That might seem like it's stacking the deck in favor of Walker supporters, but [Reid Magney, spokesman for the Government Accountability Board] says the decision makes sense because recall supporters could theoretically spot something that looks improper and simply "let it go," while Walker supporters can do no more harm than finding possible irregularities, which would then be reviewed by GAB staff and the GAB board.What excellent logic!
५ जानेवारी, २०१२
If you've signed the Walker recall petition, you won't be hired for the work of checking signatures on the petition.
Some applicants for this temp job are sad to find out.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
"In liberal Madison, where it sometimes seems that every car has a "Recall Walker" bumper sticker, how easy will it be to find 50 out-of-work temps who haven't signed a petition?"
Unfair.
Why can't the fox guard the henhouse?
Sounds reasonable to me.
Knowing all we need to know about the recall Walker crew they would figure out a way to add signatures instead of verifying them. They have the motive so it would be foolish to provide them the opportunity and means to further their conspiratorial machinations.
These people (anti-Walker) have more brass than the proverbial Coney Island Fire Engine.
wv: reend - what the anti-Walker crowd want to do the rest of us in pursuit of their ideology.
A shame, really.
Then again, with any other vote counting endeavor, don't you simply pair up partisans to ensure that they watch either like hawks?
"The temps also can't have made a financial contribution to a partisan campaign or candidate in the last 12 months, and they must pass a background check."
That seems to balance it out some; they are trying to screen for partisans in ways that are publicly available.
Who is more likely to sign as "Mickey Mouse"? Someone who wants to recall Walker, or someone who wants to throw a wrench in the process?
Who will benefit if "Mickey Mouse" signatures are not flagged in the GAB stage, but flagged by Walker's team in the last stage of the adversarial process?
Who will write the first press release about it? WisGOP, Walker, AFP, CFG, CRG, WPRI, or the Wisconsin Reporter?
"Who is more likely to sign as "Mickey Mouse"? Someone who wants to recall Walker, or someone who wants to throw a wrench in the process?"
Who is more likely to sign as Mickey Mouse? Someone who wants to hit the total number of signatures and knows it will not be looked at closely, or someone who doesn't want Walker recalled?
Questions! More than one can be asked!
"Who will benefit if "Mickey Mouse" signatures are not flagged in the GAB stage"
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, is it John?
But the real issue isn't about Mikey Mouse. By saying they wouldn't flag even obviously fake names the GAB was in effect telling recall supporters that no fake names would be flagged. If I was a recall supporter who was willing to cheat, this would be great encouragement for me to invent names. And the more intelligent cheaters will quickly realize that realistic sounding fake names would be far less likely to draw attention.
"What excellent logic!"
I assume this is sarcasm. But I find it actually logical. The temps pick out the obviously bad, which are then reviewed by the GAB to eliminate them. The rest go to Walker to be contested or not. Letting stuff "go" means that a larger number of signatures in total, and bad entries specifically, need to be identified and ultimately contested.
Original, maybe you didn't see my point. Walker's supporters will beat the drums loudly for every signature they find in the last stage of the process. They'll claim this is proof that the first two stages (the circulator's proofing, then the GAB's check) were rigged.
To suggest that recall supporters will attempt to rig the process in the signature collection stage means you believe they're willing to waste their own time and they're willing to risk a felony charge.
Do you think a recall signer working for the GAB would let a fake name slide for the slim benefit of adding one more name? You'd almost need to believe there was some method of collusion between the first two stages. You'd also need to believe it was probable the Walker examiners wouldn't find it.
From the GAB site: "Wisconsin’s recall petition process is designed with multiple checks and balances provided by the non-partisan G.A.B., as well as the competing partisan interests of the recall committee and the incumbent officeholder. These competing interests ensure that ineligible signers, duplicate signatures and fake names get weeded out. Focusing on any one aspect of the process in isolation misses the forest for a few trees. The recall process starts at the grassroots level with petition circulators. They personally obtain each signature on the page and are responsible for striking any signature that does not match the name given to them by the person signing the petition. These circulators sign each petition page stating that they understand that falsifying the certification is a punishable offense under state law, which is a felony. [...] In reviewing approximately 215,000 signatures as part of the 2011 recalls, only a handful of signatures were successfully challenged on the basis that the name was fictitious or of a deceased individual."
But wild speculation is not absent among the GOP, ex. Prof. Shh 'n Shh, who says let's assume that there are 5,000 people who sign an average of 25 times.
"Do you think a recall signer working for the GAB would let a fake name slide for the slim benefit of adding one more name?"
-- Yes, because fraud has happened before. People cheat at American Idol.
Also, no collusion needed. Just laziness. Convenient laziness.
"Who is more likely to sign as "Mickey Mouse"? Someone who wants to recall Walker, or someone who wants to throw a wrench in the process?
The issue is not Mickey Mouse but a fake George Johnson or Mary Mason or Sam Smith or Orville Olsen.
If you are going to fake a name, why pick one as obvious as Mickey Mouse?
I would think that by "multiple checks and balances", the GAB means that mutliple checkers verify the same sheet of signatures. Unless all checkers are recall supporters, irregularities will still be noticed, and investigated.
But wild speculation is not absent among the GOP, ex. Prof. Shh 'n Shh, who says let's assume that there are 5,000 people who sign an average of 25 times.
Yes, because we all know there has been absolutely no evidence of people signing multiple times.
btw, has anyone issued felony charges against the dude who claims to have cheated by signing 80 times as of early December? Maybe I missed it in the news.
According to the statute, the petition can be signed multiple times, but the signature should only be counted once.
So, is the candidate questioned under oath? Is there any penalty for lying, other than perhaps getting fired?
Or is this like signing petitions multiple times- there's no law against it, and the only penalty is having the duplicates removed?
And garage has nothing to say on the matter?
Somebody call his house, he must be ill!
Actually, it sounds like the Rs in Madison understand the nature of the enemy.
I wonder how many signatures a person can check, accurately, in an hour. I think it would be an interesting temp job for a day. Beyond that, kinda tedious.
According to the statute, the petition can be signed multiple times, but the signature should only be counted once.
Unless you’re creating some sort of searchable/sortable database that lists each name and address or some other unique identifier, how can you ensure that a signature isn’t being counted multiple times?
Who is more likely to sign as "Mickey Mouse"?
Given that Mickey successfully donated $2000 to Barack Obama in 2008, I'd say he'd be anti-Walker.
@John Foust - So you are positing that a Walker supporter would fing a fradulent signature and would, rather than point it out to the GAB, keep quiet until later so they could file a law suit. Maybe, but that's quite a stretch. If they point it out to the GAB, it gets tossed. If they wait until a law suit, it may or may not get tossed.
So you forego a sure toss for a maybe toss all for, .... well, I'm not sure what for. To claim that the process is "rigged"? Seems like a dumb strategy to me.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/wi-judge-bugs-bunny-cant-sign-petitions-to-recall-scott-walker/
"Counting the signature of Bugs Bunny is something only a lawyer could make seem OK."
I bet I know what'll get a post on Althouse tomorrow!
"In court, Kennedy testified that entering signatures into a database to look for duplicates could take eight extra weeks for his staff, and could cost $94,000 for software and outside help."
-- I was unaware Excel cost that much. Maybe the cost is for his staff?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा