There should be consequences. But as we've seen time and again there are no consequences for these people. Except maybe the occasional but still too rare election outcome.

Unfortunately, with the lid being this far off, as you well term it, there's a new cavalier attitude that's suddenly pervasive. You see, why is there any lid now? It's just in the way.

That would be their logical next step, to make campaigns truly wide open. To them, what's the diff from what CU did?

We were thinking more or less the same thing while I was typing.

Amazing statistical anomalies and The Great Oz.

Do we have an author for The Great Oz piece?

Or should I say "for The Great Oz piece, an author do we have?"

Anyway, sounds like Yoda?

That all makes for a great conspiracy theory, but where's the evidence?

Isn't it the tradition of hackers who find vulnerabilities in things like operating systems to publish the details of the vulnerability, thus forcing the OS publisher to come up with a fix, post haste?

If there is anything to this story of skulduggery and volunteer counter-insurgency, wouldn't it make sense that the people who averted the stealing of the election would publish the details, including the electronic footprints and fingerprints of those who attempted to steal an election? If Rove or anyone else attempted to orchestrate some kind of electronic attack on the voting system, simply claiming to have stopped the attack isn't enough. Whoever attempted the attack should be exposed and prosecuted, and the vulnerability exposed so that the system can be fortified. If this story is true, then the people who thwarted Rove haven't finished the job.