One Wisconsin Now: Sign the Walker Recall Petition Early, Sign It Often
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing. Follow me by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
So right now democrats and pro-union groups are working to recall Governor Walker and well, they are going to be as honest about it as you would expect:
The state board overseeing the potential recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker tells the MacIver News Service that they will rely upon temporary workers to scrutinize recall petitions and those individuals will not be expected to catch any duplicate signatures submitted by recall organizers.
This revelation comes as one statewide liberal group is actively promoting the collection of duplicate signatures, paving the way for a lengthy process wherein Walker supporters will challenge the validity of the recall petitions.
One Wisconsin Now, a liberal non-profit, posted on its website “You can circulate or sign a recall petition even if you have already signed another recall petition.”
This advice, however, will complicate the signature challenge process and runs counter to the advice of nonpartisan state election regulators.
“While it is not illegal to sign more than once, we do not suggest people sign a second time unless they have good reason to believe the first petition they signed was somehow fraudulent,” Reid Magney, GAB Spokesman.
They’re barely trying to hide their contempt for election law.
H/t: Legal Insurrection.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
The Democratic Party and voter fraud? Never happens. According to the lying, hate filled Democrats. The reasonable Democrats know it happens, a lot, but they keep quiet about it because it gains them more power.
Greed for power over other people is way worse than simple greed for money. The modern Democratic Party is so addicted to the need for power over other people that they will do anything to get more of it.
tyree (84087f) — 12/1/2011 @ 5:56 amAnd, of course the government workers (and their 19th century pen-and-ink methods) will prove uncapable of finding this fraud. Bet you that American Express would be able to do the validation far better for far less. And they wouldn’t cheat.
Kevin M (563f77) — 12/1/2011 @ 6:47 amWhat, like Holder’s DOJ would do anything about someone breaking election laws. *cough*black panthers*un-cough*
Why wouldn’t they be more brazen this time?
In other political crime news, John Hinkley Jr wants some more freedoms. Who wants to start a pool on when Obama pardons him? I got 5 on next Tuesday.
ghost (25f255) — 12/1/2011 @ 6:51 amIt gets worse, but then that is no surprise;
http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/11/don%E2%80%99t-look-to-gab-to-keep-recallers-accountable/
narciso (87e966) — 12/1/2011 @ 6:58 amI don’t know what Wisconsin’s process is.
In California, they do a random sampling, check the random sampling for vaildity, and then make one of three determinations: (a) if the percentage of valid signatures in the random sample implies that the total valid signatures would be 110% of the required limit, the measure qualifies; (b) if the percentage of valid signatures in the random sample implies that the total valid signatures would be less than 95%, the measure fails, and (c) if neither of those is true, they go check every signature.
I can’t imagine that they check for duplicate signatures, because such a process would require counting everything twice (once to generate the list of signatures and once to check everything on the list) and would be basically impossible without a computer (really? you’re going to check every name against a list of a million names?).
That said, you certainly shouldn’t *announce* that you’re not checking for duplicates. And an activist group deliberately telling people that they can sign multiple times probably requires the adoption of a duplicate-checking system in response … *and* the abolition of the spot-check system … which is a long-term disaster: it means that no petition can be verified in less than four or five months, effectively eviscerating the recall power.
The activists telling people to double-sign should be ashamed of themselves: in the name of short-term political self-interest they’re going to do serious harm to the electoral system of their state … and because what they’re doing is stupid and obvious, it’s not even going to work to their short-term political self-interest.
aphrael (5d993c) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:00 amReid Magney, GAB spokesman, cited Section 9.10(3) of the State Statutes, under which the filing officer, ”shall determine by careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient.”
Administrative Rules GAB 2.05 and 2.07 expand upon the definition “facial sufficiency,” including the presumption of validity of information contained on the petition and the challenger’s burden to establish any insufficiency.
I suspect these rules have been in place for some time. It’s a dumb system, but what it looks like to me is that it’s a system whose implications weren’t fully thought out when it was adopted, and which has been used so infrequently that it has, in effect, never been QAd.
aphrael (5d993c) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:02 am“The state board … will not be expected to catch any duplicate signatures…”
“as one statewide liberal group is actively promoting the collection of duplicate signatures…”
What are the workers to review the petitions for, to confirm that, “Yep, that looks like a signature”?
