BREAKING: Computer Error Could Give Prosser 7,381 More Votes, Victory

BREAKING: Computer Error Could Give Prosser 7,381 More Votes, Victory

April 7, 2011 5:29 P.M. By Christian Schneider
After Tuesday night’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election, a computer error in heavily Republican Waukesha County failed to send election results for the entire City of Brookfield to the Associated Press. The error, revealed today, would give incumbent Supreme Court Justice David Prosser a net 7,381 votes against his challenger, attorney Joanne Kloppenburg. On Wednesday, Kloppenburg declared victory after the AP reported she finished the election with a 204-vote lead, out of nearly 1.5 million votes cast.

On election night, AP results showed a turnout of 110,000 voters in Waukesha County — well short of the 180,000 voters that turned out last November, and 42 percent of the county’s total turnout. By comparison, nearly 90 percent of Dane County voters who cast a ballot in November turned out to vote for Kloppenburg.

Prior to the election, Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus was heavily criticized for her decision to keep the county results on an antiquated personal computer, rather than upgrade to a new data system being utilized statewide. Nickolaus cited security concerns for keeping the data herself — yet when she reported the data, it did not include the City of Brookfield, whose residents cast nearly 14,000 votes.

More:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/264209/breaking-computer-error-give...

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Michael Moore's twitter feed has been nothing short of comedy gold. And what's making things even more delicious is that there are Dems currently involved in the process agreeing with the validity of the new numbers.

Good news on top of GREAT news. I'm hearing the beginnings of the Last Gasps of Corrupt Union/Democrat Party games. At our (literal) expense. Will be a fine day to see them fade into nothingness!! Pay for your own damn pension and insurance like the rest of us!! Just have to get thru their whining, screaming, destruction and hate talk first. Bye, bye unions. Good riddance.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

...the article says the Associated Press didn't get the numbers. It doesn't say that the board of election or the state agency counting the votes (whatever the system in WI) didn't get the numbers...

So why is this such a 'problem' for some people?

I'm not saying that the system of sharing information with the media couldn't be revised/corrected - but the media's declaration of 'winner' isn't the final word on the matter. And if the system in WI is similar to Ohio's, the votes have to be certified in some manner by the elections agency before the actual winner is official.

"So why is this such a 'problem' for some people?"

This is a problem because they did not get their desired end state.

This is the same reason they're against things such as showing an ID to vote. Showing an ID is a normal part of operating in today's society. It would give voters more faith that their vote is being counted and would help to prevent things such as this (scanning/recording IDs of voters is a faster way to tally the voters so if there are huge statistical deviations in the numbers voting it would be red flagged).

Yet they're against this because it's easier to throw out votes and defraud voters after the fact when using an antiquated and ineffective system as this case has demonstrated.

MikeyA

We were obviously conned into spending many federal billions in order to "upgrade" election systems across the nation, if this sort of thing can happen this easily.

Maybe you should read the article

"Prior to the election, Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus was heavily criticized for her decision to keep the county results on an antiquated personal computer, rather than upgrade to a new data system being utilized statewide. Nickolaus cited security concerns for keeping the data herself — yet when she reported the data, it did not include the City of Brookfield, whose residents cast nearly 14,000 votes."

This was the county clerk acting on her own behalf and has nothing to do with "spending many federal billions in order to "upgrade" election systems across the nation".

MikeyA

Maybe you should learn English or try to understand what I said.

We spent billions to upgrade systems from paper-based ones to computer-based ones. And their reliability just didn't increase. In fact, their reliability decreased, since often there's no way to sensibly audit a recount. A "recount" in many cases is just pulling the files again and then totaling them up again. If the files themselves had been falsified, then there's no way to track that.

We exchanged our own manual balloting systems for computerized ones. And yet we still have errors like this, even in Lucas County. We were conned. The major developers of election systems benefited, we just ended up poorer, and our elections are literally no more reliable than before.

I'll pump all this through the Babelfish translator if you find my English-based explanation too difficult to follow. Just say the word.

I understand perfectly. You asked how could this happen when we're spending money on upgrades to prevent this.

The article states that the County Elections official kept the tally on an old outdated computer. It had absolutely nothing to do with "computer-based" systems. Regardless of how the votes were counted via paper or computer the fact is the problem comes from the official's deviation from protocol. Not upgrades.

That can happen in a paper or paperless system. If someone deviates from the standard then problems will most likely arise.

MikeyA

Mikey is correct

The elections board had the right numbers.....the AP didnt...

Has nothing to do with the equipment.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Then you're still not understanding. How many times do I have to mention the billions of taxpayer money that were spent to make the system more reliable? And it turned out to be even less reliable? I warned people back then that tossing billions at Sequoia, ESS and Diebold would not fix a single problem. The real problem was that voters in Florida just can't read.

If we're going to have the same election frauds and mistakes, then we need to go back to the cheaper paper systems. I'll take the same fraud, for less. Of course, I'm not a modern capitalist ravager like Diebold, so nobody's going to listen to me.

What part the AP HAD THE WRONG NUMBERS dont you understand?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/04/08/ap-failing-update-pro...

Blame the AP for misreporting the facts..

Gee....why would do that?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

The unreliability of upgrading elections to digital systems in the USA has been well documented by blackboxvoting.org and other such groups. That part of my complaint is valid, and is the core point. Why don't YOU understand that?

