The Prosser Recount committee has a handy way of keeping track of the tally and the cost, what it calls the Kloppenburg-O-Meter, which as of April 28, with 31.75% of all wards recounted, showed that Kloppenburg picked up 111 votes at a cost of $462,000.
As of today, with over half the wards and votes recounted, the count has not changed much, with Kloppenburg picking up a whopping 148 votes.
Considering that the vote margin after the full canvass was 7316, and no recount in Wisconsin ever has resulted in a change of more than a few hundred votes, this is shaping up as a paradigm of how easy it is for Democrats to spend other people's money.
Update: Recall Hansen Group Seeks TRO Against Harassment of Petition Signers.
Update 05-04-2011: Vote count still not changed much with over 69% of wards counted and 64% of vote total, Kloppenburg has picked up 178 votes.
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
I still cant' understand why, in pretty much every recount, the Democrat always picks up votes. Maybe it's just my perception, and I'm ignoring cases that favor "our side" but I'd love someone who is an expert in these matters to explain that to me.
ReplyDelete---Lee
As you say, it costs her nothing but other people's money and she has much to gain. Besides, it's her way of inflicting punishment on all those poor benighted souls that voted against her!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see one example - just one - where the republican winner of an election picks up votes instead of steadily song votes. There is no way in He'll that random voting errors so perfectly consistently rewards Democrats at the expense of Republicans.
ReplyDelete"There is no way in He'll that random voting errors so perfectly consistently rewards Democrats at the expense of Republicans. "
ReplyDeleteThat would have a lot to do with the lack of randomness with these 'errors' year over year.
Could someone explain what the $462,000 is being spent on? Is this money for wages paid to the counters? What exactly are the costs involved?
ReplyDeleteForgive me if this sounds just a tad partisan, as in I don't think for a second if the positions were reversed you'd be saying anything but "Of course Prosser is entitled to the recount at public expense due to the very close nature of the result (less than .5%)"
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm just cynical.
Tlaloc; what you write is more than a tad partisan. It excuses the lack of class, dishonesty, stalling techniques and elitist punishment on those who have the temerity to vote against the progressive agenda. If Kloppenberg and her handlers haven't learned from the history of recounts in Wisconsin they are ignorant of the process they abuse. If they understand the history of recounts in Wisconsin they are either stalling, punishing the electorate/democracy or all of the above. Just like a anarchist/progressive's logic you separate and concentrate on each discreet action and dissect it into a oblivion instead of studying it in relation to all the other discreet activities that quickly point to the end justifies the means mindset of the desperately fading ideology of progressivism. Don't help them especially over a hundredth of a percentage point.
ReplyDeleteIt was OK for Prosser to ask for a recount, but not OK for a Democrat. Interesting reasoning. And you teach law?
ReplyDelete@Larry - when Prosser contemplated a recount the vote difference was about 200, not 7316. If Prosser won after the canvass by 200, or 400, or 600, that would be one thing, and within the historical realm of possibility.
ReplyDeleteWhen prosser was thinking about it 7000 votes hadn't been found after the fact. That alone justifies, nay demands a recount.
ReplyDelete@Tialoc - no votes were "found." They were reported by the local precincts and noted in the local press, election night. The only issue was what the county reported to AP that night, but reporting to AP is not official. The official result was the canvass, which the WI GAB found was proper in Waukesha.
ReplyDeleteThe votes were put on a personal computer and not reported via the normal means. I'm not sure how much more "found" they could be. The SoS website didn't include them so it was not just the AP that didn't get them.
ReplyDelete