There is NOTHING fishy going on with the 14,000 Brookfield Wisconsin SC votes, here's why .......

[Tx4obama]

1) Folks in Brookfield voted Tuesday.

2) The votes were added up Tuesday evening and the city sent the totals to Kathy Nickolaus the County Clerk Tuesday night.

3) The Brookfield newspaper got the vote totals 'from' the city of Brookfield and posted an article Wednesday.

4) At the County level Kathy Nickolaus realized around noon Wednesday that she didn't have the city of Brookfield in her total for The Waukesha County when she looked at a print out that showed 'all zeros' for the city of Brookfield.

5) Thursday afternoon (before Kathy Nickolaus' press conference) Brookfield CITY Clerk Kris Schmidt said she sent her numbers to the county clerk's office Tuesday night that showed David Prosser with 10,859 votes and JoAnne Kloppenburg with 3,456. She said those numbers did not change in the postmortem she did after the election. "I have no clue what’s going on. she said. "No one has officially told me what’s going on."

6) Thursday late afternoon during the canvassing COUNTY Clerk Kathy Nickolaus held a press conference to try to explain her error of not having Brookfield in county total.

7) Statement Brookfield City Mayor Steve Ponto: “It’s ironic that the vote by the City of Brookfield, which Justice Prosser won with 75%, would have been inadvertently left out of the election count by Waukesha County. That is what we have a vote canvas for and the error was caught. It is important to note that the City’s initial count was confirmed exactly by the City’s own canvas. Our numbers were transmitted accurately to the County. The error was when the County transmitted the numbers to the Associated Press. The City’s voting statistics were correctly posted on the City website on election night.”


It was only a clerical omission error in the 'county total' at the County level - the vote totals at the City of Brookfield have not changed.


Edited to add:
Here's a link to the City of Brookfield's election results page: http://www.ci.brookfield.wi.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1542

[scheming daemons]

1. If all that is true, then Prosser won... no recount is going to add up to 5000+ votes

:-(

[Tx4obama]

2. Yep, it kinda looks that way. Unless they find another city that wasn't added to the totals. n/t

The canvassing resumes in the morning.

[slackmaster]

77. Nobody has won yet! The count isn't finished, and no official result has been announced.

:argh:

[Old and In the Way]

3. As much as I don't like the results, I'm glad that we can attribute it to an honest mistake.

Still, if I'm a Democrat/union worker/teacher in Wisconsin, I'm going to be pretty bitter with a lot of my fellow citizens who voted to approve the political targeting of a large segment of Wisconsin's middle-class. Nothing good will come of this.

Thanks for the concise recap of the important facts.

[PatrynXX]

118. hardly an honest mistake if she lies about how the error happened

an excel problem not access. she needs to be fired nonetheless. But one things for sure, Brookfield will not be on my list for any tourism..

[PatrynXX]

119. The main thing we must remember is

Prosser was suppose to win an obvious landslide. Nobody expected Kloppen to win. Only some media groups as usual pumped it up. Although the fact he is 100 votes off the recount board is "fishy" it doesn't take away from the fake Prosser needs to watch his back more because clearly in that short amount of time he almost lost.

[Rex]

4. So she had no access to the cities voting computers...just her own private

systems. Okay, that makes sense.

[aquart]

5. Can you please link us to the City website that has these totals?

[Tx4obama]

7. Here ya go

Front Page: http://www.ci.brookfield.wi.us/index.aspx

Election Page: http://www.ci.brookfield.wi.us/index.aspx?NID=212

Election Results Page: http://www.ci.brookfield.wi.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1542

[999998th word]

10. It wasnt an 'honest mistake'..

RW radio charlie sykes was bragging about this on wednesday, just more bullshit games .

[brooklynite]

82. Ah, so you take your facts from RW radio hosts?

[kudzu22]

6. Good info on bad result

[slackmaster]

78. There is no result yet.

So there can't be a "bad" one.

[emilyg]

8. Thanks for info.

[Common Sense Party]

9. Facts? We don't need no stinkin' FACTS! n/t

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[vercetti2021]

12. Whatever...

Goes to show that no one will ever learn. This country is borderline stupid because of stupid people. Yeah i'm not to happy tonight now.

[sabrina 1]

13. Why did she wait so long to make the correction?

And isn't it possible that if she omitted the Brookfield numbers from the total, that she omitted other numbers?

At the very least this woman is beyond incompetent and considering her 'system' was criticized already but she stubbornly refused to listen to anyone, I would definitely want a thorough investigation including of her personal computer.

It would be ironic if it turned out to be an ]b]honest mistake this time.

[Tx4obama]

15. Because ..

She couldn't correct it yesterday.
She had to do it today during the canvassing - had something to do with the rules/law of when it can be done and who all had to be there.

[sabrina 1]

17. That doesn't explain why she did not notify the city that their

votes had not been included. Or any of the others who say they had not been told.

[Tx4obama]

19. That is the whole purpose of the canvas. To catch the mistakes and correct them.

The mistake was on her end at the county level and not on the Brookfield end so there really was no reason she would have had to notify them.

[sabrina 1]

20. That's not how they feel about it apparently.

[Tx4obama]

21. Oh? Who are 'they' and what did 'they' say?

The mayor of the city, in his statement, didn't complain about not being notified.

[Time to Barf]

41. a 7,000 vote mistake? I call it extremly suspicious and would like that woman investigated

for electioneering, election fraud, and tampering with the government systems. In short, she needs to be recalled and thrown out on her ass.

[PeaceNikki]

44. It's 14k, not 7k.

A whole city omitted from totals sent to press and caught within first several hours of canvassing.

[alfredo]

56. We still need to check the documents to see when last modified.

[SnakeEyes]

74. Ummm the city that reported

the numbers is saying those are the numbers they submitted to her and posted those numbers on the city website on election night.

[PeaceNikki]

45. She notified the GAB as soon as it was caught.

Around noon on Wednesday.

[Bjorn Against]

108. The director of the GAB says you are wrong about that...

"Because of the attention on vote totals from Brookfield, I am dispatching staff to Waukesha County today to review the business processes and verify the reported results in the election for Supreme Court justice," Kevin Kennedy, director of the state Government Accountability Board, said in a statement.

snip

Kennedy said that he believed Nickolaus, who discovered her error on Wednesday, should have informed him sooner than she did on Thursday. She told him shortly before announcing the mistake at a press conference.

"I would expect as soon as you know you've made a mistake you would disclose it," Kennedy said.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119486574.html

[trueblue2007]

154. put the witch in JAIL

she should be fired. what an incomp !!!!

[WI_DEM]

28. She should have alerted the media as soon as she found the mistake

you don't wait a full day to say 'Oh,we forgot to count the city of Brookfield'.

[PeaceNikki]

46. Why? She told the GAB.

[Bjorn Against]

109. She told them just minutes before her press conference on Thursday, a full 29 hours later

The National Review and a bunch of right-wing bloggers found out before the GAB did.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119486574.html

[PeaceNikki]

110. Article says "shortly", not minutes. Kennedy was on WPR in the 4:00 hour Thurs

And he knew before he started the show. He was on Ben Merens show which they archive (though site had issues after this week's mess) - you can Google it if you want audio.

I "liveblogged" it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=837549#837587

Reply #4 (initially presser was scheduled for 5, changed to 5:30)

PeaceNikki (1000+ posts) Thu Apr-07-11 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. Press conference in 15 minutes. GAB guy on WPR said 14,000 votes found... 8k for Prosser.

hooo boy!!


ETA Ben's show w/Kennedy: http://www.wpr.org/wcast/download-mp3-request.cfm?mp3file=bme110407l.mp3&iNoteID=96721

It's an interesting program and will clear up a lot of misinformation being spread. Yes, it appears that GAB wanted to know sooner and clerk lied about notifying them right away, but it wasn't "minutes" before presser.

One of note starting around 17:00:

Kennedy: "When we do the re-count every ballot gets looked at by a human being and ballots that wouldn't have been read by the machine will be decided by the Board of Canvass"

Merens: "So the canvass is counting of the official tape and the recount is a look at all the ballots that make up that tape?"

Kennedy: "That's correct"

[Bluebear]

14. There are no "city voting statistics", as only Nickolaus' personal computer seems to contain votes

[rufus dog]

16. whoa whoa whoa it's magic!

I need to bookmark this thread!

[Bluebear]

18. Please, there are 7 whole steps laid out for you.

[notesdev]

22. This is what I think is going on

GOP thinks Dems will manufacture votes in Dem-controlled precincts once the people there know how many votes they need to change a lost election into a win. In order to counter that perception, GOP is now playing games with the reporting so there's no way a potential vote manufacturer would know how many to make until it was too late.

We really need to go back to paper, and apply technology intelligently (to add security/verifiability rather than undermine it) rather than replacing secure, verifiable mechanical systems with unverifiable, insecure electronic ones, to restore some trust to the system here. Nobody on either side is trusting the outcome of elections, and that is veryⁿ ( for f(n) = dn/n->∞ ) bad mojo, the kind that precedes a shooting war.

[kudzu22]

25. I think you may be right

It could be some kind of strategery with a cover story of incompetence. I suppose that's better than the other way around.

[rl6214]

38. that's an awefull lot of conspiracy theory there and

if the "Dem-controlled precincts" aren't manufacturing votes to counter their percieved deficiencies then it's a non-issue anyway.

That's like saying I know you know that I know you are going to cheat so I am going to counter what you know I know you are going to do and nobody does anything anyway...now I just confused myself.;-)

[zinnisking]

99. It's a benign theory.

He didn't even say the repubs flipped votes.

He said the clerk intentionally withheld the votes temporarily. Very simple. It's what I thought from the beginning.

[louslobbs]

138. +1000

K&R your comment.

[Junkdrawer]

23. Were the REST of the county's results published election night?

Can anyone provide evidence that the NEW county total is comprised of published-election-night subtotals?

[dems_rightnow]

24. And the rest of the state?

While we're requiring that every district publish results on the internet before they're believable.

[Junkdrawer]

30. Any answers to this? I'll take that as No. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

31. They only publish county totals until certification. Brookfield published their individual #'s Tues

[Junkdrawer]

35. And so if the non-Brookfield votes were tweaked to make a Brookfield sized hole...

Betcha more than a few documents have been forged or recreated and that more are being forged as we speak.

Bring down enough heat and a few low-level functionaries may crack.

[WI_DEM]

26. So the stupid idiot knew Wed and didn't say anything publicly until Thursday?

[Tx4obama]

37. It is not her job to immediately report mistakes to the media ...

it's her job to canvass the numbers, review the numbers with the people working there with her on the 'canvass day' (the day that they can be legally corrected), and then report the official numbers.

[PeaceNikki]

27. Thank you! (from Waukesha County)

[rl6214]

39. Thanks to both you and Tx4Obama

for keeping us up to date and in the know on this.

[Time to Barf]

47. Even if you are from there, you need to begin proceedings to recall Kathy NIckolaus

You will be remiss if you do not get her out of her elected office. She is thoroughly unqualified, unprofessional, and a partisan hack.

She does not belong in County Clerk position and needs to be thrown out.

Then begin indictment proceedings on electioneering, election fraud and tampering with the government systems.

You are not a true Democrat if you do not take proactive action to protect your vote as well as your neighbor's.

I simply do not buy that the suburbs of Miluwaukee can be that red.

Rurals, yes....

[PeaceNikki]

50. She's up for election in 2012 and will answer to the voters. We're working on 8 recall elections now

The GAB is investigating, Kloppenburg's attorneys are investigating, the Democratic Party is investigating. I will wait to see how that and an almost uncertain recount goes. I don't care how you feel about my validity as a "true Democrat". Waukesha County *IS* that red. It just is. Whether you buy it or not. It is.

[onenote]

59. How much time have you spent in Waukesha?

I have family there and I can assure you, its red - very red. I'm not sure where you got the idea that suburbs can't ever be red.

[keroro gunsou]

112. i live in waukesha county.

and yes, it is VERY red. there is a lot of new money here and a whole of i've whole "i've got mine, fuck the rest of you" attitude going around.

[PeaceNikki]

135. We have our share of trust fund babies here in Lake Country, too

[PeaceNikki]

134. Here you go

Pretty red, huh? Not a blue town/city in the mix.



Here's the link to source data: http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/results/2010/fall-general/ward

[gkhouston]

29. The county clerk's "explanation" about the data not being saved is bullshit.

Something isn't right here. Let's see the pollbooks and the ballots.

[Motown_Johnny]

32. we need to recount that county and count the number of signatures

from people who voted in that county


Once that is done we will have a better idea of what happened.



Republican Incompetence or Republican Corruption?


I need more information before I can distinguish between the two.

[PeaceNikki]

33. Full recount will be done. We don't sign to vote.

They ask for our name, asked to verify address, name is crossed off. We're given a # on a piece of paper. We give that # to next person and we get a paper ballot with 2 sets of initials. We then vote and put it into the optical scanner.

[LisaL]

34. Really? You don't think there is anything curious at all?

She doesn't claim she forgot to import the data. Her claim is that she imported the data but somehow it didn't save. Why didn't it save for this particular city only?

[Time to Barf]

49. Access has auto-save so 'she forgot to save' is complete bullshit

Investigate, indict and imprison Kathy Nickolaus for election fraud as well as perjury.

[anneboleyn]

70. This is interesting! I hope this is fully investigated. really. The whole thing is just SO perfect

in terms of producing just the right number of votes needed, etc., that I hope this is looked at very, very closely. Plus doesn't this woman have sort of a shady history with this sort of thing?

[Yo_Mama]

36. Thanks for the local info

I kind of suspected this was human error and not corruption, because vote fraud usually works by adding votes and not losing them, and you don't add votes by losing a whole city at first.

And given Nickolaus' background, it seemed unlikely that she would be trying to swing the election for Kloppenburg.

I'm sure there will be an investigation and recount, but I doubt anything will come of it.

[Time to Barf]

40. No. I will not accept Waukesha County numbers

The reason being that she very well possibly have monkeyed with the final vote tally and submitted it.

If anything else, it should be disqualified. And that woman to resign effective immediately.

Republicans in charge SHOULD never happen - Nickolaus is a fiercely partisan hack from hell.

She is another Katherine Harris.

She is not to be trusted.

She needs to be arrested and thrown into jail right now.

And secure her computer and check it thoroughly.

[DoBotherMe]

160. Exactly

Brookfield's results have been compromised. They have been invalidated by the clerk's actions. Dana ; )

[walldude]

42. So now the question is... would they have allowed these votes to

count if the numbers were reversed?

Walker had already said he would accept the results of the election as long as there were no "found votes" later. Oops.

[PeaceNikki]

48. I don't know about you, but I don't want to disenfranchise a whole city's votes because we think

"they" would. It's wrong no matter which way they go.

[Time to Barf]

51. Sorry, PeaceNikki, I thoroughly reject Wakeusha County's votes

because YOUR country clerk was completely incompetent and a liar, withholding critical information that would tip the scales to Prosser.

And the way she did it is very highly suspicious.

[PeaceNikki]

52. lol, you do that. I will let the investigations and recount play out before I "reject" anything.

[walldude]

54. Me neither... but man it pisses me off knowing damn well

if the numbers were reversed they would find a way to discount them.


Either way they need to get rid of this woman. Not allowing her private vote counting system to be examined? Sorry that just stinks. And while I am reluctantly accepting that this was a mistake I do not accept that one person should be allowed to control the vote count on their office computer.

BTW thanks for all the info you have been providing, it has been keeping me from going off the handle.

[PeaceNikki]

57. Oh, I know and I hear you. And, believe me, this MUST and WILL be thoroughly investigated.

AND, incompetence to that degree is as bad as fraud. That woman is responsible for *MY* vote and I want answers and I want a fine-tooth comb to see if she's made other mistakes and/or actually acting nefariously. This alleged mistake has opened her up to a deep deep dive.
And that is probably her biggest regret in this. If she has so much as forgotten to cross a "t", we're going to know now.

[CreekDog]

43. your story hinges partly on the newspaper article --where's a link for that?

:hi:

[Tx4obama]

53. Here ya go

http://brookfield-wi.patch.com/articles/brookfield-gives-prosser-nearly-11k-votes

[rufus dog]

64. the newspaper link is the local paper

So a local paper reporter in a highly repug area has one reporter who said this. Good enough for me. NOT!

[MadHound]

55. John? John Kerry, is that you?

I amazes me that Democrats, when presented with clear evidence of election fraud and vote tampering, would rather retire quietly and not raise a fuss rather than actually take on the bastards and fight for the office that they were duly elected to.

[TheBigotBasher]

60. Amen to that.

Some of the very people who do not give their own Party an inch are giving this political hack a mile.

