May 5, 2011

"The recount for the state Supreme Court race has come to this: Votes from nuns have been thrown out."

Nuns! 

Yes, nuns.

Because the nuns did not follow the rules.
Because canvassers were unable to match the actual ballots to the voter, they took all 24 absentee ballots from the Town of Sumpter and randomly drew 18, which were then set aside and not counted. Of those ballots, Prosser had 14 while Kloppenburg had four.
Unfair to Kloppenburg! You just know all those rule-breaking nuns were Prosserites Prosserans.

50 comments:

Drew said...

Last I checked, no recount figures had been shown from Madison or Milwaukee. This makes me nervous. I figure they're holding back until they see how many votes they need to steal.

MadisonMan said...

I did read yesterday, I think, that some 70 ballots were found in Verona. Paper didn't say who the votes were for on them.

kent said...

"Votes from nuns have been thrown out."

"This is what Wisconsin Democrats look like."

MadisonMan said...

Sorry, I mis-remembered the story.

Link.

Bill said...

"... You just know all those rule-breaking nuns were [s]Prosserites[/s] Prosserans."

Prosserlytizers.

MadisonMan said...

So the Sauk Canvassers take 18 of the 24 ballots and set them aside. But they count the other 6?

If 18 ballots are missing the required witness signatures, wouldn't it make more sense to toss those ballots, and keep the 6 that did, rather than randomly selecting the 6 to be counted?

Scott M said...

Prosserlytizers.

Bah-dump-tsssss

(anyone know how to spell the onomonpia for a rim shot?)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If 18 ballots are missing the required witness signatures, wouldn't it make more sense to toss those ballots, and keep the 6 that did, rather than randomly selecting the 6 to be counted?

It would, but how can you cheat if you make sense.

Nothing in your State seems to make any sense, and I thought that California was the worst State in the Union.

tim maguire said...

If there were any possibility one of those ballots were mine and I had time and money to burn, I'd sue.

It's a statistical certainty that they failed to count some valid ballots. It is also extremely unlikely that their method accurately matched the votes of the 18 people who are supposed to be denied their right to vote (a group that only partially overlaps with the group who actually were denied their right to vote).

gerry said...

onomatopoeia

It is the oeia part that confuses me, usually.

Lincolntf said...

Can nobody in Wisconsin count? How are you still finding/counting/randomly selecting ballots?
Imagine how many votes have been "lost" or discarded over the years if this is the norm? From now on Wisconsin should be considered a "Special Needs" State and get Fed. assistance with every election.

Simon said...

In Indiana, we passed a voter ID law a couple of elections back (you may remember if from Crawford v. Marion County), and there was a fuss because the first election held under that system resulted in several nuns being unable to vote because they didn't follow the rules. Now, there was a difference: they refused to comply as a protest, while these nuns presumably overlooked the requirement. But either way, the fact is that procedural rules sometimes result in votes being thrown out. If the 2000 election teaches anything, it's that procedural rules must be determined in advance, with minimal knowledge of who will benefit and who will lose, and then be applied consistently.

On the other hand, I'm pleased that there is still an emotional resonance that makes people sensitive to perceived slights on religious!

edutcher said...

Nuns, huh?

Kloppenburg doesn't realize she's messing with the brides of God?

And Hubbo has a well-documented bad temper.

Scott M said...

Prosserlytizers.

Bah-dump-tsssss

(anyone know how to spell the onomonpia for a rim shot?)


Barump bump.

Scott M said...

Barump bump.

You have to hit a symbol.

Thorley Winston said...

Sorry to hear that but is there some reason why the nuns didn’t have witness signatures? Even if they’re cloistered, I have to imagine that they have some contact with someone who could have provided the required witness signature.

Fred4Pres said...

If it is not close they can't cheat.

traditionalguy said...

Oh, no. Now the Nuns will hold protests at the Capitol and tie rosary beads to the monuments.

TosaGuy said...

"If 18 ballots are missing the required witness signatures, wouldn't it make more sense to toss those ballots, and keep the 6 that did, rather than randomly selecting the 6 to be counted?"

