Posted on 05/16/2011 1:32:56 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Edited on 05/16/2011 1:41:40 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
pyrrhic victory: “a victory with devastating cost to the victor; it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat.”
As the recount to determine the winner of the April 5th Wisconsin State
Supreme Court election drags on the Democrat/union coalition representing loser JoAnne Kloppenburg has sunk to a new low even for them.
The wild eyed socialists engineered the disenfranchisement of 18 Roman Catholic nuns by seeing to the rejection of their absentee ballots.
The Left is heavily invested in winning this election so being 7200 votes behind does nothing to curb their appetite for this kind despicable pettiness.
How petty was this stunt?
The story is that the nuns failed to fill in the witnesses section on the ballot. The kicker is that the same registrar person has been handling the nuns' ballots for years and attests that it is them (they are cloistered).
Still, the Klopp campaign had the ballots tossed out.
-PJ
I just don’t get it.
On election night, when Klopp had a razor thin lead of 204 votes, she declared victory. A margin of 204 votes was good enough for her to be confident of victory.
But when the revised totals showed her 7000+ votes behind, then all of a sudden, there is a need for recounts, and the Dems. have not ruled out legal action, when this recount confirms her loss, whenever that officially happens.
So, a margin of 200+ votes is enough to declare victory, but a margin of 7000+ votes requires a recount.
No, and nuns actually can provide IDs. Unlike most Dem voters.
The ballots were not witnessed and they were supposed to be, because they were mailed in.
This was not caught until after the votes were tallied.
Then they randomly took 18 votes out of the mix, in an area heavily in favor of the incumbent, thus, in all likelihood skewing the vote toward the weird lady, especially if the votes of the nuns were assumed to be for the challenger.
This practice of counting these votes has gone on for years with no one in the past ever demanding compliance with the law.
It is only important now, because they nuns votes went into the mix, but 18 random votes came out. Therefore, I am certain the incumbent lost at least a few votes, but who will ever know?
Wow! We're going to end up like Europe. I speak Spanish and visit a few Spanish blogs, and one of them had some details: the average European private-industry employee wage is 640 euros, while that of the "public servant" is 3000 euros.
In some cases the salary of an average "funcionario" (civil servant) is as much as 6000 euros per month. So that means that civil servants are earning between 5 amd 10x what an average Spaniard earns.
Guess Bambi wants to install that here, too. I heard today that the "stimulus" created 400,000 municipal and state jobs...and prevented or cost 1 million private industry jobs.
This is ridiculous. They can’t determine how the nuns voted so they:
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.
They are trying to disqualify 2 in Waukesha County for same reason.
This is all about the stall, so that they file a lawsuit and try to delay Prosser from taking his seat on the supreme court.
The rats are poor losers and are willing to do anything to cause trouble and expense for taxpayers.
The rats don’t want to lose their money/ campaign contributions from the unions.
This is ridiculous. They can’t determine how the nuns voted so they:
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.
They are trying to disqualify 2 in Waukesha County for same reason.
This is all about the stall, so that they file a lawsuit and try to delay Prosser from taking his seat on the supreme court.
The rats are poor losers and are willing to do anything to cause trouble and expense for taxpayers.
The rats don’t want to lose their money/ campaign contributions from the unions.
The 18 nuns, a cloistered order, voted absentee. The city clerk delivered and picked up their ballots as usual and fed them into the machine. It turned out that NONE of them had had their ballots witnessed (the rule for absentee votes here).
The clerk said that they always allowed these ladies to vote this way (which is against the rules, BTW). Per the rules (since the ballots had already been counted) the canvassers removed the nuns' ballots, as well as all other absentees (24 in all) from the total number of ballots cast. Since nobody can actually identify an absentee ballot after it has been cast, the canvassers just removed 24 random ballots.
Wouldn't a better procedure be to determine if the number of votes for any particular candidate was greater than the number of valid absentee votes, and discount the number of votes for that candidate by that number? In this case, it would seem there were six valid absentee votes, so no candidate could have legitimately gotten more than six votes.
Since there is rarely any credible opposition to Rat rule in Chicago we don’t see the vitriol since they win in landslides.
Having heard the explanation, I can't get too worked up about this. In recounts, the talliers always look to see if Is were dotted and Ts were crossed, and in the case of the nuns, that apparently was not the case. The fact that they "always" voted that way wouldn't make any difference. However, I don't see why that would result in all the absentee ballots being removed from the total, and I don't like the idea of randomly removing ballots that very likely were properly cast. However, it is unlikely to make any difference in the outcome, and hopefully the good sisters will cast their absentee ballots properly in the future.
Having voted absentee myself many times and also working “the other side of the desk” as an elections inspecter, I have to say that the instructions on handling the absentee ballots are confusing. I always double check with my clerk to make sure all the paperwork is properly filled out.
I blame the city clerk for this error. She should know better. According to the articles I’ve read, she personally (or her deputy) picked up the ballots from the convent. She should have checked the outside of the ballot envelope before she accepted them. The excuse that the “always do it this way” is pretty lame, in my personal opinion.
The fact that this is a cloistered order probably complicates this process. How do you say, “Sister, will you witness my ballot?” if you can’t talk?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.