If this woman was from the Democratic Party and had done this, after doing a training session for the GOP about what they can get away with she would be in jail.

[rl6214]

96. Yup, I can see it right there, how to win an election by cheating

Come on, I want to win as much as the next guy but you are reaching there.

[Bluebear]

62. YOU SAID IT

[Imajika]

65. Please show the "obvious" evidence of election fraud..

You can't, because there is none - at least yet anyway.

The Democratic member of the canvass, Ramona Kitzinger, AGREED with the new totals.

This is NOT a case of new votes being found, of a machine being hacked, etc. They didn't "find" new votes. The idiot teabagger woman, Nickolaus, did not include the city of Brookfield's results when she reported the grand totals.

Even if this woman was lying about her attempt to "save" it WOULD NOT MATTER. The results from Brookfield were originally reported as 0 no matter what incompetence caused it. Now the votes from this city have been reported and they can not be wished away - nor do I expect you would want to disenfranchise an entire city's worth of voters.

There is NO evidence of election fraud at this time. None.

[fascisthunter]

67. well then, there should be no qualms if we have a little investigation, right?

right

[Imajika]

75. Ofcourse there should be an investigation...

No one is disputing that.

As I understand it the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board is already investigating and will not certify the results until they've determined exactly what happened.

[MadHound]

69. Really?

Looking at what is going on there, I smell something fishy from here. All those votes on her own personal computer, c'mon, pull the other leg.

I say let there be a full and fair investigation, then we can make a determination, what is wrong with that?

[Imajika]

76. There were NO votes on her personal computer..

None. Nickolaus had vote totals on her PC. We are talking about vote totals here. She did not report the correct totals that were reported to her.

When she submitted the totals she did not include Brookfield.

"I say let there be a full and fair investigation, then we can make a determination, what is wrong with that?"

Nothing. That is already happening.

The problem is people are screaming voter fraud when there is no evidence to support such allegations. There IS evidence of incompetence.

[Bluebear]

81. And that means "fishy". So the OP is wrong saying NOTHING fishy is going on!

[tomp]

124. i've been asking if anyone knows the wisconsin law....

....on procedures for the chain of voting data. it would seem at the very least that that chain was broken and that a violation of election law was committed.

at the very least an investigation is called for PRIOR to certification of the election.

i find it odd that kloppenburg has not CITED THE LAW on this matter.

[ProSense]

66. What does

the OP have to do with Kerry?

[MadHound]

68. The 2004 election fraud in 2004 in Ohio,

It was the Greens who were pushing for an investigation into the fraud, an investigation that could have potentially put Kerry into office.

The Kerry camp sat on its hands initially, and only got involved when the Greens were making them look bad.

[Tx4obama]

83. There is NO evidence of election fraud or vote tampering. The City of Brookfield counted the votes

and transmitted the totals to the County Clerk.
The County Clerk made an error by ommission by not adding their numbers to the county total.
The reason votes/totals are canvassed after election day is to catch errors.
The error was caught and corrected at the county level.

There is NO evidence or even any reports that anything fishy happened IN the City of Brookfield.
If you know of any then go ahead and provide a link.

[Logical]

58. Very clear post. We don't like it but it was a mistake. n-t

[Bluebear]

115. lol

[Enthusiast]

61. I will never believe there

was no subterfuge. We're talking about filthy Republicans here.

[drm604]

63. If it can be verified independently then I guess that settles it.

I don't like it but it appears to be legit.

[Broderick]

71. Don't give up so easily

Wait til they investigate.

[hayu_lol]

72. She is a county official...

should not be using private equipment--should have been using county equipment.

The news of this, as evidenced by several threads here on DU, was released to Repugnant sites/organizations well in advance of the public release. These two items are enough proof that all is not kosher in this individuals office.

[drm604]

95. No argument that she behaved badly

but apparently her numbers are in line with the actual counts. That doesn't absolve her and she needs to be investigated. If she's been keeping data on her home computer then she should at a minimum lose her job.

The difference is still small enough that I'd like to see a recount.

[Johonny]

79. If

I mean I willing to allow it might be true. It's a horrible showing for this person, who clearly should never have this position again... ever. But ghee excuse us all if we wait to believe the story until it is check and rechecked by people that have legal authority over this matter. I know Republicans wouldn't blindly believe a story like this, I sure wouldn't believe it coming from a third world dictatorship, so hey PROVE to me the story is true. Should liberals feel bad if they don't believe this story. No.

[drm604]

97. No question that she doesn't belong in that job.

And yes, there needs to be a recount. But it doesn't appear to be as clear cut as we all (myself included) thought it was yesterday. If Tx4obama is correct, then the counts she reported for Brookfield match what was posted on the Brookfield website on election night, and she didn't change the numbers. I'm not going to continue crying election fraud if I'm shown to be wrong.

Show me that the city of Brookfield also posted wrong numbers, or show me that they printed different numbers, and I'll cry foul.

[Johonny]

113. me personally show you?

I can't. I or no citizen has such ability. We lack access to the real information. It is up to the authorities with jurisdiction over these things. At this point it is impossible for any citizen to prove things are good, or bad. It's out of our hands. Once again I sure don't blame DUers for not believing election officials straight up. It sounds like the apparatus is already in motion. We'll see what happens.

[drm604]

114. No, not you personally. Maybe I worded that badly.

I meant that I want to see the numbers. I know that you personally don't have them any more than I do.

I'm really confused by this whole business. Even Rachel Maddow is saying that the numbers appear to be legitimate but, like me (and you), she thinks the whole business doesn't smell right.

I think what may have happened is that they held back some numbers so that they could manipulate them if necessary but then it turned out not to be necessary.

