that if I see a ballot that writes in a unique name/spelling and votes a particular slate that a certain amount of money will be paid or that a certain house will not be set alight."

Again, capitulation in advance because of a non-problem... the terrorists win!

Actually, this all sounds like an ad for the magic ballot marking devices that Rush Holt tried to mandate as one of his multi-billion dollar corporate giveaways.

Has the WI results roused him to start seeking even more corporate donations again?

It has to be noted that a major Democrat who participated in the vote count and the subsequent discovery of the 7,500 omitted votes validated that it was an honest error and approved the final vote tally. She is acknowledged by many as a lifelong union member and Democrat!

Every now and then an honest Democrat appears! Kudos Ramona Kitzinger! Your party could learn a thing or two from you!

Shouldn’t be too long now before the scum on the left starts demonizing another one of their own now, should it? After all, in the union owned Democratic Party, having someone actually tell the truth or show some moral backbone is tantamount to treason, isn’t it?

From Post#13: "self-appointed leaders making a living off of the election integrity energy of concerned citizens" If only! Self-appointed? More like reliable, consistent sources for such information. IF any of them are making a living on such matters all the better! They deserve it. Who else is watching out for the foundation of our country's supposed democratic system? Really.

With all due respect, joetote @17. It is irrelevant whether the election official who vouches for an unverifiable, computer count places a (D) or an (R) at the end of their name.

Despite the obvious bias reflected by your reference to "the scum of the left," I still hold out hope that even those individuals whose world view is obscured by ideological blinders can come to understand that election integrity isn't about Left or Right. It's about right and wrong.

In a democracy, every citizen is entitled to know that every lawfully cast vote has been accurately counted, period!

As Brad eloquently observed in the body of this article:

Ya' dig?

great if this part of WI's uprising brings us "Democracy's Gold Standard" nationwide, or at least the guidence in Kathy Dopp's "Fundamentals of Publicly Verifying Election Outcome Accuracy" on: http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/

FYI - WI's Government Accountabilit Board is full of links to election numbers: http://gab.wi.gov/

If one will notice, I state quite loudly the person was an honest person, something I rarely find on either side of the aisle these days! As for my scum on the left comment, I dearly believe the hard left has a mantra and agenda that is destroying our country. having said that, i also appreciate the very few site on the left such as this one that DO NOT BLOCK MY COMMENTS AND IN FACT ALLOW THIS KIND OF DISCOURSE.

joetote @21,

That's nice that you dearly believe something. Here, what we're looking for are facts, reason, and evidence to support one's beliefs.

When right off the bat you start with the derogatory language, my instant reaction is--probably a biased, unreliable witness here. You immediately undermine your credibility.

If that's your goal, keep at it. If not, you might want to revise your approach.

Jolins seems troll-esque to me...

I think we can all agree what is not acceptable, voting systems the public can not provide oversight for, which throws out computers instantly. Accounting controls, chains of custody, checks and balances, cross-checks are all standard tools that accountants, casinos etc used regularily, nothing terribly difficul about it. Ballots are a bit different in needing to remain anonymous but other than that it is not hard, once we admit we can not trust ALL insiders and given we never know which ones may betray us, we can not trust any insiders, which we all must admit. Given this, we can figure how to secure and verify elections...yes it is WORK, it requires vigilance but nothing impossible or even impractical.

Canada does it, Germany does it, we can do it.

Journalists constantly talk about gold standards for products or industries, they make statements like that based on assessment of many informed people, experts...in the case of election security, computer experts have shown electronic vote machines very insecure, hackable, completely susceptible to insider manipulation. voter oversight groups world wide all conclude similarly to Brad as to the gold standard. Brad simply stated a fact.

... Keedo said...

great if this part of WI's uprising brings us "Democracy's Gold Standard" nationwide, or at least the guidence in Kathy Dopp's "Fundamentals of Publicly Verifying Election Outcome Accuracy" on: http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/

"At least" implies Dopp's audits are a workable alternative to the "Gold Standard." When last I checked that wasn't the case.

Is she still trying to come up with an audit of electronic tabulation that can't be gamed... and would be cheaper to implement than a plain old hand count?

Joetote (#17) - First of all: welcome! You will find a very diverse group of thinkers here who do not fit into the bogus left/ right paradigm we are all being force-fed.

Now: You make a good point. One I've been contemplating, myself:

"It has to be noted that a major Democrat who participated in the vote count and the subsequent discovery of the 7,500 omitted votes validated that it was an honest error and approved the final vote tally. She is acknowledged by many as a lifelong union member and Democrat!"