I've done some poll working so perhaps I can answer. A big bag of absentee ballots shows up at your polling site during the election. The poll workers are supposed to check to make sure each envelope has a witness signature and then matched to the voter rolls. They are then opened and the ballots are entered into the machine at which point you no longer which ballot was submitted by who. Which is why when ballots are pulled, it has to be done randomly.

Sounds like the poll workers didn't follow the procedure. Handling absentee ballots is truly a pain in the butt and far more open to shenanigans than voting at a polling site....though not saying any shenanigans were done here....just a byzantine system that doesn't serve any particular purpose.

edutcher said...

Scott M said...

Barump bump.

You have to hit a symbol.


It's cymbalic.

Leland said...

If the 2000 election teaches anything, it's that procedural rules must be determined in advance, with minimal knowledge of who will benefit and who will lose, and then be applied consistently.

Yes.

d-day said...

I think it's really terrible that the canvassing board and the media is releasing the votes for what is supposed to be a secret ballot.

WineSlob said...

Jaysus, Mary and Joseph
The Nuns Only Gets to Vote If
There are Witnesses to the Forms
Never Mind that ACORN
To Vote Fraud is Religiously Devoted.

Chip S. said...

Now that the voting patterns of those nuns has been thoroughly documented, how long will it be before a separation-of-church-and-state argument is made to prevent them from voting in the future?

And what in bloody hell is taking so long with this idiotic recount? I think I saw a photo of vote-recounters taking off their shoes to help themselves count beyond ten.

EDH said...

"I got confused - I killed a nun's vote. I can't help the way I feel."

Oh, is it really so, really so strange?

I left the North again

I travelled South again

And I got confused - I killed a nun

I CAN'T HELP THE WAY I FEEL

Beta Rube said...

If lefties can do all sorts of stuff "for the children" can I do self-serving, self aggrandizing crap "for the nuns"?

ignatzk said...

Prosser Campaign: Kloppenburg nixes the nun vote

"The Kloppenburg team specifically argued that the ballots of the 18 nuns should be thrown out, and the canvasing board agreed.

On Tuesday, the canvas board reconsidered--bringing in the Town Clerk (Ziegler) to discuss the situation, and she very passionately objected to the dismissal-stating she knows these women, trusts them and has always handled the nun's absentee ballots the same way. Once again, the Kloppenburg representatives when specifically asked in Sauk County re-affirmed their objection to the nun's votes being counted."

Ann Althouse said...

Aw, come on. They can't give the nuns special treatment.

Giving a *priest* (arguably) special treatment was an issue in the campaign.

Why make an issue of this, other than to try to make Kloppenburg look anti-Catholic?

But unless you want to waive the witness requirement for everyone, these votes are out.

Steven said...

What happened to "Count all the votes"?

PackerBronco said...

Why make an issue of this, other than to try to make Kloppenburg look anti-Catholic?

Isn't "count every vote" the standard Democrat mantra in these cases (unless it involves people whose vote they don't want to count)?

Beta Rube said...

Do we know for a fact that all absentee ballots sans witness are thrown out?

Lincolntf said...

I guess all that "voter intent" hooey is finally behind us. Until it helps a Democrat, of course. At that point anyone who complains about the shifting standard automatically becomes a despot looking to disenfranchise minorities, women, children, sea turtles, etc.

Chip S. said...

BTW AA, thanks for using ironic italics in this post. We rubes thank you.

Michael said...

How can the nuns vote anyway? They don't own property.

Scott M said...

How can the nuns vote anyway? They don't own property.

And they're women...two strikes. If you give the women the vote, the next thing you know, they're going to take away our booze.

Ricardo said...

The votes from the nuns can only count if they are naked. Because that would then be a positive ID. Oops, wrong thread. Nevermind.

Larvell said...

Ann says: "But unless you want to waive the witness requirement for everyone, these votes are out."

But they didn't throw these votes out -- they picked 18 ballots at random, which almost certainly included several perfectly valid ballots cast by somebody else (while leaving some of the invalid ballots). What the hell kind of system is that? "We know somebody's vote shouldn't count, but we don't know who, so we'll just pick some ballots at random." Do you really think that kind of approach would stand up if it changed the outcome of an election in a Republican's favor?

Simon said...

Ann Althouse said...
"But unless you want to waive the witness requirement for everyone, these votes are out."