One thing I want to know is if we know for a fact that the PDF Tx4obama linked to really was posted on election night and really showed the numbers it's currently showing.

[quakerboy]

117. If it can be, we should wait until it is so verified

before making any assumptions of what is or is not legit.

Or so says the inner skeptic. At this point, pre-investigation, who is to say whether her "oops" goes further than yet discovered, for instance adding the brookfield votes in in some other area of her spreadsheet rather than where they belonged, and now re entering them on discovery of the empty column, thus doubling their votes.


A lot of the most agitated do not appear to be paying attention to the facts as reported. But a lot of the least agitated do not appear to be paying attention to the appearance of, at the least, incompetence from a known RW hack with a history of being involved in shady situations. So let those of us of good faith continue to push for the most independent and thorough investigation of this issue possible, combined with a very thorough hand recount, and see what the truth of the whole thing is before conceding or proclaiming anything.

[Little Star]

126. Bingo! Every vote in that whole county needs to be re-counted!

It would be so easy to add the brookfield votes into some other areas of her spreadsheet(leaving one column blank)then re-enter those numbers upon the 'discovery' of a 'empty column'. Oops! Just a computer glitch!

That would certainly double those numbers for Prosser.

[Bluebear]

171. +

[louslobbs]

73. Mark, an IT specialist seems to disagree with you, here's his post this morning:

markpkessinger (514 posts) Fri Apr-08-11 12:12 PM
Original message
Wisconsin clerk's explanation - MAJOR RED FLAGS
Edited on Fri Apr-08-11 12:23 PM by markpkessinger
I am an IT specialist for a large law firm with a number of years' experience in designing and coding Access and SQL Server databases, as well as in evaluating data security for highly sensitive data. When I heard the clerk's explanation, in her press conference, of how the votes were supposedly imported but not "saved," my antennae immediately went up.

First, Access has a built-in autosave feature, whereby if a user imports data into a table from an external source (such as an Excel spreadsheet, which the clerk claims she imported from), or even if the user is manually entering data into an existing table, and then simply closes the database, Access automatically saves the data, and does not prompt the user to "save." A user is prompted to "save" when a completely new database object (such as a table, query, VBA module or report) is created, or when the design of an existing object is altered. If the cursor moves to a new record, the record the cursor was previously on is automatically saved. If a table or even the whole database is abruptly closed, the data is still automatically saved. If you import data and then your computer suddenly crashes, requiring a restart, or the power goes off, the imported data will still be there.

Now, if one is a fairly sophisticated Access user with some experience in writing underlying VBA code, one could conceivably create a macro or VBA procedure that would perform data validation requiring the user to then hit a "save" button (and discarding the data if the button were not clicked), but I didn't get the impression, based on the kinds of terminology she used to describe what may have happened, that the clerk has anywhere near that level of coding expertise. In fact, she claimed that she "may have turned the macros off"; but if she did that, then the database would have defaulted back to native Access functionality, which would mean the autosave feature would again be active.

Second, the clerk claims to have put all the data onto a personal computer in her office to which only she has the password. She said she did this in order to provide greater security of the data. But data security, especially when dealing with data as sensitive as votes, involves more than merely guarding against inappropriate or unauthorized access. It also entails making sure that at least one other person -- someone who is independent of the primary user -- can gain access in the event an unforeseen event (such as the sudden incapacitation or death of the primary user) should arise. From the standpoint of data security, it is just as important to ensure that all appropriate parties have the access they may need under any circumstance that can reasonably be anticipated as it is to protect the data from unauthorized access. Also, a database storing data a sensitive as votes would be expected to implement complete record-level change tracking, such that for each ballot record in the database, a complete history could be retrieved, for each ballot, of the dates and times the record was modified and the user who performed the modification -- in other words, an audit trail. But if data validity and security are of paramount importance -- and in this case they certainly are -- then the last thing you want is for data to be accessible by one individual with no ability to independently monitor that individual's activities within the database.

Finally, and this is related to my second point above, Access and Excel are in any case wholly inappropriate containers in which to store sensitive voting data, owing to the fact that their "back ends" are fairly easily accessed and tampered with, and their lack of native user-level activity tracking and record-level change tracking. (That functionality can be created, but again, it would require someone with a pretty advanced knowledge of VBA coding.)

The technical inconsistencies, taken together with the fact that the clerk just "happened" to find almost the exact number of votes not only to hand the election to Prosser, but to insulate him against the threat of an automatic recount, and the rather troubled history this clerk seems to have had in the past concerning matters of data security, says to me that this entire incident is suspicious enough to warrant a very thorough investigation.
Mark P. Kessinger

[SnakeEyes]

80. Ok then explain this...

the city reported their results on election night on their website. They match the numbers being discussed now. Obviously these are Brookfields numbers that were transmitted to her and she screwed up in not including them in the count.

[Tx4obama]

84. Bingo! That's correct :) n/t

[louslobbs]

111. I can't, so now I'll just wait for the investigation and thank you for that comment, it did one

thing for me, slowed me down in my belief, that this was rigged. But this is what happens when a person like this partisan county clerk has no integrity. Her past is tainted and her processes are questionable so an investigation will ease my mind in this case. Your point is well taken and I might be totally wrong on this matter and if I am, I will apologize for jumping the gun and becoming emotional instead of waiting for all of the information to come in. I still want to see the long form vault copy of the city totals! Anything less is grounds for suspicion.

Lou

[Ellipsis]

148. Explain why opscans can't always count right. There's software upsteam of the tape.

[Tx4obama]

86. Nickolaus' Access program has NOTHING to do with the accurracy of the numbers that

the City of Brookfield transmitted.
The City of Brookfield counted the votes, tallied them, and transmitted the totals to the County Clerk, and even posted them on the city's website on election night.