Ernest touched on this in his response, but I'd like to add:

...after following (and filming) every aspect of the FL-13 2006 mysterious ES&S touchscreen UNDERVOTE fiasco for over two years, headed up by the another wonky PARTISAN Supervisor of Elections SARASOTA, KATHY DENT - I can tell you that canvassing boards / observers are often completely unaware of how these systems work.

In many cases, they have to take the word of their Elections Supervisor / voting machine vendors - and often time the two are completely interchangeable - election officials being wooed by the vendors / given jobs before or after their tenure; much like the way lobbyists and our government use each others' offices as revolving doors, gaming the system to advance their own agenda.

In interviewing my own (DEM) canvassing boards / elected officials about the disappeared 18, 412 votes in a race won by a margin of 369 - I could not BELIEVE how little these officials knew about their own voting systems. It was stunning. I also was GOBSMACKED by how unwilling they were to even admit there was a problem! Thousands of voters couldn't register their votes, but hey, it wasn't the machines!

(One of the reasons I registered REPUBLICAN in FL., btw, so I could vote for RON PAUL in the primaries.)

These uninformed officials are at the mercy of the technology "experts" and don't know any better. They don't know what to look for. This could be one reason Ramona Kitzinger was so quick to validate the numbers. Another might be fear / embarrassment that the system is so clearly vulnerable; even compromised. I have found very few elected officials (D or R) will acknowledge these failures within their own systems, even if it means the undermining of the will of the voters, certifying the wrong candidate, and sending them off to represent people that didn't vote for them.

All that said, Nate Silver (don't mean to push your buttons, TruthIsAll) has suggested the numbers don't seem anomalous to the overall turnout / demographics...

Doesn't mean the numbers weren't 'held back', 'moved', 'shifted' or in some other way manipulated within the system *before* being released. Bad calls from the Press (AP) Early concessions / victories - last minute whopping changes in result after a "tight race", a race which suddenly 'flips' by the same exact margin / percentage points, middle-man attacks (all you need is a paperclip! Or a key you can get on EBAY) make all this more than possible.

Whenever there are anomalous late results (D OR R, btw) we here at the Bradblog know what can happen to them. Not what "might" happen, Joetote, was DOES happen. And the less people know about this complex tech stuff (and very few people care enough to inform themselves), the less likely you are to know how very very plausible it all is, simple, even. And how much easier it can be to get away with it.

"Every now and then an honest Democrat appears! Kudos Ramona Kitzinger! Your party could learn a thing or two from you!"

It's not *my* party. Please stop that.

(Amazing week of radio, Brad!!!)

ZAP (and Ernest)! Great dissection of "Judy Jolins" weird posts. Thank you for doing the laundry.

...I don't think she's real.

Judy Jolins @ 13:

Others here have dispatched with the bulk of your silly misinformation. Little need to pile onto it here. So I'll just hit one or two of your points.

there has been precious little progress in the decade during which this approach has been suggested by the self-appointed leaders making a living off of the election integrity energy of concerned citizens.

Who are those leaders? And can I get some of that money? I could use it! Big time!

Is it not obvious, and that is actually part of the problem, that a public showing and even video recording of actual images of complete ballots is undesirable?

No, it is not obvious. Which is, of course, one of the reasons that Debra Bowen, the Sec. of State of CA (among the best elected officials on these matters, even if that is not saying all that much) has allowed it here in the state after examining the concerns you're expressing. And why (as ZapKitty noted above) the wonderfully transparent US Senate hand-count in MN was so terrific two years ago.

If you're suggesting that hand-counted paper ballots at the polling place, as is done in parts of NH, MA, WI and elsewhere is a threat due to the possibilities of vote buying and selling, you may wish to check the real problem in that regard: absentee voting which, of late, is some 40% of all ballots cast in states like CA.

Hope that's helpful for ya! And good luck on whatever the product is that you're selling!

joetote said:

It has to be noted that a major Democrat who participated in the vote count and the subsequent discovery of the 7,500 omitted votes validated that it was an honest error and approved the final vote tally. She is acknowledged by many as a lifelong union member and Democrat!

Others have responded, but this one could use undescoring.

We, the people, don't care what officials of any party have to say when it comes to elections. Kitzinger may be right. She may be wrong. She may have been misled (she was only briefed well after Nickolaus discovered the "error" apparently). She may not understand what happened. She may not be a Democrat. Or she may be. Or she may be absolutely correct in every regard.

