Thinking that the WI election was "rigged" sets the stage for losing.

[Stevepol]

63. Almost impossible

I don't think it's possible to say that the election was fraudulent, but it's not possible to say it was fair either. I disagree strongly with the statement: "Fixing an election to produce the results that actually happened would be almost impossible, I think." Were there any monitors inside the machines? Did any monitors watch the commpany com-puter experts as they programmed the machines for the election?

As Steven Freeman has said about elections where votes are tabulated using electronic voting machines, it is "trivially easy" to hack, patch, mis-program etc., ESPECIALLY FOR INSIDERS, meaning the folks who program and maintain the machines.

WI does not have, that I know of, any requirement for auditing an election by actually HAND-COUNTING the actual paper ballots used after the election takes place to try to insure that the machines have not been intentionally manipulated or are just malfunctioning. In other words, there is no way to know if the machines are giving correct read-outs. It could be the results are pretty close to correct. It could be that Walker won by a wider margin than the machines show. It could be that Barrett actually won. The point is THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW. The fail rate for computers is quite high around the country and I'd suggest that anybody thinking that computers are "almost impossible" to fix or manipulate is living in Never-Never Land.