Diebold fate hangs on whether its voting software can be fixed By Ian Hoff

[MelissaB]

Diebold fate hangs on whether its voting software can be fixed By Ian Hoffman

By Ian HoffmanSoftware files have company in double bind with state, feds, STAFF WRITER


For more than two years, Diebold Election Systems Inc. has hit one political or technical snag after another trying to reap more than $40 million in voting-machine sales in California.

Now only a collection of tiny software files on Diebold's latest voting machines stand in the way of those revenues and more. Last summer, a Finnish computer expert using an agricultural device found he could rig the votes stored on Diebold's memory cards and rewrite one of those files to cover his tracks.

The revelation posed a double problem for Diebold: Not only could its optical-scanning voting machines be hacked, but state and federal rules for more than a year have forbidden those files in voting machines.

This week, scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, UC-Davis and a private, testing lab in Huntsville, Ala., are studying those files under strict promises of confidentiality. What they find could bear directly on what kind of voting systems almost a third of California counties will use in the 2006 elections and indirectly on Diebold's viability as a voting company.

More: http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_3427025

[Ron Day Voo]

1. What if we DO get the voting machines fixed?

(Or use paper ballots etc.) And we still lose the elections?

[klook]

3. "We"?

Well, obviously, if there are auditable voting results and it's verified that we came out on the short end in an election, that's that.

But with a high percentage of the American public (incluing you?) disapproving of the Republican machine, it seems unlikely that Democrats will lose many fair elections in the near future.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[sojourner]

4. c'mon.........you're kidding right?

2004, turnout was massive, the will of the people was there. the exit polls (used to be reliable, 'member?) showed us winning.

if we fix electoral fraud we will NOT lose elections!!

edited to add: Welcome to DU! :hi:

[nofoil]

5. You can't be serious.

[electropop]

6. We've already seen they can be 'fixed'

Now we need to repair them, or better yet, ban them.

Have a nice stay at DU. Based on years of consistent poll results, if we ever have a fair election in this country, the Republicans will be swept en masse from Washington. No worry there. All we need is to start having elections where no eligible voter is blocked from voting, and where the voting and vote counting is transparent and audited.

[Ron Day Voo]

7. "Have a nice stay"???

I ask a little, tiny, itty-bitty question--and one that's reasonable to ask because it's a real fear of mine--and others too--and you're telling me to "have a nice stay"?????????????????????????????

[electropop]

10. ?

Yikes.

But on your main point, there is virtually no chance we'll lose fair elections, unless our leaders continue to drift to the right.

[Ron Day Voo]

11. But...

...that means, whenever there is an election, you're only willing to consider 2 outcomes:

1). winning
2). saying the other side cheated

However 'feel good' they may seem, logically, those are NOT the only two outcomes possible. We know this. Inside ourselves, we KNOW this. Thus, the question becomes:

"Is it in the best interests of the Democratic party to consider only these two outcomes--esp. when we know there are more than just those two?"

Considering the wide swath of elections--in all areas--that we've lost, I think we should look at ALL the reasons for the end results--not just the ones that salve our wounds.

[electropop]

15. What?

Dems believe in fair elections - whatever the outcome. Please research this before making such assumptions.

Of course I or any sane Dem will accept a legitimate loss. What we will not accept is elections which have clearly been stolen. The mountains of evidence in 2000, 2002, 2004, and even 2005 (Ohio) point to theft. It's not assumed to be stolen because we lost. It's assumed to be stolen based on evidence: creating long lines in Dem precincts by removing the voting machines, arbitrary last-minute rule changes to disenfranchise legitimate registered voters, electronic machines switching tens of thousands of votes from Kerry to Bush, exit polls suddenly and mysteriously dramatically changed at the last minute, falsified "audits," mahine tampering, and on and on. I recommend some research on this topic before you assume (or claim) that it's just post-loss bitterness. It's documented (for example, see the non-partisan US Government Accountability Office report released October 2005).

And yes, I believe we would have won by a bigger margin in 2004 if we'd had a real liberal as our candidate. We should address our problems such as pale pseudo-Dems in Congress. But all this will not matter at all if we don't solve the election theft problem.

[Ron Day Voo]

16. You, yourself, said:

..."there is virtually no chance we'll lose fair elections...".


I am simply saying that is not realistic--and it isn't in our best interests to think we will always win unless the other side cheated. I do not need to research this subject as I was not wishing to debate PAST elections (there are too many of them locally, regionally, for Congress, our reps, govs, mayors, nationally--you name it) that we have lost, I was addressing FUTURE elections and your comment about them.

[electropop]

17. I didn't say I am incapable of accepting losses.

I said I consider losses unlikely in the FUTURE election later this year. This is based on the polls and the trends and the events still unfolding, all of which point to a Republican debacle.

Those PAST elections are an important guide to problems we should expect in FUTURE elections - as you pointed out. Like you, I believe that we need to address our party's performance problems (of course). But stopping the slide to the right will be to no avail if we fail to realistically acknowledge that Republicans have been routinely stealing elections though a variety of illegal means, or means which should be illegal, but have been enshrined or enabled in law by them, for their benefit.

We can be extremely popular and still lose if we let them steal again. We must face this or we will disappear entirely.

[Wilms]

2. This is THE story to watch! n/t

[Amaryllis]

8. Diebold software already is "fixed!"

[Wilms]

9. .

[Amaryllis]

13. Wilms, your post is empty???

[Wilms]

14. I was meditating.

[Bill Bored]

12. Fixed By Ian Hoff? I doubt even he can do that! :) nt