Or have the DoJ begin indictment proceedings for Kasich, DeWine, and Husted?

And that judge that W appointed.

What an asshole.

This judge is a born and raised Ohio guy appointed by W. No mystery as to why he tossed out the suit.

Guess we know what side his bread is buttered on.

The Fix is in, yet again. Who will be the next Mike Connell?

The Obama team. That's because they aren't worried about it, and you shouldn't be either. This is just overblown hype and not something to worry about. The Obama team has been all over any and every Ohio shenanigan. There is a reason they are ignoring this.

I guess we will see tonight.

in two minority districts. If folks want something to worry about I would put that over this software update stuff.

Or close to election eve? This conversation should be front and center. Andy Stevens tried to educate us... How is it that we still only confront these issues a few weeks before election... The hackers work all year long to flip the vote.... We can't expect to change this when we talk about it a few weeks, days or during the election....


Ok.... After the election.... We need to change this private business in charge of our vote... Never again let the privateers count our vote.. Hire public employees.... Accountable to the public.... Make them good paying jobs.... and select the best... hire lots of people to count the vote in front of the public.... Make it a community event...

but I was censored here on DU. One of the jurors even called me stupid. Copied and pasted below.

"Here we go again.

The wholesale stealing of the presidential election is under way. It is news everywhere that repukes are using methods of intimidation, wrong dates on printed material, and using computer software on voting machines to try and steal this election.

Fuck! Again!

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy"

I've been concerned about this for years and posted everywhere about it except here because I'm new. But the one time I do and it gets locked.

Because all the code is considered proprietary, there is no proof that ballots could be altered unless you have access to the code.
In this case it can only be theories and opinions because of the proprietary code.
[font size=6 color=RED]BUT THE CODE IS UN-CERTIFIED!!![/font]

How in the hell can it be anything but theory when the patch has not been tested or certified????

Here's a box that has a bomb that is set to go off in 24 hours and somebody says, "It's illegal to bring a box into a public place that could contain a bomb without its being scanned by the legal authorities to find out if it will go off. Therefore, let's set it aside until we can test it as provided for by law."

But the judge says, "I reject your request because you haven't proven that it will go off."

FOR GOD'S SAKE. This is the whole e-voting issue in a nutshell. Every time somebody concerned about election integrity raises the issue of the danger of e-voting and points out that Germany has outlawed voting machines, Ireland has outlawed voting machines as being incompatible with democracy, some wise guy says, "But you don't give any evidence that it has done what you say. Where has it been shown to have stolen an election?"

BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT: With electronic voting machines it's impossible to know since elections are never audited and the codes are proprietary. The only proof you can possibly have is if the bad guys confess or if audits or recounts are routinely done.

BTW there are many many examples of election irregularities that are almost certainly caused by the electronic voting machines going awry. Check out Bradblog's archives.

In my experience, all suits are brought based on "theories and opinions." Especially, where the subject of the suit is propriety, thus unable to be forsenically explained until ... wait for it ... A SUIT IS BROUGHT!

Appeal immediately ... and/or amend the complaint to demand the siezure of the patches for forsenic examination.

The lawsuit itself is still going forward. However, the grounds the judge stated for denying the motion for temporary restraining order--that the suit has little liklihood of success--does not bode well for how he will rule on the lawsuit itself. Nonetheless, the plaintiff can proceed with discovery and potentially get the evidence the judge says is lacking.

... and I hope I'm wrong ... Romney takes Ohio.

You would think that something that could produce irregularities would want to be examined. Wasn't there an Ohio election board that had to test and okay any voting-machine software alteration, particularly a last-minute change? Tell me this isn't happening.