If someone doesn't use the system as intended you can't blame the system.

I can spend TRILLIONS and make a perfect system. If someone doesn't use it the way it's designed you're going to have problems.

For instance. Lets say I want to make cars safer. So I improve the airbags. Yet if someone decides to drive their car into the lake you can't blame the airbags for not saving them when they drown.

No matter how much you'd spend on making airbags safer you will still get deaths because airbags aren't made to keep me from trying to turn my car into a submarine.

MikeyA

If someone doesn't use the system as intended you can't blame the system.

Oh yes I can, when those systems are demonstrably less reliable, at literally astronomical added costs for acquiring them.

If we're going to have prevailing fraud and misuse, then we should have invoked fiscal conservatism. If our systems have to suck the most ass, they should cost the least amount per anal portion consumed.

"Oh yes I can, when those systems are demonstrably less reliable, at literally astronomical added costs for acquiring them."

In this case how was the system unreliable? The only thing broken here was the person who decided to break protocol. You can't fix stupid.

MikeyA

You design systems with cross checking. This is basic auditing, guy. Stop pretending it even requires innovation to achieve.

Basic auditing can't be done if the human doesn't enter in the numbers.

You can't count if there's nothing to count.

Everyone agrees it is HUMAN ERROR. Even the person who committed the error. End of story.

MikeyA

You clearly don't understand election procedures. I suspect you don't understand any particular high-reliability system at all.

The auditing involves more than counts. It involves confirmations of areas submitted. And then those areas are checked in case they are set to zero, among other checks.

Hence in a real election system (i.e. one not designed to commit election fraud), submitting a zero count would raise an alarm almost immediately.

And election auditing should include criminal penalties for failing to submit information inside each count or confirmation, to provide strong motivation to avoid that "error" you claimed can exist. If I was a courier and was handed deposits to then take to a bank, I would face serious penalties for failing to deliver all the items and all the contents of each item. Banks can do it. Why can't election officials? (There's some irony there, since Diebold (an ATM maker) makes election systems.)

You need to stop covering for the usual American inabilities for basic human functions. We're failing as a civilization because of people like you who keep making excuses for what's literally inexcusable.

The more I study the election industry, the more I become convinced that the manufacturers believe that each local political machine is the real customer, hence they leave their designs with select loopholes for committing election fraud. The voter is never seen as the actual customer.

GZ

GZ you clearly have not ready anything about the instance discussed in this thread.

"The more I study the election industry, the more I become convinced that the manufacturers believe that each local political machine is the real customer, hence they leave their designs with select loopholes for committing election fraud. The voter is never seen as the actual customer."

This paragraph alone highlights that you are not familiar with this case. There was no problem with the machines.

The problem lied with the tally which was done by an elections official outside of the recommended way to tally. There was no problem with the machines as you infer.

Independent investigators have already begun their investigation but have commented that it doesn't appear to be anything than human error.

Backing up that claim is that when compared with turnout rates of surrounding and similar counties the new numbers bring turnout in line with what was seen throughout the state when before it seemed a significant outlier. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/09/wisconsin-election-bombshell_n_...

And since you and I know that the numbers don't lie.

So there we have it. Human error from tallying the votes outside of the system. No actual problems with the counting machines themselves.

If you have anything regarding this case to dispute it then I invite you to post it.

MikeyA

With equal clarity, you refuse to understand my point. So I'm going to be even more blunt.

Our election systems are essentially designed to perform election fraud, as each election district is run by a cartel or political machine that uses its control of the elections illegally to secure its position.

After the 2000 fiasco in Florida, the Congress was pushed into the usual American mistake of allocating billions with great urgency but with little oversight or thought. And Sequoia, ESS and Diebold (the 3 major manufacturers) were right there in the thick of it, just like our zinc companies are right in the thick of it every time we try to put a stop to the penny (which is 97% zinc).

So pushed by all these billions, the American system of crime went into full action, and each election district contracted with Sequoia, ESS and Diebold, and with a wink-wink and nod-nod, those three manufacturers started to churn out electronic systems that were designed to commit vote fraud easily and without detection.

Beverly Harris of Black Box Voting has reported extensively on the effects of this, if not the actual causes. She's had enough election officials break the law to try to shut her up, so I don't blame her for not telling the full story. But I'm going to tell it.

So now after spending dozens of billions of free money from that always-screwed sucker, the U.S. taxpayer, our previously great land is now covered by elections that we can't trust any longer.

That's why its even possible to have such "errors", and it's why such errors take place and still nobody goes to fucking jail for it. And this still happens in Lucas County. The Blade even reports on it, luckily for us. But I don't really know why they bother, since nothing gets done about it.

How much more plainly do I have to spell it out for you, Mike? A system that allows such an error to take place, is a system that's DESIGNED to permit such an error. A Human walking around and entering data is still part of the system, and all election systems must take Human operators and couriers into account.

And if nobody goes to jail for the "error", then there's another part of the system, called REGULATION, which is supposed to put a stop to frauds and errors too -- but that's not working either, and that's also quite clearly by design.

OK

OK it's clear that you still are not referring to this case at all.

You're still talking about machines and companies. They were not the problem in this case.

If you want to discuss big picture debates about election procedures that's fine I'll have that discussion in another thread but this thread is about a specific instance.

Please stick to the case the thread is about. Everything else is just a distraction and is taking away from the topic of this thread.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.