Yes, it is really too bad that the state is unable to afford alot of things since being bankrupted by the Democrats. That is why we threw the bums out.

If Waukesha County hadn't elected an incompetent clerk, this would likely be a non-issue. Remember that her mistakes with the Van Hollen/Falk election had to be investigated too, and that cost time and money.

Seriously, so what about the cost? $500,000 = 5 unqualified Walker crony hires with raises and benefits. We can afford those, plus $117m in corporate welfare. And Milwaukee County is used to paying for Walker's mistakes as County Executive.

Bren the sole reason for this recount is to keep the fire under the butts of folks like you so that you'll perform like good little soldiers when recall time comes about. Blaming Waukesha county for this is nonsense. It it were just an issue of Waukesha county, then it could be addressed there solely at a much lower cost to the tax payers.

Your "so what" at the expenditure of what's going to be much closer to $1MM of taxpayer money going to support the political efforts of one side is typical of the sore-loser left. Screw everyone else, screw the taxpayer - it's your way or the highway.

Hey Bob, I'm an independent, FYI, and no-one's soldier. You know what they say about making assumptions. The vote was screwed up for this election and the Van Hollen/Falk AG election in '06, and something's wrong with that. I say "yes" to any recount that occurs under these circumstances. Folks in Waukesha, please don't vote for Nickolaus again, we can't afford her.

And Bob, the recounts are going on because of a whole lot of knee-jerk partisan voting that's created a cuckoo's nest of ideologues and rubber stampers in our state who are enacting legislation they never campaigned on. A one-party system is Socialism and I will do my part to stand up for democracy. Unchecked, this state of affairs is going to cost us all a WHOLE LOT more than $500,000 (or $1m) in the not-so-long run. I'm talking about our democratic form of government. This isn't a right or left issue-it's an American issue. And that's why I signed recall petitions. And I'm very sorry you didn't understand my "so what" for the dripping sarcasm that it was. Walker's proposed budget actually INCREASES spending by 1%, much in due part to his corporate welfare bill. This independent's "butt" is not happy about that, not at all.

Bren,

The recount is a political tactic designed to fan the flames of discontent that originated with the ridiculous political theater that was the march on Madison and fueled the absurd number of unnecessary recall campaigns. It's an attempt (and apparently successful one) by the left to have taxpayers as a whole finance what amounts to the third act of this b-grade production.

The threat to democracy you decry is non-existant. That the left lost out on the last round of elections doesn't mean the system is broken - it just didn't go their way. If you're truly an independent, then sadly you've been co-opted by the toxic fallout from an emotional outburst of sore-loserdom the likes of which have never been seen in these parts.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but your words paint you as no independent. Your spiel comes right out of the pages of the union-authorized script for this comic-tragedy. You've allowed yourself to be seduced by a sky-is-falling scenario created by left-leaning fear mongers and you don't even know it.

Bob, the recount issue, at least for me, is a data integrity concern. I've been a data manager. If there's questions about a data set you investigate. A mailing list can be redone, not an election. And there some other snags around the state. Hence the recount. And as I said earlier, this isn't the first time Nickolaus has been controversial and it's frankly ridiculous that this happened again.
And you are wrong, the threat to democracy exists. Special interest groups and corporate lobbyists have been obstructing the business of government for decades and it's become acute. The interests of small, well funded organizations with specific agenda that make fat donations are preferred over the needs of ordinary citizens. Subsidies for oil companies? Really? And your anger at unions is most likely recent and the product of a concerted PAC-funded effort to destabilize Democratic funding sources (I know this because Rep Fitzwater discussed it on Fox News). If successful, this would marginalize one political party, making our country vulnerable to becoming a one-voice system (Socialism). Not good. We need balance, not wealth-influenced legislation.
Concerning your references to "left-leaning fear-monger[ers]" and "sky-is-falling" scenarios, these things don't exist. The reality is that rich folks are trying to get richer and they've got some politicians in their pockets. A lot of people are working hard to try to protect you and our rights.

Bren,

The recount is a political ploy, period. The ability to recount was not put in place so that a candidate for a Supreme Court position who has lost the election can take it upon themselves to use the recount system to delay the seating of the winning candidate under the false pretense of verifying the integrity of the state's voting system. In the first place, it's not their position to determine problems exist that warrant investigation, and in the second the recount system doesn't do that - particularly when a good portion of the votes will have to be recounted by hand. Again, this is nothing but politics.

There have been special interest groups influencing (read that, funneling money) races and politicians for as long as I've been paying attention to politics and long before then. So if they're a threat to our democracy, they have been for decades and they will continue to be such for years to come. You can't get rid of them. You're being extremely naive if you think you can. Again, this is another issue being raised as a ploy by the losing side as a justification for pursuing extreme measures to attempt to overturn elections that didn't fall in their favor.

The truth of the matter is that the sky is not falling. There is nothing being done that can't be undone by future administrations if it turns out it doesn't work. It's the fear of it working that's driving all this, by those who profit if the status quo is maintained.

Bob, I said "balance." You're right, there are those who profit if this status quo is maintained. But former Pres. Clinton was right, when everyone has a little money they spend it and the economy chugs along (I'm paraphrasing). We're a market driven economy, and when the big fish throw a little back, it's good. Right now, all the money is going to the top and its not trickling back down in the form of jobs and raises. Speculator-driven gas price hikes are exacerbating the problem. Insurance companies are increasing rates in double-digits (making hay while the sun shines). Deregulation in key industries has caused a wage schism. Obviously this is a simplistic viewpoint. And I hope I'm not a naif. Back-room political foolishness has been taking place since George Washington was president. I just hope the greediest of the greedy scale it back enough where circumstances improve for everyone, not just Paris Hilton and Exxon.

Bren,

For two solid years the Democrats have had a multitude of opportunities to right the wrongs as you see them. Have they done so? There has been no appreciable change in those 2 years, so unless this "balance" you speak of is so intolerant that an almost indiscernible amount of variance throws it in or out of line, once again I have to say this is a false issue.

And, again, I'll say that it's precisely because of the kind of Democracy we do have, one that is in no way threatened (unless your suggesting that we're on the verge of the spurious implementation of martial law), that the fear of what Walker is proposing is completely blown out of proportion. Again, if it turns out that everything in the BRB and related budget proposed by Walker and supported by the Republicans in state government turns out to be wrong and a failure, there's nothing that can't be reversed come next election cycle.

This is the way it has always been. It's a self-correcting system with ample opportunity to change everything back if the voters so choose. What's not as it always is, what's not "normal" and what's not, in truth, needed, is the push for extraordinary actions to reverse this last election cycle or forestall the results of the Supreme Court election. The fear is real, but it's a fear on the part of those who would preserve the status quo at the expense of their fellow taxpayers. Fear of the end of Democracy is a nothing but a scare tactic used to maintain it.

Bob, the past two years have been spent in trying to salvage the U.S. economy. The Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest, plus two foreign wars that were not paid for by Iraqi oil as we were promised, degregulation, unprecedented outsourcing of jobs, etc. etc., resulted in egregious raids on Social Security and the fall from a modest budget surplus to the largest federal deficit in U.S. history. It took 8 years to create this disaster and you expected it cleaned up overnight? Now the folks who rubber-stamped this disaster are obstructing recovery at every turn and wasting time with posturing and foolishness. It doesn't take a genius to balance a checkbook, so we know special interests also play a part in prolonging our problems. What do they gain by doing this? Money. Why aren't corporations scrambling to bring all those outsourced jobs back to the U.S. to help the country that gave them birth and success? Money. That's where the need for balance comes in. If you are making vast sums of money you can pay some taxes. The Reagan-era regulation to make large companies pay some taxes were rolled back in the Bush era. The "self correcting system" has been broken. The balance has completely shifted to where the wealthiest are sucking up all the income and you know what happens to the teeter-totter when too many kids pile on one side.
"If voters so choose." Plenty of folks voted for Republicans because of their jobs platform and look what we're getting instead.

Bren,

The past two years have been spent by Democrats NOT doing stuff like reversing the Bush tax cuts because, in truth, they really don't want to do that stuff. They talk a good game, but when it comes down to actually taking action against the people who pad their pockets as well as those of Republicans, they'd rather wait until they can blame Republicans for being "obstructionist" and continue to talk the talk without having to walk the walk.

It's time to stop blaming Bush. If the Democrats really couldn't do more than they did in the past two years of virtual free rein (as opposed to not wanting to do more for the reasons mentioned above), then they can only be deemed ineffective and, as someone who supports their stance on the issues, you should be calling them out for being ineffective, rather than complaining about those on the other side who actually do something that completely falls in line with their agenda when they get the chance.

On the one hand you excuse the Democrats for their lack of doing what they were elected to do over a period of two years, and then question what the Republicans have accomplished in 4 months. Not only are you not the independent you claim to be, you're completely inconsistent when it comes to holding elected officials accountable.

Bob, you're kidding, right? Which party is out there blabbering about "No tax increases!" when even Dr. Greenspan insists that the Bush era tax cuts must be allowed to expire if our economy is to recover? I agree that Democratic reps are also in hock to special interests, but Republicans are overwhelmingly supported by big business. As Rep. Fitzwater recently explained on Fox News, the current union-busting initiative is part of a larger policy to de-fund traditional Democratic revenue sources (unions, low and middle class wage earners, etc.-obviously not a complete list).

Concerning blame, who deregulated industry, started two wars, raided Social Security, gave enormous tax cuts to big business between 2000 and 2008? Who did all that if not Bush? Tell me, please. And you seriously don't expect that 8 years of miserable stewardship can just be wiped away (at least through legal channels). The situation needs to be analyzed, solutions identified, legislation written and cleared through two houses of Congress--but you know that. "Those on the other side who actually do something." Are you referring to Walker? What has he done? His budget repair bill will have $0 impact on the state deficit, and his budget proposal increases spending and cuts 21,000 jobs. And he may have violated the Open Meeting law. I'd rather he not do these things.

I'm not inconsistent. I'm a well informed independent voter who lives in the reality-based world.

Bren,

During the two years that the Democrats were effectively calling the shots, they could have taken numerous actions that would have moved things in a direction more appealing to you. Would it have turned it into the lefty Utopia you desire? Of course not and I'm not suggesting they could have countered everything that had gone before, but there were a number of things, liked repealing the Bush tax cuts, that they didn't do. And the reason they didn't is because they're beholden to the same folks as the Republicans. Again, they talk the talk (that you want to hear) but when it comes time to make even the relatively easy changes that they could, they don't. And you're okay with that, apparently, as you're more concerned that Walker hasn't achieved his goals in 4 months and you've bought the union line on the effects of what he's proposing to do.

And again, I go back to the original point here, and that is that the sky is not falling, there's nothing happening that warrants the extraordinary measures you insist are necessary. If you were comfortable (and continue to be) with an ineffective Democratically controlled government that did nothing much more than talk about what they claimed they were going to do (sans actually doing it) and whine about their predecessors, what's the rush when the Republicans are in charge and are not (according to you) doing what they said they would do?

Don't like 'em? Vote 'em out next election cycle.

I have now been informed that there is such a provision in our state law. Prosser is .02 % (2 hundreths!) shy of a sufficent margin so Kloppenburg is perfectly within her rights to demand a recount at taxpayer expense. Of course, not all things that are lawful are prudent.

Bob,

If it's greater than 1/2 of 1 %, then they have to pay for the cost themselves. In this case it was just under that amount. This is the first time in this state (and possibly anywhere else) that a margin this great has been subject to a recount. The odds of the original results being overturned are astronomically small.

Unfortunately, rather than spare the taxpayers of Wisconsin the expense, Kloppenburg has elected to go through with it and allow herself to be used as a tool of those on the left. So much for integrity and bipartisanship.

I thought I had a solution that involved a removable external storage device, two copies of the original data, a screw driver and duct tape but then I realized that someone, somewhere would probably get hung up on the usage of the term "original" data versus a copy of the original data and we'd end up with further challenges from the left wasting yet more taxpayer money.

Bob's right. Leave it to Obama.

I love it! It probably makes too much sense for the pols to follow through on though.

@Bren - Incorrect. I would not want the law changed back if the same happened to a republican. You assume too much. I wouldn't care WHAT political party that person belonged to. It's shameful no matter which, and the law should be changed. Don't make assumptions. You know what they say about assuming....

Karen Pierce, I don't agree with your point, but I am glad that your opinion is bi-partisan. I think the law is in place for just such a circumstance as the one that has arisen. It's a shame about the cost but it's the price we pay for electing partisan data squirrels like Ms. Nickolaus. This isn't the first time, but hopefully it will be the last that she causes an election controversy.

@ David, with the history of its Clerk, Waukesha should be further scrutinized, even though the canvas and the initial preliminary totals, reported by the Brookfield Patch, are all congruent; the Democratic poll watcher/observer confirmed the accuracy too.

All poling places in Wisconsin, even the "mom and pop" have poll watchers/observers, a Democrat and Republican, that are on site for the election, for the purpose of reporting any impropriety. I have not seen interviews with poll watchers reporting problems; certainly the Kloppenburg campaign would have anyone reporting problems available to the press. Furthermore, all ballots follow a chain of custody between the county clerk and the local poling places. The canvas cross verifies the totals of used/unused/error/replacement ballots and confirms the honesty of the process.

The canvas process has verified the honesty of the process, but for those still in doubt we could have confirmed the accuracy with a Waukesha County recount; about 8% of all Wisconsin votes cast were in done in Waukesha, the place most suspected of being in error. If any significant counting issues were noted, in this statistically significant sample, we could have preceded to a statewide recount.