The County Clerk screwed up by not making sure the Brookfield numbers had been added properly.

Did Nickolaus screw up? YES.

Did Brookfield screw up? NO

The Brookfield numbers at the local level are correct and they will stand.

[louslobbs]

105. we will see after the investigation, but thank you for clarifying for me your post.

[Shrek]

123. This post should be resubmitted as an OP in its own thread

So more people would be likely to see it.

It's concise and eliminates a lot of the confusion, speculation, and misinformation I'm seeing.

[Little Star]

127. And if those #'s were put in somewhere else and the Brookfield

column left empty then this explanation means nothing. Just a thought.

There are re-counts for reasons.

Just because something appears legit sometimes it is not. Ask Bernie Madoff, he was a master at making things look legit.

[formernaderite]

143. thanks for clearing that up

and putting it in language I believe everyone can understand!

[Bluebear]

162. NOTHING fishy!

:silly:

[Bluebear]

172. NOTHING!

[SlimJimmy]

163. Finally, someone who can discuss Access intelligently. As you said

the VBA procedure could have been written in such a manner as to force a manual save of the data. I don't think she ever said she actually wrote the program. So if that was the case (and she was simply an end-user) a more experienced programmer was probably involved in writing the actual code. Secondly, no votes were stored in that database, just tallies. So I don't think an extremely secure platform would have been necessary anyway.

[Zorra]

85. But isn't it possible that something funky was done electronically?

Or is this totally beyond possibility?

Because the had the vote totals stored or saved or whatever it is on her personal computer I believe.

[Tx4obama]

87. No.

Because on canvassing day the totals at the local precincts are compared to the totals that are received at the county clerk's office.

That is way there is canvassing of the votes/totals AFTER election day - to catch any errors that there might be.

[tahrir]

89. not true

this error alone indicates that there may be other errors in the system, e.g. the accurate recording of the voters intent, for a start.

systems that are used to trac financial transactions would never tolerate this kind of variance.

the system definitely needs to be improved, otherwise no one can be certain of anything it reports, and is wide open to all kinds of manipulation.

[Tx4obama]

90. The issue is the comparing local precinct numbers to numbers the county clerk received

and visa-versa.

[tahrir]

91. It is about the entire process - this error actually highlights that the process is seriously flawed

and therefore no one can have confidence in it, and it should be investigated.

[Tx4obama]

92. Well, not really. The process worked because the error was found during the canvas

The canvas is part of the 'process'.
The canvas is in place to catch any errors, and in this case the error was caught.

If the error had not been caught in the canvass (or after the votes had been certified) THEN the process would have been flawed, but since the error was caught during the part of the process (the canvassing) that is in place to catch errors it proves that the process is not flawed.

[tahrir]

93. that error revealed a system that relies on processes which are fragile and highly suspect

therefore i have no confidence in the final product of such a system, and neither should anyone else.

a serious investigation should be under taken immediately with the aim to bring the system up to a standard that includes a verifiable audit trail which ensures that all voters intent has been accurately recorded, and tallied.

[rl6214]

101. There is an audit trail

The wisconsin voting system leaves a paper trail. All votes are done on a paper ballot which is then fed into an optical scanner. They can count every paper ballot by hand, and should.

[tahrir]

104. good, so lets see if the system is able to maintain it with integrity and lets verify this vote

[Bluebear]

164. indeed

[dw7500]

166. Some places in Wisconsin use touch screens

Which are hackable without leaving any sort of audit trail.

I was offered the choice of touch screen or paper ballot in my precinct. I did paper, of course.

[PeaceNikki]

168. Those machines print paper, as required by law

[eowyn_of_rohan]

169. malicious code can be downloaded into the DRE system software

DRE prints paper in the form of a cash register type tape ...

http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=10998&locid=47

The Complaint of Voter Action Wisconsin by Mike B. Wittenwyler, complainent, AGAINST the State Elections Board
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
5.37, 5.40, 5.91, AND THE WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION, ART III, SEC 3

14 The subject DRE systems in particular have well-known, well documented security flaws that leave the machines vulnerable to election fraud through software tampering. These problems are of a nature that could afflict any DRE model, and include the following:

A. INADEQUATE LOCKS: The locks on DRE systems are woefully inadequate and easily circumvented. See Ariel J Feldman, J Alex Halderman and Edward W. Felten, Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine (Sept 13, 2006)

B MALICIOUS CODE: Once the lock has been circumvented, malicious code can be downloaded into the DRE system software, altering how the votes are tabulated without detection by the voter and without altering the voter verified paper audit trail ("VVAPI" See Ariel J Feldman, J, Alex.

C, SPREADING THE INFECTION: Once a machine is infectedm, the malicious cods can be passed from machine to machine through the memory cards, infecting countless other machines without circumventing the lock, See Ariel J Feldman, J Alex Halderman and Edward W. Felten, Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine (Sept 13, 2006)

D UNDETECTABLE CODE: There is no way to ensure detection of a malicious code. The GAO has concluded that malicious code can be present in a system and evade testing. GAO, Elections: Federal Effots to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems are Under Way but Key Actitivies need to be Completed (Sept 2005)

[Little Star]

128. Yep!

[tahrir]

88. the system seems VERY fishy to me simply by the fact that this oversight occurred

the system is definitely not sound, and considering the sensitive nature of the data, our votes, I am totally disgusted and have 0 confidence in the accurate recording of the voters intent.

this has been a problem since at least 2000, and it is sad to see that nothing has improved since then.

we need a major overhaul of the system that is responsible for recording our votes, beginning with removing it from the control of private industry that use closed, non transparant systems, with no audit trail.

until then, everything about it is FISHY.