At what point does undermining the legal election process become illegal as some type of conspiracy or something?
Lawyers are called to uphold the integrity of the legal system, correct? If there are any lawyers involved can they have action taken against them? If those running the system were disposed to, anyway?
I wonder if all of the petitions can be scanned and put on the Internet so there can ba a group effort in an initial review, “Spot the Duplicate and Fake Day”? I wonder if there is handwriting to text conversion software that could be used to help as well.
MD in Philly (83d172) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:04 amAphrael, my friend, you are so naive, how do you think they accomplished that electoral sweep in
narciso (87e966) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:05 amCalifornia, last year, the clear superiority of
the candidates,
Narciso: yeah, actually. The California Republican party has been in terrible shape for well more than a decade. Their *elected* statewide officeholders in the last decade have been limited to three: Governor Schwarzenegger, Ins. Commissioner Poizner, and Ins. Commissioner Quackenbush. (They’ve had a few other statewide officials who were appointed to office when their predecessors resigned – Abel Maldonado and Bruce McPherson – but neither of them were able to win re-election).
There’s no evidence of fraud; the results in every case were widely predicted by both liberal and conservative polling agencies. The notion that Democrats in California are stealing the elections is absurd, and theory’s primary effect is to allow the state Republican leadership to avoid asking itself tough questions about why it can’t win over the suburbs the way it was able to in the 1980s.
aphrael (5d993c) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:09 amI hereby nominate aphrael to be “Integrity Inspector in Chief (“IIC”) of the liberal movement.
Interesting how many things fall back on the idea that you need a populace that is basically decent and willing to do the right thing for our country to run properly, and if you don’t have that, there are not enough safeguards in place or money to pay for them. As it is said, “Where are the adults?”, as one person can give oversight to 100 adults capable of acting responsibly, but not over 100 toddlers.
MD in Philly (83d172) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:16 amSometimes the perfectly legitimate system gives us
a horrible result;
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/world/middleeast/voting-in-egypt-shows-mandate-for-islamists.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
narciso (87e966) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:17 amyou need a populace that is basically decent and willing to do the right thing for our country to run properly
exactly.
i mean, there’s some merit to ‘who watches the watchers’ as a principle, and there’s some merit to the ‘the locked door keeps the honest man honest’ principle, but ultimately, if people aren’t willing to work together to keep the system working, *any* system is going to be perverted, and any system is going to fail.
moreover: people can’t be forced to behave in such a fashion as to avoid that end. they *can* be persuaded, but like everything which depends on persuasion, it’s a long battle.
aphrael (5d993c) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:24 amWhen one side is openly advocating subverting the system, it tends to muck up the system.
JD (318f81) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:42 amI wonder if all of the petitions can be scanned and put on the Internet so there can ba a group effort in an initial review, “Spot the Duplicate and Fake Day”? I wonder if there is handwriting to text conversion software that could be used to help as well.
Out in WA, there’s been a long running court battle to prevent the public disclosure of names and addresses of petition signers.
The WI system would seem to require such disclosure in order for it to have any hope of working.
aphrael (5d993c) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:46 amRe #14- Yes, you can’t have it both ways. If you want the system to rely on outside confirmation for integrity then you have to make the information available to the outside observers.
Of course, just because that makes sense it doesn’t mean people would agree to it.
If actions of a group like “One Wisconsin Now”* caused the state to pay addition money to do the recall, could they be held liable by the citizenry to supply the funds?
I think it is easier for the government to enforce prevention of something bad than enforce cooperation with something good. It is hard to legally encourage honesty other than to legally punish dishonesty.
*Don’t you love titles, like “Socialist Republics” for a communist non-republic, or “People’s Republic of China”, which should be “Party Oligarchy of China”? The harder that people need to rely on perception gives away how questionable the content is.
MD in Philly (83d172) — 12/1/2011 @ 8:30 amaphrael: The notion that Democrats in California are stealing the elections is absurd, and theory’s primary effect is to allow the state Republican leadership to avoid asking itself tough questions about why it can’t win over the suburbs the way it was able to in the 1980s.
