--- title: How the Wisconsin Recount Can Fix American Elections description: The information that analysts have to work with is not nearly detailed enough. canonical: https://time.com/4583933/wisconsin-recount-election/ author: Chris Wilson article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2016-11-30T19:01:43.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-23T02:01:04.534Z article:section: Politics og:title: How the Wisconsin Recount Could Help Fix American Elections og:description: By drawing attention to the lack of good data. og:url: https://time.com/4583933/wisconsin-recount-election/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt41816328a568a232/6988aff097cdff11056aeb7c/gettyimages-113214031.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 3000 og:image:height: 1688 og:image:alt: Wisconsin Holds Recount Of Contested Supreme Court Election og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: How the Wisconsin Recount Could Help Fix American Elections twitter:description: By drawing attention to the lack of good data. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt41816328a568a232/6988aff097cdff11056aeb7c/gettyimages-113214031.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # How the Wisconsin Recount Could Help Fix American Elections > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=a0f063d7-6c2b-4601-b13d-40eee3a41ad2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | Subscribers | Open rate | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | 540,000 | 45.6% | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | 430,000 | 50.7% | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Daily | 240,000 | 54.1% | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Tuesday and Saturday (2x per week) | 40,000 | 31.7% | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Monday to Saturday (3x per week) | 85,000 | 37.0% | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | 40,000 | 34.2% | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | 25,000 | 28.6% | Source: TIME, August 2026. Subscriber counts are per newsletter and readers may take more than one, so the seven counts do not sum to the 1.1 million+ unique newsletter audience. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Highest open rate | 54.1%, Health Matters | TIME, August 2026 | | Largest list | 540,000, The Brief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=a0f063d7-6c2b-4601-b13d-40eee3a41ad2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=a0f063d7-6c2b-4601-b13d-40eee3a41ad2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (daily health), Worth Your Time (culture, twice weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, three times a week), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement.  by [Chris Wilson](https://time.com/author/chris-wilson/)  ## Chris Wilson Nov 30, 2016 7:01 PM UTC  MILWAUKEE, WI - APRIL 27: Members of the Milwaukee County Election Commission recount the ballets for the Wisconsin Supreme Court race between incumbent Justice David Prosser and Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg at the Milwaukee County Sports Complex April 27, 2011 Milwaukee. Observers from the Prosser and Kloppenburg campaign were overseeing the process to validate the recount. (Photo by Darren Hauck/Getty Images) MILWAUKEE, WI - APRIL 27: Members of the Milwaukee County Election Commission recount the ballets for the Wisconsin Supreme Court race between incumbent Justice David Prosser and Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg at the Milwaukee County Sports Complex April 27, 2011 Milwaukee. Observers from the Prosser and Kloppenburg campaign were overseeing the process to validate the recount. (Photo by Darren Hauck/Getty Images) Darren Hauck—Getty Images  by [Chris Wilson](https://time.com/author/chris-wilson/)  ## Chris Wilson Nov 30, 2016 7:01 PM UTC Even if the [recount of Wisconsin’s election results](http://time.com/4583546/wisconsin-recount-vote-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-jill-stein/) doesn’t change a single vote, the scrutiny could have one useful side effect: Spotlighting how scattershot the American voting system has become. Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is leading the effort for a recount after claims surfaced that there was statistical evidence the state’s results were suspicious. Many supporters of the recount worry that Russian hackers might have thrown the contest to President-elect Donald Trump, who won the state by 24,081 votes out of [nearly 3 million cast](http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2016&fips=55&f=1&off=0&elect=0). Skeptics have thrown cold water on the claim, arguing that the data does not support this claim in any convincing way. But right now it’s almost impossible to disprove the suspicion that voting machines were somehow compromised because Wisconsin’s voting machines are so inconsistent from one location to the next. Elections in Wisconsin are supervised by about 1,850 different municipalities in 72 counties, each of which chose their own voting mechanism. Every municipality uses at least two systems: one for standard voters and another for those who require extra help due to age or a disability. Statewide, there are 16 different models of voting machines in use as well as 813 locations that hand-count most of the ballots, according to the state Elections Commission’s [official list of hardware](http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/page/179/voting%5Fequipment%5Fby%5Fmunicipality%5F09%5F2016%5Fpdf%5F19011.pdf). ([Under Wisconsin law](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/5/I/40/1), municipalities with populations over 7,500 are required to use electronic voting machines.) In some cases, election officials say, a significant number of people use the more accessible machines even if they don’t require them, but there is no public information on how many voters used each technology. In fact, there isn’t even a reliable source for how many voters showed up at each location. Many counties neglect to release the results by municipality, and those that do