New Diebold Feature Just Discovered -If you reboot the Diebold touchscreen,
the memory pack loses the votes.
These same problems in Maryland appear to have happened in Gaston County NC.
Read Avi Rubin's report on the failure of Diebold memory packs to upload votes in
Maryland's recent primary:http://avi-rubin.blogspot.com/2006/10/following-is-exce... Here is a synopsis of what an election judge reported to Avi:
Republican Chief Judge in the September 12 primary in Montgomery County, Maryland reports:
One of the eight touch screen voting machines used on election day recorded no votes,
even though 55 voters were logged onto the machine.
The problem as explained by Diebold and the county BoE:
That particular touch screen machine had been rebooted, and
the memory card had been removed and reinserted into the machine.
The election judge was told that this was a "security" feature!
The Board of Elections, with the help of Diebold was able to recover the “missing” votes from the hard drive.
Gaston County North Carolina used the Diebold TS from 1998 to 2004 with serious problems reported. (I don't have data for 2000)
In both elections Gaston also had problems with the memory packs not recording the votes, and the central tabulator. The DESI technicians had to "manually" retrieve the votes. The central tabulators lacked the capacity or ability to receive vote totals.
In November 2004, in Gaston County NC, (a Diebold TS county) half of the precincts in Gaston County did not balance.State to probe Gaston election
19 November 2004
The Observer reported Thursday that the numbers did not balance in more than half the precincts in Gaston County. Gaston elections officials said they had been unaware of the problem.
http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=3915 Legal Documents Regarding the 2004 Diebold Problems Correspondence between the NC State Board of Elections General Counsel and DESI's attorney
reveal many serious problems with the Diebold machines in the 2004 election
Two malfunctions of particular note: 15 Memory packs that didn't work, affecting 11,945 votes
There was a problem with 11,945 votes from Dallas, NC. Seven days after the election the County Board of Elections noticed that 11,945 voter were missing (the precinct rolls reported 12,867 where the GEMS system only showed 922).
Apparently, 15 early voting memory packs didn't work in the standard (AccuVote-TS) process of accumulating the memory packs onto one unit and then "downloading" them into the GEMS server.
That didn't work in a reproducible fashion.
These memory packs had to be directly loaded onto the GEMS server by a DESI technician.
This seems to have been done in a controlled manner.
Hand entering of ballots: finally, the document describes hand-entering of "three to five" ballots.
Here is the legal correspondence
http://www.josephhall.org/nqb2/media/GastonDiebold2004.... The full article describing the 2004 Gaston County Diebold meltdown here
http://josephhall.org/nqb2/index.php/2005/10/03/p691 1998 "Bugs" in Diebold TS in Gaston County Voting Machines and Central Tabulators -
I turned up similar problems with the memory packs and the central tabulator
capacity issue in the Diebold TS in Gaston County - dating back to 1998:
"In 1998, Gaston County was using direct-record electronic voting machines for the first time. Before the election, officials discovered some problems with the machines, and an upgrade was necessary. The machines were run through basic testing, but the upgrades cut into time for additional testing for known “bugs.”
Suddenly it was election night. The first sign of a bug appeared when the time came to report the totals.
Nearly one-third of Gaston County’s precincts reported no votes because the cartridges that read the totals from the machines were not functioning. Another facet of this bug was evident for the county at large:
when the vote totals reached 32,000, the tabulators would not tally any higher.The chair of the county board of elections opened the process up to all who wished to observe, as the computer experts opened the machines and retrieved the source code that showed the proper vote totals.
The internal drives that showed how each voter had voted were intact and retrievable. Two statewide court of appeals races, one state House of Representatives race, and one local race were close enough that they were determined by the data retrieved from the machines. Because of the safeguard of public scrutiny, confidence in the way the matter was handled was high, and there were no election protests." (page 8)
http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/pg/pg... How many times were voting machines re-booted in Maryland in the primary,
and what is to prevent that from being done on purpose?