“Wisconsin is no Minnesota” (Psssst: neither is Connecticut)

Brad Friedman covers issues in the Wisconsin recount, so far. <read>

Many of the problems are similar to those we are led to “expect” in states like Connecticut:

  • Bags not sealed
  • Seal numbers missing
  • Seal numbers don’t match
  • Faith in sealed bags
  • Extra ballots found outside bags
  • Batches of ballots not counted or reported on election night
  • Officials making errors in calculations or submitting results to the state
  • Homegrown accounting systems
  • Local and state officials making errors in transcription and addition

We point out that incompetence or mistakes are good cover for skulduggery , especially where they occur regularly and are routinely accepted/ignored. CTVotersCount readers know that Connecticut Post-Election Audits frequently expose similar problems, as the citizen Bridgeport Recount found, usually followed by no action. The recent exception being some useful, but incomplete, steps to reduce the odds of problems occurring similar to those in Bridgeport, but little to cause the system to correct similar counting, calculating, and reporting errors.

One unique concern in Wisconsin is several coincident actions of one of the candidates, issues including misstatements by the candidate, the activities of the candidate after the election, the location of the changes in votes right after the election, and the location of some of the chain of custody problems (See Brad’s Report).

We are pleased that Wisconsin is holding the recount, such as it is, and that citizens are reporting issues and concerns. The best result would be a recount that ultimately provides real integrity and confidence, followed by positive reform in Wisconsin and other states. At this point we remain open but skeptical that this recount will be satisfactory.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.