Tough questions? Ha Ha Ha!! I was with you aphrael until you wrote this nonsense.
It’s like saying the Republican party needs to ask itself tough questions as to why it can’t win over Detroit anymore.
Is it really that tough? Over the past 25 years, people like me (a native Angelino) that could have swayed the elections in a different way have left. Since ’02, I’m glad to be sending my state taxes elsewhere. Meanwhile, the “Allredized” sons and daughters of the “undocumented” have reached voting age. Get it?
The really tough questions are for the Democrats who have to square such a blueprint for victory with long range fiscal sanity. See, again, Detroit.
beer 'n pretzels (2f4b27) — 12/1/2011 @ 8:49 amYeah only repubs commit voter fraud right aphrael?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 8:54 am“i mean, there’s some merit to ‘who watches the watchers’ as a principle, and there’s some merit to the ‘the locked door keeps the honest man honest’ principle, but ultimately, if people aren’t willing to work together to keep the system working, *any* system is going to be perverted, and any system is going to fail.”
aphrael – Come to Chicago. You could learn a thing or two.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:11 amDaleyrocks – I postulate that if people aren’t willing to work together to keep the system working, any system will get perverted. You respond by telling me that I could learn a thing or two by going and living in a place where the system has been perverted?
That’s puzzling. 🙂
aphrael (5d993c) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:19 amYeah only repubs commit voter fraud right aphrael?
I don’t believe I’ve said that.
In general, I’m very skeptical of charges of voter fraud; i think that explanations which don’t involve deliberate fraud are generally more likely, and I think it’s very easy to assert fraud and thereby delegitimize the opposition when there is *no evidence*, and I think that such assertions undermine faith in the system, and I think that the likely result of said decline in faith is the development of a new system which is far worse than the one which had been undermined.
So: if you want me to believe fraud is going on, from either party, you’ve got to provide me with evidence, rather than speculation.
(You’ll note that in 2004 I wasn’t one of the liberals alleging fraud, and that in 2000 my basic attitude was that the election was functionally a tie and we might as well flip a coin, because the result was within the margin of error of our voting system and therefore the *actual* result was unknowable).
aphrael (5d993c) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:22 amRecall supporters discovered a plot by anti-recallers to collect signatures and then destroy the filled out forms, or to circulate false forms. So signing more than once should help insulate against this.
cmaggs (c17c67) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:26 amAphrael – don’t the voter registration actions undertaken by Dem affiliates like ACORN give you a hint that maybe it is going on? Or do you think that they draw their moral line at fraudulently registering people, but would not take it any further? How about when votes exceed registered voters like in Milwaukee? Or when another Dem affiliate is encouraging people to duplicate their signatures on multiple petitions? Frankly, I don’t get the concept of questioning the existence of it happening. One might quibble about the extent, but that is a different discussion.
JD (87dfcc) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:27 amRecall supporters discovered a plot by anti-recallers to collect signatures and then destroy the filled out forms, or to circulate false forms. So signing more than once should help insulate against this.
Cite, please? Not some wild eyed conspiracy. In the specific instance, we have the one group explicitly advocating for multiple signatures, which you seem to endorse.
JD (87dfcc) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:28 am“Daleyrocks – I postulate that if people aren’t willing to work together to keep the system working, any system will get perverted. You respond by telling me that I could learn a thing or two by going and living in a place where the system has been perverted?
That’s puzzling. :)”
aphrael – My response is intended to invite you to a place where one side wants to work with the other, but the other actively subverts those efforts while pledging cooperation. Watching how that is done could cure you of some of your naivete.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:34 amcmaggs drive-by logic: Our side’s demonstrably proven cheating is justified by their side’s alleged cheating.
Perhaps he/she could drive on up to the high road and take a look around. I hear that traffic there is light today.
Icy (75814f) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:37 amCmaggs should go play in traffic.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:43 am“In the specific instance, we have the one group explicitly advocating for multiple signatures, which you seem to endorse.”
