Wisconsin ran a statewide recount in 2011 at an estimated cost of $520,000, according to the state's website. This time, the state demanded $3.5 million. That could be viewed as extortionate, or at the very least, very strong discouragement. Also, in numerous cases, particularly in Wisconsin, where there were serious inconsistencies to be investigated, the election officials merely ran the same votes through the same machines again, rather than examining them by hand. What did that prove? The ballots were right there to be counted and yet that was not done. Why not? There were other issues as well, but let's start with those.
DG: Who was it that said all politics is local? In any case, I'm not any more knowledgeable on local election procedures than the next guy, so all I can offer is speculation based on my experience with human nature over the years.
I imagine that recounts can be incredibly complex. That's because you're talking about somehow coordinating all the local communities across a state. Have you ever been in a group of more than five people where everything went smoothly? Yeah, me neither. Imagine that for every town. I just Googled "how many towns are there in Wisconsin" and, as of 2006, there were 1,260. Coordinating all of that has to be crazy.
Now, add to it the politics of the thing, the fact that there is a cost, the general animosity this election has brought out, and the basic human desire to not do hard, tedious paperwork, and you can begin to speculate on the various forces of friction involved in impeding recounts.
As for how much money the state demanded, keep in mind that the governor of Wisconsin in 2011 was of a different party than the governor of Wisconsin is now. That means, again separate from politics, that the entire administrative operation is run by different people. Wisconsin is, essentially, a completely different "company" than it was back in 2011.
Was charging that much a nasty thing to do? Yeah, probably. Personally, I think it's the job of government to do everything in its power to assure the correctness of elections. That's a far better use of our tax dollars than a lot of the stuff the government wastes its our money on.
JB: Agreed. Today marks an event many never imagined would occur: the inauguration of Donald Trump. I understand that Anonymous has promised to leak damaging material about him going forward. They were not very active during the campaign. Why now? And how do you evaluate their threat?
DG: President Trump (it's after noon on January 20, as I write this, so it's President Trump) is a very polarizing figure. Anonymous has picked other polarizing figures as targets in the past, so it's certainly not something far afield of their actions.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