publish this data in a wide variety of convoluted formats. While the official county tally shows that 10,158 people voted in Adams County, for example, there is no way to know how many of them where in the county’s 12 municipalities that primarily hand-count ballots and how many where in the seven that use an optical scanner for most voters. The Wisconsin Elections Commission’s Elections Supervisor, Ross Hein, told TIME that data on how many ballots were cast on different machines will eventually be released, but not until at least 45 days after the election. The uproar over Wisconsin began with a Nov. 22 [_New York_ Magazine report](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html) that a team of computer scientists and election experts found statistical evidence of vote tampering. While that claim was [quickly disputed](https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.hy4l1rnax) by one of the scientists, both [journalists](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/) and [academics](http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2016/11/24/some-thoughts-about-the-reports-of-supposed-evidence-of-election-irregularities-in-mi-pa-and-wi/) have independently determined that such evidence doesn’t exist. With spotty data, however, it’s as difficult to prove a conspiracy as it is to definitely debunk it. Competing number crunchers don’t usually get the spotlight, but they ought to have the information they need to make defensible assertions about any state’s election. Just as media outlets serve a vital role in monitoring elected officials, data analysts can scrutinize detailed election results to independently monitor the country’s most important democratic exercise. When local election data is available, it is possible for experts to determine whether there is convincing evidence of fraud. In 2012, a team of scientists examined the results of 12 elections across a range of countries and [found convincing evidence of ballot stuffing](http://www.nature.com/news/democracy-isn-t-all-it-is-cracked-up-to-be-1.9925) in several, such as the 2011 Duma election in Russia. But [the study indicates that this was only possible](http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16469.full#aff-1) when results were broken out into groups of 5,000 people or less, which is not the case in most U.S. states. As it stands, even getting reliable figures on how each county voted is not simple. The easiest way to get those figures is to purchase them from the [Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections](http://uselectionatlas.org/), a site that aggregates the individual reports from each state and charges for the immense work that goes into contacting 50 states and the District of Columbia one at time to get the info. Data on which machines voters used also typically relies on a third party, the non-profit organization [VerifiedVoting](https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/), which also shoulders the tedious work of contacting scores of local officials to figure out what devices they use. While their data is impressively complete—and free—it’s unrealistic to expect an independent group to capture the complexity of every jurisdiction across the nation. The black box of Wisconsin is a reminder that, while elections are organized by states instead of the federal government, the country would benefit enormously from consistent transparency guidelines for how granular information on results is reported. In an ideal world, all states would commit to a standard format for promptly reporting both their total tallies and those figures divided by county, precinct, and congressional district, as well as which machines were used by how many voters at a local level. This is not merely a plea to make life easier for data journalists. With this information in hand, independent analysts could look for any evidence of tampering, helping assuage a widening fear that elections are “[rigged](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-rigged-election-guide-230302)” or [vulnerable to hacking](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2016/1107/How-hackers-eroded-Americans-trust-in-democratic-process). Few things matter more to the health of a democracy than the faith of an electorate in its electoral process, and that faith is historically imperiled. A consistent, reliable source of detailed data on how many people voted for which candidates at which locations, and on which devices, would empower watchdogs to verify that the system is still functioning, however many precincts it takes. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/4583933/wisconsin-recount-election/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/4583933/wisconsin-recount-election/"},"headline":"How the Wisconsin Recount Could Help Fix American Elections","datePublished":"2016-11-30T19:01:43.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-23T02:01:04.534Z","description":"The information that analysts have to work with is not nearly detailed enough. Will that change?","url":"https://time.com/4583933/wisconsin-recount-election/","keywords":["politics","Hillary Clinton","Voting","Wisconsin","Donald Trump"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt41816328a568a232/6988aff097cdff11056aeb7c/gettyimages-113214031.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Chris Wilson","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/chris-wilson/"}],"articleSection":"Politics","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt41816328a568a232/6988aff097cdff11056aeb7c/gettyimages-113214031.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Wisconsin Holds Recount Of Contested Supreme Court Election","caption":"Wisconsin Holds Recount Of Contested Supreme Court Election","creditText":"Darren Hauck—Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/politics/","name":"Politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/politics/","name":"politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/4583933/wisconsin-recount-election/","name":"How the Wisconsin Recount Could Help Fix American Elections"}}]}] ```