Over 1 Million signatures obtained to recall WI Gov. Scott Walker

wiphan · #1 02-28-2012, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

But that's not what you said. You said there is massive fraud among those signatures. Nobody is saying there are not enough valid signatures remaining to force a recall.

So tell us: out of all the signatures collected for Walker, what is the actual number of signatures collected, and what is the actual number of signatures that have been disallowed as invalid?

Please list both "Walker" numbers (how many they have counted as "fraudulent"), and GAB numbers of disallowed signatures.

Because your whole argument is that there is a huge difference between those two numbers. And you know there is massive fraud. That means you have actual numbers. So tell us what those numbers are. Or stop making unproven allegations of "massive fraud".

Again you missed my point. I do not know how many actual signatures were really submitted. I am willing to wager it is less than 1 million and closer to 800k. That is what I said.

As far as fraud- there are many duplicate signatures (check the forms yourself), illegible, out of state, fraudlent (one family member signing for the entire household) but there are not nearly enough to avoid the recall. For you when I said some fraud that became 500k+ signatures. I guess I understand your accounting system.

Riot · #2 02-28-2012, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiphan

Again you missed my point. I do not know how many actual signatures were really submitted. I am willing to wager it is less than 1 million and closer to 800k. That is what I said.

As far as fraud- there are many duplicate signatures (check the forms yourself), illegible, out of state, fraudlent (one family member signing for the entire household) but there are not nearly enough to avoid the recall. For you when I said some fraud that became 500k+ signatures. I guess I understand your accounting system.

I guess you'd better stop making false accusations of "alot of fraud". Because you've been able to provide zero evidence of any fraud, other than "check the forms yourself".

Antitrust32 · #3 02-28-2012, 04:37 PM

http://www.truethevote.org/reports/w...ec-summary.pdf

Riot · #4 02-28-2012, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

http://www.truethevote.org/reports/w...ec-summary.pdf

Data trend with a margin of error +/- 7%, based upon the numbers listed, and zero attachments showing the actual data.

That's the whole point, Anti: lots of allegations, zero actual evidence presented ... if Walkers supporters actually come up with some verifiable numbers, it takes away their ability to allege "massive fraud". So they don't present any numbers.

Nobody ever maintained all the signatures would be valid (they never are in recalls, the normal disallow rate is 18%, or nearly 1 out of 5), that's why so many sigs were submitted when only half-a-million were needed, and they were pre-vetted before submission to get the rate down to 1-5%.

But the calls that many of those signatures are fraudulent is simply partisan bullshiat, so far unsupported by any actual evidence. So until they come up with actual evidence, they probably should simply stop making the allegations as if it were fact.

Quote:

State Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate said it's absurd that Republicans have been complaining that the Walker recall petitions were laced with fraud but didn't challenge a single signature.

That's right. Not even one signature was challenged, even with Walker getting a 20-day extension, and allegations that up to 20% of signatures were "faked". Considering that Walker could have gone to court for an additional time extension, based upon the error rate they found, why didn't Walker do that?

His excuse is, "oh,well, there are at least a half-million good sigs anyway". Yeah - but that doesn't mean you get to continue to allege "massive fraud" without any evidence regarding the others.

The GAB has three weeks to review them. We'll see if the GAB can throw out some of those signatures, and at least provide us with an independent error rate.