When it look like shit, smells like shit and is owned by Romney's Son!

Seems legit.

.

Seems like possible conflict of interest to me.

If you can't buy the votes, buy the voting machines!

It is cheaper.

Wouldn't it be funny if Obama lost and could prove Romney stole the election and sued him and won all his money?

Oh that's right, Romney keeps his money offshore.

So let me get this straight, he bought voting machines now what is he going to do with them?
Is he going to break in to the voting places the night before and switch out the voting machines?

I take it you know nothing of today's modern voting machines.

It's not who votes that matters. It's who counts the votes.

Exactly..
The ignorance of some people....

I vote in every election so I would say yes I do.
You're talking about software the OP is talking about machines.

Except they are electronic, phone home and some say they can't be audited.

To clarify the Romney's bought one of the electronic voting machine companies.

But the OP they were buying the voting machines.
Please tell me how they're going use it, you really have got be kidding!

I'll raise..



GEORGE SOROS OWNS COMPANY THAT WILL COUNT AMERICA?S VOTES IN NOVEMBER?S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN SPAIN

"When the Spanish online voting company SCYTL bought the largest vote processing corporation in the United States, it also acquired the means of manufacturing the outcome of the 2012 election. For SOE, the Tampa based corporation purchased by SCYTL in January, supplies the election software which records, counts, and reports the votes of Americans in 26 states?900 total jurisdictions?across the nation."

They rigged some of the Ohio machines in 2004. Democrat strongholds were going Republican. Urban black areas had a less than 7% voter turnout. Rural white areas had a greater than 100% turnout. That was also the year of the infamous exit polls that ended up being wrong.

The fraud was so obvious, but this is the USA. Election fraud here is something for underground crackpots on the internet only.

Why would they even think that would be a good idea and not create controversy?

.

There is actually a really good book written about how the republicans stole the election in Ohio in 2004.

Among the things they pulled:

Telling the volunteers that worked at the polls that if someone showed up at the wrong voting location they weren't aloud to vote, but instead had to go to their correct location. The problem is they only told this to to the workers in the democrat heavy areas. In the rural and republican areas it was business as usual meaning if you showed up at the wrong polling location they called the correct one and told them you were voting at the one you were currently at and then let you vote. Many people likely got discouraged after waiting in line for a couple of hours only to be told they had to go across town and wait in another line.

In the rural and republican heavy areas there were plenty of voting machines and volunteers assigned to the polls so things moved quickly and you didn't have to wait in line very long. In the democrat heavy areas there was a shortage of machines and volunteers so the lines were very long. Many people had to wait in line 4+ hours to vote.

There were some number issues. For example in one county where there were around 8,000 registered voters Kerry got 2,500 votes so you would expect Bush to get around 5,500 votes, but instead Bush got 68,000 votes. They said this was a "glitch" in the software and it happened several times in different places around the state. They claimed to fix it and have the correct numbers. The interesting things is that every one of these "glitches" gave Bush a huge amount of extra votes. The "glitch" never helped Kerry or affected any of the ballot measures or local races.

To me these are all examples of why we need to get rid of the outdated electoral college and go with a straight popular vote election for president.

If that's true then what happened in 2008?

Second if people don't know what precinct they are supposed to vote in then they shouldn't be voting. These are things you should know long before the election.

Other folks are starting to map the relationships

Link to More Overlaps between Romney campaign and Romney Investments.

There are a few different things.

1. The races wasn't as close in 2008 as it was in 2004. It didn't matter if McCain won Ohio or not, he wasn't going to win the election. And the election in Ohio itself wasn't as close.

2. There was a different secretary of state in Ohio. In 2004 it was Blackwell who was the co-chair of Bush's campaign in Ohio. He was on record as saying he would do anything it took to deliver Ohio to Bush.

3. In 2008 the secretary of state was a democrat.


I disagree. What if you happen to commute a decent distance from where you live and traffic sucks so you might not get home in time to vote before the polls close? Yes, your job is supposed to let you off work to vote, but you might end up missing a few hours of pay. Up until this time if a person showed up at the wrong poll they either gave them a provisional ballot or they called the correct poll, verified who the person was and let them vote. It shouldn't matter where you vote. So long as they can verify that you are on the rolls as a registered voter you should be able to vote anywhere you want to vote.

The software and machines are usually made by the same company.

Remember this guy?

in other countries people make a cross with a pen in a box on a form - and all is clear.

but no, you rather have either rigged voting machines or this:

Only winner here is seller of those machines