Further to my remarks of yesterday, here is why we shouldn't have to worry much about whether the Waukesha vote totals constitute fraud. The adjustment can be corroborated in a number of ways. First, the voter rolls should reflect the higher number of aggregate votes. Second, the machines should reflect the higher number of aggregate votes. Third, the ballots - which were presumably removed from the machines by the inspectors and secured and sealed (s. 7.51(3)) - will reflect the results. Fourth, examination of her computer will reveal that the votes that she reported to the AP did not include the City of Brookfield - where everyone agrees that people cast these votes and that the votes went overwhelmingly for Prosser. Fifth, examination of her computer and that of the relevant official in Brookfield will show that the city's votes were reported to her. Sixth, the city clerk reported these votes on election night.
There were no votes "found" and no change in the official results. It is inaccurate to call what happened a "ballot blunder." It was not a "counting" error. The votes were not overlooked by the inspectors in the City of Brookfield. They were counted and reported to the county clerk. It was an error in reporting to the media by the county clerk. If she would have reported results by municipality on election night, it would have been immediately evident. In fact, in retrospect, those of us who were following the AP results in real time may have seen it happen when Waukesha's number of precincts reporting changed without a change in the vote totals.
If you read the statutorily prescribed process for counting the votes in Chapter 7 of the state statutes, you'll see that there is a mandatory process of verification and reconciliation called "canvassing" that results in certified vote totals. It was during this process that the reporting error was caught.
The canvas always results in changes to the unofficial totals. We usually don't notice them because they don't make any difference in the outcome. This was a very significant - larger than normal - change, but it is very easy to understand. If you want an analogy, think of the question of whether you overreported or underreported the income reflected on your W-2s. It is what it is.
So we ought to verify. But it is eminently verifiable.