We, the people, don't care. This is an election. This is supposed to be democracy. We, the people, deserve to be able to verify these matters ourselves. What part of self-governance don't you get, joe?

I might suggest you listen to my "Special Comment" in the last 20 mins or so of Hour 3 of last night's Malloy Show. The archives of that show are here.

Every now and then an honest Democrat appears! Kudos Ramona Kitzinger! Your party could learn a thing or two from you!

Wow. You'll just believe anything someone tells ya, I guess. Which well explains the remark in your subsequent comment...

I dearly believe the hard left has a mantra and agenda that is destroying our country.

I'm sure you do. A lot of folks have invested a lot of money in convincing you to dearly believe that. I'm sorry you weren't able to use your facilities to overcome that. I'm sorry you allow yourself to be played for such a fool, apparently.

Welcome to The BRAD BLOG.

Ernest @1,

That is exactly what we have learned.

There is nothing obvious that can't be "explained" by bull shit in this country any more.

I mean like the origin of Queens for example.

Special note to Ernie, Zap, Jeanie, and Brad,

I know I'm not here so regularly as I was for a while there, but I'm still here. And it makes my heart sing and my eyes feel like crying to read the thoroughness and clarity of your combined dissection of the nonsense above. Just beautifully done.

love,
Dave

It also makes me feel like crying when I misspell Jeannie Dean's name.

Great Read, Great Comments!

xoxoXO, Lasagna! Miss you, around here.

HEY EVERYONE!

Does my handle look like tits?

The genuine concern over the issues here is really something and the participants have my commendation!!!

The fact is, however, that the mechanics of the "gold standard" are such that major elections around the world using it are regularly disputed and often with disastrous consequences.

COMMENT #27: I can think of some people who seem to have done very well by advocating the alleged election "gold standard" economically, both advocates and experts (just look at the donate buttons out there and the published tax filings --- how about a little journalistic research and airing of laundry here), and others who have benefited in a variety of other ways as well. If they are looking for a solution, that would be one thing, but if they are pushing a solution that will never happen, they are just perpetuating their scheme on the back of the good-intentioned at the expense of the public interest.

COMMENT #15 Based on misreading what I wrote, though apparently understood by other later comments, when I said "...a public showing and even video recording of actual images of complete ballots is undesirable?" to mean videotaping of voters in the booth.

Later, the comment apparently tries to suggest that a German court ruling is immutable and has bearing on the rest of the world --- while accusing me of non-sequitur!

COMMENT #18 "IF (sic) any of them are making a living on such matters all the better! They deserve it. Who else is watching out for the foundation of our country's supposed democratic system? Really." My point is that they do not deserve it if they focus the debate on an unachievable goal and certainly not if they encourage an angry mob to tear apart any discussion questioning the basic setup.

COMMENT #23 "Ballots are a bit different in needing to remain anonymous but other than that it is not hard, once we admit we can not trust ALL insiders and given we never know which ones may betray us, we can not trust any insiders, which we all must admit." This is where your argument falls apart. What I suggested is how it only takes one single corrupt member of a ballot counting team - who can see the actual ballots - to perpetrate a vote-buying or coercion scheme.

Another thing that seems to be ignored by those perusing the myth of the hand-counted paper ballots for US general elections is of course the large number of contests. There is nothing like this in German or Canadian federal elections mentioned as examples. Probably because it is much more difficult to get people to add all those contests correctly! All the contests also allow the kind of making a ballot identifiable by the pattern of marks I mentioned.

My apologies for what could have been a much more diplomatic and respectful tack taken in making these points.

Over-and-Out.

@ #34

No.

( c Y a )

JoeTote...it's a false premise to use Democrat and hard left in the same context. But it's an understandable one, considering how often the media makes this same false assumption. 30+ years of this false flag messaging and you'd have to expect that at least some people would buy into the lie.

Re Judy Jolins @35. Still waiting for you to drop in the first piece of "evidence" to support your hyperbole, let alone a link, but, for health reasons, I don't think it advisable that I hold my breath during the wait.

Stating, "it only takes one single corrupt member of a ballot counting team - who can see the actual ballots - to perpetrate a vote-buying or coercion scheme" is not "evidence" that such a scheme has ever been carried out. Moreover, it is entirely irrelevant, since what is at stake is not "voter fraud" but "election fraud" that can permit a single insider with access to a computer source code to rig the entire count on a percentage basis before the first "voter" steps into the polls.

Judy writes:

"My point is that they do not deserve it if they focus the debate on an unachievable goal and certainly not if they encourage an angry mob to tear apart any discussion questioning the basic setup."