[Imagevision]

94. Reagan; "Verify-Verify-Verify! I don't believe everything I read!

[yellowcanine]

98. I want to see the long form vault copy of the city totals!

Anything less is grounds for suspicion.

[drm604]

100. Do we know for a fact that that PDF was posted on Tuesday night?

And do we know for a fact that it hasn't been changed since then?

I'm very willing to be shown wrong, and I accepted what you're saying at first glance, but now I'm thinking back to other times posted election numbers were changed after the fact.

Hopefully there will be a recount.

[karynnj]

102. Great summary

My only question is how does she remain employed given her repeated - embarrassing to her bosses - errors.

[PeaceNikki]

107. She was elected.

She'll face a vote again in 2012.

[Ford_Prefect]

103. This is the same pattern they used in Ohio and other states like North Carolina.

They alter the vote in several ways and then make a show of a "visible" mistake or error to mis-direct the press toward a situation they already control. Standard Operating Procedure for magicians is to make you think you are watching what is happening while something else is actually going on. In North Carolina we had several "hardware" failures which conveniently dumped the votes of thousands. The final results made it look as if the Republicans had won by a margin slightly larger than would cause or support a full recount. In that situation the data trail was erased.

What may have happened in Wisconsin is that the vote was adjusted elsewhere and the "Brookfield flub" by Kathy Nickolaus was planned to distract anyone from looking too hard at all the other numbers. It could guarantee that anyone raising the issue of accurate numbers would be forced to use "Brookfield" as the reference point rather than recounting the numbers more broadly.

Have no doubt that they can do it AND would do it: They can and have done previously. The real question is did they do it in Wisconsin and how can we prove the numbers are real or not. As an IT person I know how it could have been done and sadly it not hard to do.

What looks suspect to me is how the information about it was handled and who "knew" about it before the "correction" was made, particularly the RW press leaks.

The questions I would raise are why did she "need" to do any of the things she claims she did, why change her story so many times, and who can prove that anything she claims to have done actually happened or in the order she says it did? Not to mention asking who coached her on it?

[lonestarnot]

106. Haven't I heard this before? Sounds very fucking familiar.

[GreenTea]

116. This republican hack has done this over & over each time the republicans have benefitted

She worked for the fucker Prosser, she's a computer scam artist, she is a hardcore republican fascist and redundantly, a liar as ALL republicans are....and all that I read from your link is more bullshit neatly packaged and pre-prepared!

[B Calm]

120. The CONS have this election fraud down to a fine art!

[uponit7771]

121. ****VOTING AGE TURNOUT WAS NOT 50% IN THAT CITY******* OBVIOUS FRAUD

....

14000 votes would mean a turn out of 50% of ALL voting age people in that city, someone fucked up on the VOTING AGE number when they committed the fraud. 14000 is 33% of the TOTAL population of that city which falls in line with the average voter turnout of registered voters in that county not voting age people.

What 40k population city in America has a 50% voting age (not less registered voter) turnout for a judgeship?

[kudzu22]

122. Call me when the voter turnout exceeds 100% of registered voters

For a hot race like this, 50% is definitely within the margin of believability.

[pintobean]

125. Brookfield's totals, turnout are consistent

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119519294.html

[PeaceNikki]

137. lol

Here's the link to source data: http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/results/2010/fall-general/ward

[fasttense]

129. Yeah, right, whatever you want to believe.

A RepubliCON activist who has a history of criminal fraud and 13 years experience in voter data manipulation, suddenly comes up with enough votes to put her former boss over the top and (with a cherry on top) stop a state-funded recount.

And we are all suppose to believe her and anyone who backs her up because the numbers on a spread sheet on another site now look kinda right.

Yeah, right and Obama was born in Kenya, and there's no such thing as man caused global climate change, and a little radiation and oil with your seafood is good for you.

[badtoworse]

130. The kettle calling the pot black

You've apparently drawn a conclusion without considering all the facts. She didn't "come up" with any votes - they were always there.

[Bluebear]

140. lol

[sulphurdunn]

131. Here's how it works.

You have your Katherine Harris in place to count votes. You hold back votes until you see how close the election is. If it isn't close or your guy wins without them and their addition changes nothing, then you say oops! and declare them or maybe not because it doesn't matter. Either way no harm is done. If the oppositions wins by a narrow margin you withhold the totals until they can be tweeked to throw the outcome the other way, then you discover the missing votes and say oops! What I find most disturbing about this is that people who accept the fact that Republicans would lie and manipulated information to start a war don't believe they'd lie and manipulate data to steal a high stakes election. And of course, anyone who speaks out against such outrages is always dismissed as a conspiracy theorist no matter how many times they are proven right after the fact.

[pintobean]

132. The votes were

there, counted and published on election night. That puts a huge hole in your theory.

[sulphurdunn]

133. Well hell, in that case,

since this was all done properly and since vote rigging is such a serious allegation, there shouldn't be a problem with locking everything down, impounding everyone's computer (personal and otherwise), calling in the nations leading experts on computer hacking and having a federal criminal investigation into the entire matter. The results would certainly finish off my theory and vindicate yours as well as remove any cloud of doubt. Don't you think?

[PeaceNikki]

136. Or we just could count the paper ballots?

Which will be done.

[louslobbs]

139. I'm not throwing out anymore hyperbole, I've said enough BS out of emotion, I will now wait for the

investigation and vote count like PeaceNikki to take place and present the facts of this situation. I still have my stories about it, but that's all they are, stories.
Lou

[Rex]

141. I am in the same boat, I cannot find any way to argue against nikkis

statements and will tell my paranoid mind to GIVE IT A REST and wait and see.

