USA Today: "Don't Trust Diebold"

Don't trust vulnerable Diebold voting machines, use absentee ballots
Updated 10/2/2006 3:36 PM ET
Andrew Kantor, technology writer

...

What more do people need to hear or to see or to read to convince them Diebold voting machines simply can't be trusted? A burning bush?

After the past few years and specifically the past week, we have reached the point where it has become obvious that there is something seriously wrong with Diebold machines.

Let's look at the hard evidence.

...

But the Princeton paper isn't alone.

It's in the company of one from Johns Hopkins. In 2004 a paper on e-voting security from researchers there said, " We conclude that this voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election." (Incidentally, it was presented at the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. So this isn't lightweight stuff.)

And then there's evidence from Diebold itself, such as the leaked memos from some employees discussing, among other things, how easy it is to alter the database used to tabulate the votes.

And let's not forget Diebold's 2002 Election Support Guide. I can't say I'm thrilled to see that they're told that, despite a variety of problems with the e-voting machines, we must always promote the consistency and accuracy of our voting systems."

It seems that integrity and honesty aren't terribly important at Diebold, yet we're letting them play an integral role in our government. Does this make sense? The company also makes automatic teller machines. If Diebold ATMs were shown to be as untrustworthy as their voting equipment, do you think banks would even consider using them?

rest of article---
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-09-29-diebold_x.htm




spread this one around, people like to see it in the mainstream media.

and by the way the Election Justice Center promises to be in overdrive from here to November. Check our website regularly for updates on what's happening with the voting machines. http://election.solarbus.org

peaceout
gb

:wow:

It should be stuck on bulletin boards (etc etc) all over the place.
USA Today is probably credible enough for the brushoff crowd,

Think I'll pick up some of that non-permanent stickum too. Bus stops.


Thanks for the post!

Kick + Reccommend

They try to rig elections that aren't even close, and get caught red-handed.

the Republicans will use all these articles (which are FINALLY coming out in the mainstream - save Keith Olbermann's excellent coverage after the 2004 election) to justify why they should retain their seats.

:grr:

Not that I'm a big fan of USA Today (I'm not), but it's definitely MSM.

Bringing this to the public's attention is long overdue, as most people at DU know.

As one who worked a quarter century as a computer programmer, I can say that in an environment where the source code is deemed the private property of the manufacturer and beyond public scrutiny and where no ballot-level paper trail is preserved, any one who has ever received a passing grade in programming class would have the necessary skills to rig an election.

I have no confidence in the integrity these voting machines. We need to to start collecting data that will challenge unexpected results in contests where these machines are used. Everybody needs to find polling data on congressional races, especially if you are one of those who live in one of those safe-Republican-turned-marginal districts.

If the current trend in public opinion survey continues and we wake up the morning of November 8 to discover that the Republicans still control both houses of Congress, that Rick Santorum is still in the Senate and that Ken Blackwell is the new governor of Ohio, then we ought to surmise that we were robbed. We must not take it laying down.

I digress to Georgia DUers for the details on that particular stolen election.

I honestly believe that we still aren't safe with absentee ballots. I have done election certification for my county before as the Dem representative (one Dem and one Rep have to be present in case there is a need to review someone's absentee ballot). But, and this is a big one, all absentee ballots are then scanned through a Diebold machine which is supposed to tally that persons choices.

If they can steal votes with the regular machines, why can't they change the amounts for the absentee ballots? No one usually ever asks for a recount with them either.

:kick:

Colbert mentioned Diebold during "The Word" last night - it's getting out there....

Sleeping beauties long over slept http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJOyz7_sk8I just in case anyone missed it/