What are you talking about? Is this a reference to the Brooks Brother's riot in 2000? Cuz that was an angry mob of ENRON underlings flown in to *stop* the court ordered hand recount on behalf of the Republican Party... (???)

I don't get what you don't get about the PUBLIC counting process...insiders with an agenda have very little sway when there's an open, transparent, observable count that can be verified by observers from each party, over-seeing a team of volunteers (paid or not) doing the count.

You fail to realize that hand counting paper ballots in FULL PUBLIC VIEW is still quite capably managed in many smaller municipalities through out the country - including New Hampshire where I worked with BEV HARRIS' Black Box Voting team monitoring the 2008 Primary Recount.

Hand counting teams worked so well I burst into tears upon seeing the "Gold Standard" in perfect play. Lots of anomalies were found...tons, in fact. We found out THANKS TO THE HAND RECOUNT that the DIEBOLD OP SCAN machines had a failure rate 163 times greater the FED HAVA Standards would allow...

So while I appreciate your clarification, your facts and unfounded assumptions against Hand counted paper ballots is (ironically) *way* out-dated. You are behind the research, the math, the science, the forensics, the politics, the precedent, and the overwhelming problems we face with our ever-failing voting systems.

Makes your posts a little strange to read for the rest of us...and yes, you sound like your selling something.

For Judy:

GREAT video of how Hand Counting works in New Hampshire (because you really don't seem to know) - teams of 3, two people on the count, one designated observer - all at tables in the same room, with videographers (like me) free to roam around and film the process for the public record:

NEW HAMPSHIRE BALLOT SEQUENCING ANOMALIES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WvVMjfehnY

Hope this helps!

I still want to know who is getting paid? Judy still claims she can think of people who are doing very well promoting the "gold standard". I can't.

Evidence much? (Bev, are you doing well?)

... Soul Rebel said...

"I still want to know who is getting paid?"

Sorry, they accidentally sent your payoff money to me yet again. I'll get on the satellite link with them about that first thing Monday morning.

Slightly OT - but not really - something I'd *love* for some of my favorite brains following this thread to see(Dredd / Zap / Ernest)who may not have seen this whopper of a video from NH. It may be uber-relevant to tracking the numbers in WI, especially if there's a recount:

NEW HAMPSHIRE RECOUNT - MANCHESTER WARD 5:
http://www.youtube.com/u...edean#p/u/24/GYz9O_SvIJI

This video was, by far, the most complicated election video I had ever tried to tackle - it's my Democratus Magnus Opus. I worked on it for months, obsessively (even quit my day job), with expert help from NH for Democracy's Nancy Tobi, Black Box Voting's Bev Harris, We The People's Bob Schultz, and most exclusively with our very own genius, number crunching granny - karenfromillinois. (M'wa!)

Because this video presents more questions than answers, it didn't make for suitable posting...well, anywhere, really. Remains one of my least viewed. We just reached the limits of what FOIA's and citizen oversight can achieve.

It still haunts kfromi and me because of the numerous mathematical perversions surrounding Manchester Ward 5 (and 6, and many others, but Man 5 had the most glaring anomalies), that remain unsolved. We could never get confirmation of the SOURCE of the moving numbers we witnessed between the S.O.S.'s office and the recount results (and most incredibly - the local paper, which had the final hand count recount numbers AS THEIR OFFICIAL RESULTS ON ELECTION NIGHT ?!?)

Brad did some incredible coverage of Bev's findings; including deplorable condition of the ballot boxes...will try to find that link.

Tiny bit of set up (for Judy and Joetote):

NH 2008 - Hillary pulls out a victory in the NH Primaries after polling showed her 16 points behind Obama...why? What was the REASON for that upset?...She wept. 'Member that? She got a little weepy from stress, can't remember the question - think it was about the mean ol' media - and that caused NH voters to pull a total SWITCHEROOO and vote en anomalous mass for 'new' Hillary - victory by voter empath! That nonsense, while the election forensics revealed, regardless of demographic:

OBAMA WINS in hand counted (more rural) wards.
HILLARY WINS in DIEBOLD counted (urban, centralized) wards...by the same (flipped?) marginal percentage. This was the case regardless of previous voting trends, exit polling (what we have left of it) and all the media's / pollster predictions we're forced to endure up to the run up of a monster like the NH Primaries.

Oh, and Ron Paul's numbers were also way wonky... and I wanted to find out why.

I was only in NH for two days to help Bev film what was primarily a chain of custody investigation, tracking the ballots as they were transported from the municipalities to the state house by two thuggy (privately contracted) employees of LHS and Associates, "Butch and Hoppy".

The videos Bev put together of the car chase scene that ensued (posted on Bev's site as ELECTION REALITY TV) will make you spot yourself.
They're hi-lar-yous. Think Key Stone Cop meets Erin Brockovich.

But the *real* reason I wanted to be there, was to see how WITNESSING the chain of custody procedures in NH would affect any ballot anomalies in a STATE WIDE HAND RECOUNT - in a state that has one of the last bastions for public hand counting...one of our best chances to witness / document the failure rate (failure?) of these OP SCAN systems.

I had read up on Man 5 before landing in NH, and was most excited about trying to film that particular ward's count. As it so happened, the candidate who requested the Republican recount(Alvin Greene), had to step away from the observation of a table count and asked if I could fill in.

Sure thing, I said! ...and the ballot boxes that just happened to come out for the count at this table, just as I sat my butt down to film...were MANCHESTER WARD 5 and 6!! INCREDIBLE SERENDIPITY!

...which arrived switched around, btw. MAN 5's ballots in MAN 6's ballot boxes, and vice-versy. But that was nothing....nothing compared to the rest of what we found.

...kfromI and I would *love* more feedback on that info as we watch the same (type of) fall-out from (everywhere) else in the country on the same(ish) junky, fallible, privately owned corporate secret counters of our sacred vote. kfromi still obsessively tracks the moving numbers from every election she can, screaming into the wind for all it seems to matter to folks.

What we can prove:
The numbers move. Impossibly. In almost all of these unexplainable, wonky, tight, late races...and no one ever bothers to look at them.

It is truly the most maddening, trippy little ditch.

Ah! Here 'tis. This is a *good* one. Brad's coverage of NH "Butch and Hoppy / Chain of Custody investigation" via BBV:

https://bradblog.com/?p=5586

Judy Jolins accuses Brad of not understanding elections, when she doesn't understand the US Constitution, the Declaration, the International Declaration on Human Rights, the observations by Alexis de Tocqueville in his epic study "Democracy in America", the foundation of Freedom of Information law in the USA and the World, or the inextricable connection between democracy and self-governance. I'm not sure one can claim to understand elections if they don't understand the basis for elections, which is the human right to self-governance.

In a nutshell, if the public can't see and authenticate the four components (who can vote, who did vote, chain of custody and the count), power over the choosing process transfers to the government, removing self-governance. The transfer of power takes place at the moment the government can execute any of the four components in concealment from the public (the transfer of power occurs at the moment government/vendor secrecy is allowed, not at the later moment, when tampering does or does not occur).

Without self-governance --- in other words, public right to see and authenticate all essential components of the choosing process --- the structure of the political system is altered, and it is no longer a democracy.

Any one who doubts that self-governance is at the core of our own Constitution should read the brilliant book "The Invisible Constitution" by eminent constitutional expert Laurence Tribe. In it are five diagrams, and in all five diagrams self governance is foundational.

The underpinning for the requirement for the public to be able to see and authenticate who can vote, who did vote, chain of custody and the count is found in Right to Know law and the right to self govern.

Right to know law is derived from the inalienable right to self govern and also from the First Amendment.

correction: I wrote "Judy Jolins accuses Brad of not understanding elections, when she doesn't understand the US Constitution, the Declaration, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights."

Should have written "she doesn't understand the US Constitution [representatives CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE], the US Declaration of Independence [inalienable right to liberty...right to alter or abolish our governance]...

Further reading on the evolution of Freedom of Information shows it is a key component to any real democracy. Many nations have their freedom of information law built into their constitutions. Wisconsin had the earliest Freedom of Information law in America, passed in 1848. (Sweden had the first freedom of information law, passed in 1766.)

The rationale for the public Right to Know is that a people cannot exercise the right to self-governance without it.

And if any core component of the election can be performed by the government in secrecy, without the public being able to see and authenticate, not only is right to know violated, but it is violated in the most fundamental place, the people's act of choosing their representation. You can't put the government in charge of choosing itself.

She also postulates that the German decision is not relevant to the United States. That decision, simple and brilliantly crafted, says that no essential component of the election can be concealed from the public --- the public must be able to see and authenticate without need for special expertise, and no after-the-fact procedure can be substituted for the right to see and authenticate the original count.

Each of those parameters is directly attached to US citizen rights. Our Freedom of Information law explicitly says "any person" not "any person with special expertise."