With screenshots
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/conservative-sabotage-recall-walker-wisconsin
Multiple signatures are a problem for the collectors: they won’t be able to reliably know how well they’re doing in their count. But it is an insulation against this illegal attack.
cmaggs (ac6278) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:43 amYou know genetically-altered foods can sometimes cause fatal food allergies. sorry for the O/T.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:47 amThis is just plain wrong.
Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck should appear only once on the recall petition.
When fabricating signatures, you have to be sure that you fabricate unique signatures.
Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:50 amZOMFG – 3 individuals on Facebook! Who may or may not be conservatives, or Moby’s, and in no way actually influence the collection of signatures by the proponents of the recall. Devastating, “cmaggs”. Devastating.
Multiple signatures are a problem for the collectors?!?! Fraud is a problem for the system, not the perpetuators of the fraud.
JD (87dfcc) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:53 amAll I said was a plot was discovered. One statement implied it was ongoing. You don’t see how multiple signatures can mislead the collectors into thinking they have more signatures than they actually have?
cmaggs (9e68bf) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:59 amAnyone recognize this style? “cmaggs” is a repeat offender. And an advocate of fraud”
JD (87dfcc) — 12/1/2011 @ 10:03 am“You don’t see how multiple signatures can mislead the collectors into thinking they have more signatures than they actually have?”
cmaggs – Did you read the post?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/1/2011 @ 10:03 amcmaggs logic: two wrongs eliminates the right.
Icy (75814f) — 12/1/2011 @ 10:05 amThe reason jobs are going overseas is because of Obama.
But according to the left Obama is blameless and it is the rights love of cheap child labor which is to blame.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 10:05 amdim wit is that you?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/1/2011 @ 10:05 amDing ding ding. Daley got it.
JD (87dfcc) — 12/1/2011 @ 10:06 amSo, according to imdw’s logic, as a result of 3 random people on Facebook, a Dem affiliate is going out and collecting multiple signatures from people, intentionally making their job harder by falsely inflating their numbers. But it is okay to commit fraud, in pursuit of the overall just and noble cause.
JD (87dfcc) — 12/1/2011 @ 10:11 amYep, cmaggs WAS imdw. The good part is, his success percentage has gotten down so low it makes President Obama’s numbers look outstanding.
Stashiu3 (601b7d) — 12/1/2011 @ 10:28 am😉
Hmph. I’m sure cheap child labor is the reason why Obama is losing jobs overseas right IMDW?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 10:31 amstash
> it makes President Obama’s numbers look outstanding.
And given that democrats have taken to attacking republicans for agreeing too much with Obama, that is saying something…
http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/11/dem-recruit-attacks-gop-congre.php
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2011 @ 10:43 amaphrael asserts that vote fraud is virtually non-existent, yet when it is discovered and prosecuted, it envariably involves people and groups on the Left – Why is that?
AD-RtR/OS! (b11b8b) — 12/1/2011 @ 11:04 amWhy can’t the Dems settle upon using tried and true methods of voter fraud – Gerrymandering!
It has been very successful for decades in CA (with a notable exception in 1991) when instituted by the Berman-Waxman Machine.
And it continues with the new commission:
The panel may have been marginally non-partisan, but the staff that provided the data, and drew the maps, was pointedly not.
GIGO!
This could backfire on the Recall crowd. Consider:
– They need X (number) valid signatures.
– Once they report “We have X,” perhaps plus 10-15%, the impetus for getting MORE signatures dries up almost entirely.
– But if enough lefty fraudsters are found to have multi-signed (by which time the period for signature-gathering will have ended), the recall petition will fail.
Mitch (341ca0) — 12/1/2011 @ 12:42 pmTo #’s 34-39,
Great work!!
Philadelphia takes voter fraud very seriously. Every dead person who votes is located and executed.