Exactly. It has to be a neutral rule applied neutrally: decide what happens if a situation arises before we know which party it will benefit, and then apply it consistently.

On the other hand, if that is the criterion, it can't just be these votes that are out; every similar vote must also be rejected.

Ken said...

Ignore the nun bit, the nuns don't matter. What matters is this. They had 18 more ballots than signatures. So they picked 18 random ballots and tossed them!
Wisconsin, laughing stock of America. With lots more to come!

WineSlob said...

Ricardo said...

The votes from the nuns can only count if they are naked. Because that would then be a positive ID. Oops, wrong thread. Nevermind.


----------
Reminds me of a joke:

So this nun who teaches at the school for the blind is in the shower, and there's a knock on the door.

She says "Who's there?"

A guy says "Blind Man."

So the nun doesn't bother to put a robe on, and opens the door naked. The guy says:

"Nice tits; where do you want these blinds?"

Ken said...

AA said "But unless you want to waive the witness requirement for everyone, these votes are out." But thaat is exactly what did NOT happen. They did not take sufficient care to check the ballots first. Then they found their error. In full CYA mode they then selected 18 ballots to not count. Not the 18 unsigned ballots. Just 18 ballots, some of which had been signed and some not -- no-one can tell. That is not neutral application of the rule! If AA flunked 18 students at random because 18 handed in their papers late but she was too incompetent to tell which ones, what would happen? Would she say "I was neutrally applying the rule"?

Doug Wright said...

I'm still expecting that the National Al Franken Voter Brigade is working mightily hard behind the scenes waiting for its chance to locate more ballots for Kloppenburg. That, plus the USDoJ is ramping up to step in if Prosser's lead holds up.

However, Wisconsin has it's own problems with its vote counting procedures. Throwing out randomly selected votes in this circumstance is ridiculous yet I kind of understand the rationale behind that act.

Keep on reporting on the recount because it's not be reported outside of your blog, ISFAICS.

Ken said...

@Simon & Ann: Please explain to me why tossing my ballot because you did not sign yours is a neutral application of the rule.

Please note, showing it's a neutral misapplication will not suffice.

Aside from its sheer stupidity does it not afford an opportunity for abuse?

Fen said...

You have to hit a symbol.

It's cymbalic.

Coffee up my nose. Thanks alot! :)

Fen said...

Ken: But thaat is exactly what did NOT happen. They did not take sufficient care to check the ballots first. Then they found their error. In full CYA mode they then selected 18 ballots to not count. Not the 18 unsigned ballots. Just 18 ballots, some of which had been signed and some not -- no-one can tell. That is not neutral application of the rule!

This.

A. Shmendrik said...

I still stick to my estimate of a net change of 11.

S said...

Was this remedy prescribed somewhere, or who made the decision that this was the most proper available option? It seems to me that counting all 24 ballots and dividing by four would make more sense than randomly selecting some not to count - either way implicitly assumes that the best available representative of an improperly cast ballot from Sumpter is a properly cast absentee ballot from Sumpter, but I would put a higher priority on avoiding randomness than on avoiding fractions. But I'm most interested in how this came to be the way it was done.

Carol_Herman said...

Nope. Not in California!

Yes, here, everyone's signature is inside the voting records. All you do is PRINT your name. And, then SIGN the ENVELOPE.

IF you're incompetent, or illiterate, however, THEN, you use a "witness" to confirm your "mark."

There seems to be systematic attempts to "shave" Prosser's totals.

And, IF, at the end the count for Madison "gives" Kloppenhoppen the victory ... you don't think there's gonna be an attempt to PROVE the dishonesty?

You mean people in Wisconsin just roll over like cows?

TheThinMan said...

The Democrats are back to their old habits (another rim shot, please!).

Nuns and military = "Sorry, the rules are the rules."
Excons, illegal aliens, the homeless, the dead, etc. = "Let every vote count!"

The Elder said...

Prosserites???

Prosserans???

Prosserlytizers?

I think I prefer Prossertutes.

"Get thee to a nunnery!"

See? It is always about those rule-breaking nuns!

kcom said...

There's also this:

It would be unfair for Democrats to be responsible for their own actions

Let's follow the rules, except when ignoring the rules will be an obvious benefit to Democrats. Anything else would be unfair.