Jeannie Dean: You can push my buttons any time.

Why don't you push this one?
https://spreadsheets.goo...EzC1Ccb7FsEN-EgZhQ#gid=0

Granted the True Vote Model (TVM) is an analysis of 1988-2008 state presidential elections. But the salient point is that the TVM proves that election fraud is systemic and results in the DEMOCRATS losing 2-4% in EVERY presidential election.

But you know that, Jeannie.

If Excel was used in counting the WI votes, know this: Excel will not let you exit a spreadsheet after changes are made; it warns the user to SAVE the data. I have been developing spreadsheet models for the biggest investment banks, domestic and foriegn, since 1981.

I cannot PROVE that the WI election was stolen and have not looked at the data. But Nate Silver is out in la-la land when he states the the errors were due to incompetence. He IGNORES Nickolaus's track recorde of fraud and former working relationship with Prosser.

Nate is a shill for the corporate media (NYT). According to him, there is no such thing as election fraud. Nate is sadly lacking in modeling experise and is utterly clueless it comes to exit polls and True Vote modeling.

He has been totally unresponsive to my multiple attempts to engage him in discussion or debate.
Take a look at this and you will see why:
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/

Correction to my #42: Republican candidate in NH I filled in for on the observation table was ALBERT HOWARD, not ALVIN GREENE.

And...

"But Nate Silver is out in la-la land when he states the the errors were due to incompetence. He IGNORES Nickolaus's track record of fraud and former working relationship with Prosser."

*Right on, TIA!*

Hi, Bev! Nice to hear from you on this

BTW, in the zombie lies department, the legacy of misinformation regarding what really happened with the election integrity community and Holt's last fiasco of a bill lives on and surfaced in comments on the WI mess over at firedog lake of all places:

Of course I responded to that commenter and they responded in turn with a version of events that was even more disconnected from reality... and the commenter seemed to very earnest in their belief that this "Evil Bev Harris" version was what had really happened. This was my response to them.

But the results do not bode well in the real world where the shills for the oljgarchs constantly enforce and reinforce the delusions of the D.C. beltway bubble. It seems that their pet "E.I. advocates" are still wrapped tightly in the web... of self-deceit and those who listened to them still don't have a clue as to what was done to them and what was done using them.

Zapkitty,
Nice deconstruction over at FDL. So many forms of misinformation. This is a marathon x a marathon.
Dave

Judy Jolins @35 wrote:

the comment apparently tries to suggest that a German court ruling is immutable and has bearing on the rest of the world --- while accusing me of non-sequitur

It is obvious from your mumblings, Ms. Jolins, that you are not an attorney. I am!

Nowhere in my comment did I suggest that the decision by the German high court was legally binding upon any jurisdiction in the U.S.

What I wrote was:

In law we distinguish between appellate court decisions that are controlling and those that are persuasive. Because neither the U.S. nor any state is governed by a foreign court --- absent a binding treaty obligation --- the decision by Germany's highest court is considered one that can be persuasive but not controlling.

That, in no way, diminishes the force of the reasoning applied by the German court, which, as demonstrated time and again both by Brad Friedman and by Bev Harris, has been revealed to be a basic truth --- that democracy cannot flourish without transparency.

The fool's errand, Ms. Jolins, is the belief that there is a technological solution to the mischief that can, and often does, arise when we are asked to simply trust private vendors, election officials or their machines to carry out the vital, democracy-sustaining function of vote counting without the immediate oversight of the citizenry.

"Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Brad:
You said that you don't save in Access. When you are adding data to an existing dataset you don't, you are correct. I'm sorry to say that it is possible that Nickolaus did not "save" using Access. If you are creating a query and have added a different data set (not new data to an existing dataset) you need to save the new query to make sure the new data is included in the existing query. This just shows Nickolaus' incompetence and supposed computer skills.
My question on this is not whether the New Berlin numbers were added or not, but whether they were counted twice. All Nickolaus needed to do was find a community that had the correct favorability for Prosser and count those numbers twice. We need to see the numbers across the county not just in New Berlin. Since she had control of all of the numbers on her office computer she could do as she pleased, and no one would know.

How can it possibly be legal to store the only election count on a private computer and to deny the oversight office access?

Immediately impound all voting materials, emails and her machine for this and prior elections. Now that people are looking at this county and that city it comes out there was a prior election where Brookfield has over 97% turnout. 97% turnout. That is more turnout than Australia gets where it is illegal not to vote. Something stinks to high heaven in Brookfield and Waukesha and has for years.