MD in Philly (83d172) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:41 pmIf you think the Republican party is too far-right than how come we have a big tent and conservatives attacking Purity tests?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:43 pmHey Stashiu,
Since you’re in the banning mood (I hope) how about getting rid of two trolls that contribute nothing but lies and information all the time. Kman and EPWJ would be good ones to start with.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 12/1/2011 @ 5:53 pmPatterico does the bans… I only implement and try to enforce them. I’ve put people in moderation for crossing the line and that has sometimes turned into a ban (like the two white supremacists earlier this year), but Patterico always has the final say. Kman is AW’s cross to bear until he or Patterico decide otherwise. I’ve made my case about EPWJ and accept that Patterico still wants him around. That’s the only time I’ve requested a banning. Nobody is forced to engage with him, and I don’t.
Stashiu3 (601b7d) — 12/1/2011 @ 6:53 pmIf I say something wrong feel free to warn me stashiu.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:05 pmThank you for expressing that sentiment, Stashiu3. I don’t understand Patterico’s affection toward EPWJ, either; it’s not shared by may posters here.
What *ought* to happen is that EPWJ sees your post, and understands he should stop being the back-end of a horse. That would be good.
But it won’t happen.
Remember: he has accused me of calling him a terrorist, and when called on it, multiple times, runs away. That’s not the mark of someone who posts in good faith.
And he accused DohBiden of the same thing.
I have my suspicions about EPWJ, but who knows? I know he is nuttier than a Payday bar. So maybe he is just comic relief.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:07 pmAnd Kman? He has an unhealthy fixation on Aaron, and I think he makes that more clear with every obsessive response.
Or it could be that he gets so little traffic on his website (the least well kept secret evah) and is jealous of Patterico.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:08 pmNot only that EPWJ loves to get high.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:13 pmThis cain thing here with these apologists is morphing into this macabe Dorian Grey…
the more the cray slobbering to insult me, distort 100, 200, 300 percent what I say – the result is that poor Cain has another floozy appearing on the news
After the last 48 hours where even on threads I make no comments on, somehow I am the subject of conversation by people who should really find infinitely more interesting things to explore and discover out there
ust a thought
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:32 pmAre we not he’s not that Ashford fellow, it’s not that we believe Cain, frankly I’m very skeptical, but you’ve been willing to trash three very ethical
narciso (87e966) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:38 pmpeople on nothing but rampant lies and speculation,
#52: trolls unclear on the concept, example number 3 x 10^6. And sooner or later, EPWJ, I am going to force you to apologize for claiming that I called you a terrorist, or force you to show a link proving it.
You can run away all you like. You are a liar.
Also, one weird, weird dude. And that isn’t just my opinion.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:42 pmust a thought but I want roof…
ColonelHaiku (d838e0) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:45 pmICdeadMaggots
ColonelHaiku (d838e0) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:46 pmpublic union scum
ColonelHaiku (d838e0) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:50 pmevery trick in the book
hard to scrape off shoe
roll on obama
ColonelHaiku (d838e0) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:51 pmthe highway will be your home
white line fever soon
Hey Eric. Perhaps now you would care to apologize and retract your “disgusting Herman Cain ad” remark?
ust a thought
Icy (75814f) — 12/1/2011 @ 7:57 pmGood luck on that, Icy. There is a long list of falsehoods that need addressing by that troll.
But it won’t happen.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/1/2011 @ 8:00 pmEric can you please speak english.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 8:01 pmAmeriggga cain’t handle the truth!
ColonelHaiku (d838e0) — 12/1/2011 @ 8:03 pmHopefully a Badger victory in the first Big Ten Championship game on Saturday will confirm just how wonderful Wisconsin is in its current state and everyone will give Walker credit, him being governor and all, and enthusiasm for recall will dwindle.
Enthusiasm for going door to door to get signatures will soon be dwindling, anyway, now that it is December…
MD in Philly (83d172) — 12/1/2011 @ 8:05 pmMay I point you to The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan’s Defeat? 4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots and no one was interested?
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 12/1/2011 @ 11:58 pmAnyone with at least half a brain, reading the FB conversation, will immediately perceive that the participants are conservatives speaking ironically, role-playing lefty fantasies as we sometimes do here. They are deliberately over the top, and the only way they could make it more obvious would be to add <cackle> tags, or perhaps <demonic-republican-laughter>.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/4/2011 @ 5:41 pmSo can non-altered foods.
No, you’re not.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/4/2011 @ 5:42 pm