[louslobbs]

142. Same here Rex, but it's nice to know I can still check myself and stop the madness lol

Lou

[sulphurdunn]

144. Jesus, We waited for the courts and the

recounts to handle the 2000 debacle in Florida. Everyone with a three digit IQ knew the same bastards stole the 2004 election in Ohio. By the time you finish being reasonable they'll have stolen this election too, and the organized labor movement will take a hit from which it may never recover. What in the hell is the matter with you people? Don't you ever learn anything? Don't you see patterns in similar outcomes? Will you always be so credulous when the voice of authority makes its self-serving pronouncements? Wake up goddamn it and think for yourselves! There are enough smoking guns in this to delay any certification of the election and to warrant keeping anyone from the state of Wisconsin out of anything to do with discovering what happened there!

[louslobbs]

145. You're preaching to the choir here my friend, all of my posts speak about how I feel, I feel just

just as you do. I have been on attack mode for 2 days, I guess I just needes a break. I am with you 100% though and your post just stirs the emotion back up in my being. I'll just say thank you, being quiet never solved any of the problems in this country. The squeaky wheel get oiled, so i guess I'll keep squeaking until I drop dead. all the best,
Lou

[sulphurdunn]

146. Thank God for you!

This is class war, not a gentleman's disagreement. It's not about true or false or right or wrong. It is about win or loose and nothing else. The Republicans know that and have known that since the '70s. That's why they've been able to shape the direction of our politics to the detriment of the American people and to the incalculable misery of millions of people around the world. I don't much give a damn who actually won the supreme court election in Wisconsin, neither do the Republicans. All that matters is who sits on the bench after the smoke clears. The Democrats have already declared victory in this race. The sudden appearance of a winning margin too great to warrant a recount is an issue the Democrats can beat like a drum and then shove up the Republican's asses. They must not concede defeat no matter what!

[louslobbs]

149. Thank you my friend.

[Tx4obama]

147. Here's a link to an article that everyone should read

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/09/wisconsin-election-bombshell_n_847000.html

[sulphurdunn]

158. In 2000 the Press decided

that exit polling was an unreliable means of predicting electoral outcomes after Bush supposedly won the popular vote and the result was contradicted by the exit polls. They justified this by claiming that Republican voters were less likely to talk to pollsters than were Democrats. Claiming statistical anomaly and clerical error to overturn the initial determination of this election is even less credible and is a crime in progress against the Democratic voters of Wisconsin.

[Bluebear]

150. Here's a link everyone should read: Rep. Baldwin {D, WI} Asks Feds To Investigate Waukesha Co.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4807513

[ClassWarrior]

151. Why are you trying to close down discussion of this?

Why aren't you prepared to wait till the investigation before you give the Rape-Publicans a pass for suspicious behavior by a party operative who's behaved suspiciously before?

Hmmmmm?...

NGU.

[Tx4obama]

153. The vote total in question was 'tallied' in Brookfield.

There are no reports of any misconduct in Brookfield.
The City of Brookfield counted their votes and transmitted the total to the county.
This whole thing is nothing more than a county clerk making an error of omission, catching the error on canvas day, and then correcting the error.

If you have evidence of fraud at the local level in the city Brookfield then please present it.

And as far as the part of your comment insinuating that I am trying to close down discussion - that is not true. I posted on a 'discussion board' in order to 'discuss' the issue.

[ClassWarrior]

155. There's plenty fishy going on in Waukesha, though. And I know the facts of the case full well...

...thankyouverymuch.

So how does the declaration that "there is NOTHING fishy going on" encourage "discussion" exactly?

:eyes:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

156. Why, by the way, are you trying to distort matters? Anyone who understands anything...

...about the case understands that the alleged misconduct didn't happen in Brookfield. It happened in Waukesha.

Yet you say, "There are no reports of any misconduct in Brookfield." Why the misdirection?

NGU.

[Tx4obama]

157. Because the whole issue is about the City of Brookfield's vote total.

The vote total in Brookfield is today the same as it was on election night, therefore it is the correct number and should be added to the grand total. That is why there is canvassing before the certification of the votes - to catch errors and correct them - that is exactly what has happened in this case.

It is not misdirection. And a clerical error of omission that was caught and rectified on canvas day does not equate to misconduct.

[ClassWarrior]

159. Agreed. But there's still something stinky going on in the Waukesha County seat.

Stinky seat. Heh-heh...

NGU.

[Bluebear]

161. !

[midnight]

152. Two thoughts on your theory ..... First are you an I.T.

specialist in voting problems? The reason I wonder this is because after listening to a few being interviewed on Brad Blog this morning, one who is a Republican, said this explanation of human error doesn't add up...also other I.T. specialists listening to Waukesha Co. Clerks press conference couldn't believe what she was saying.....


My second thought about your theory is that Brookfield was asked twice by Waukesha Co. Clerk and they were asked the second time to place numbers differently... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=186x33565

[dw7500]

165. Here's the Big picture

We're missing the point here.

If the clerk is willing to play shenanigans with the vote tallying, then what is stopping her from playing shenanigans with the vote counting?

How many of the precincts in the county use hackable touch screen technology?

If she's not willing to let the investigators look in her computer for programs to pre-determine the vote percentages on the hackable touch screens, then that's all the more reason why that computer should be impounded.

[TurningPointTime]

167. Why were we outspent in this election?

Has anyone asked that?

We were outspent what? 1 to 2 million?

Bold Progressives alone raised over a million dollars and I thought I read somewhere the greater Wisconsin Committee raised over three million.

Now maybe these groups are saving most of that for the recalls, but we shouldn't have been out spent as much as we were.

[Bluebear]

170. Welcome to DU!