RSSDiebold admits serious design flaw in e-voting machines
By Angela Gunn | Published March 19, 2009, 10:00 PM
Premier Election Systems -- the company formerly known as Diebold -- admitted in a public hearing on Thursday that the software used to manage audit logs on their electronic-voting systems had flaws that would not only drop certain votes entered into the system, but can delete the audit logs that could indicate a problem.
The testing, conducted after an election last June in Humboldt County, Calif., revealed at the time flaws in Diebold / Premier's GEMS system later confirmed by the California Secretary of State. The hearings now underway will help state officials to decide whether to decertify the GEMS v. 1.18.19 system for use in future state elections. The Humboldt testing revealed that the software dropped ballots under certain circumstances. Further investigation by the Secretary of State's office confirmed that problem -- and revealed that the audit logs themselves could be radically altered, sometimes with just one click. The problems with the audit logs, had they been known during the certification process (as Diebold knew for years, it was revealed today), should have disqualified the systems from being certified at all.
The hearings have been fairly acrimonious. At one point, after Diebold / Premier officials attempted to shift the blame for the problems onto state officials including Humboldt County Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich, the elections official fired right back on the company rep: "If you are saying that your system needs to be checked every damn time you turn it on, then I agree with you." (HT to BradBlog.)
I could be mistaken but I thought it was common knowledge that Diebold vote-tabulating machines have been defective for at least ten years, now. [Weren't they used in Florida in 2000?] And which members of Congress currently hold/have held stock in Diebold/Premier Election Systems over these past ten years?
Score: 0
|Shhh... Diebold only breaks when republicans win...
Score: 0
|Our voting system is a JOKE!! Lets go back to paper..
Score: 0
|...because hanging chads are so much better?
Score: 0
|The joke? Assuming the idiot Democratic voters were as smart as the tools!
Yup, the problem is the voting system when so many of ONE party can't fiigure out how to effectiely punch a hole in paper and are too stupid to ask a queation as to how to do it, but suddenly remember their question AFTER they leave the polling location!
LOL!
The ballots where you draw a HEAVY sharpie 1/2 inch line connecting 2 points which is then optically scans works fine. It counts them effectively and provides for an audit trail as well.
Our problem isn't the need for new voting machines. Its the lack of educated voters to use them.
Score: -1
|foxfyre, I wanted electronic COUNTING, Now! The machine manufacturers were the ones running around convincing people, erroneously, that their machines are great. If they told the truth, and spent time/money trying to get it right, rather than running around the country spreading fibs, the situation would be different.
The machines would possibly work.
Or, the machines would not be used.
Our county uses paper ballots and 'smart' optical scanners. I believe it is the best method.
Score: 0
|What YOU want?
Who gives a sh!t?
Meanwhile efforts like those with Rock the Vote and the Online Voting Project and far too many more ( http://onlinevotingproject.org/ ) and other PACS continue to drive for electronic voting.
As do recent articles such as the one by Michael Maiello on Fores.com that makes a case for online voting. "It’s 2008. We should all be voting online. We have the technology. In 2008, voting should take five minutes, not two hours."
http://blogs.forbes.com/...11/we-should-be-vo.html
Go explain the problems to THEM.
Oh.....
Score: -7
|Not much different then the sock puppets here who hide behind multiple braindead identities and think(now There is a misuse of the term!) that the lame @ss voting function means something.
But then, the concept of framing a cogent thought simply escapes their limited and loosely assembled gaggle of ganglion.
Score: -6
|"that the lame @ss voting function means something" is prob, an over-generalized statement, IMO. Clinton prob, thought along those lines 'til the elections of '94, when busloads of comrades departed.
Paraphrasing (short hand)-"He said- she said"....the bottom line is that the machines can be/possibly,were compromised(doh). Yep, I agree.
Score: 0
|Oh well, better late than never(?)-
LOL- depending on one's P.O.V.- it could be similar to a criminal confessing, while on his/her death-bed, to a string of murders committed a number of years prior.
Score: 0
|So what? As if electing a Democrat or a Republican makes a difference. Same crooks working for the same lobbyists and big corporate campaign fund raisers. Just telling different lies to different people.
Score: 0
|And let's review history folks.
Who were the one's who INSISTED that these electronic voting machines be implimented immediately and ubiquitously in 2001 after blaming paper ballots for Gore's loss?
And lead by the exact same Democrats in Congress, who in their infinite wisdom and incontrovertible knowledge are bringing you "change" as we speak.
The big push into electronic voting came in the wake of the ballot-counting mess in Florida in the 2000 presidential election in Florida. And which, as a result, Democraticlly lead efforts resulted in a majority in Congress enacting a law in 2002 to help fund states’ purchases of electronic voting machines.
Only to then watch as many of the SAME Democrats decried the electronic voting machines as having stolen the 2004 Presidential election for GWBush....
All the while, dating back to before the 2001 issues, opponents of the direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines objected to demonstrated and verified reliability issues.
But why address such issues when its politically expedient to rush forward with whizbang technology to satisfy political ardor and angst????
Obviously its much easier to simply follow the wind, whichever way it blows in response to emotional ire than to actually do a bit of research and base decisions upon facts rather than emotion.
But then it wouldn't be the same political system that has so many so high in their wishful thinking as ol' Obama claims that he opposes "big government"!!!! Would it?
And let's see...on March 11,2009:
"Three Nevada lawmakers (including one Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ) co-sponsored a key piece of federal labor legislation introduced Tuesday, as local unions and business groups lined up to take sides on the bill.
The Employee Free Choice Act made its latest appearance before Congress despite speculation among labor experts that the struggling economy would delay its consideration until at least late 2009.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada signed on to the bill, as did Reps. Shelley Berkley and Dina Titus, both Democrats representing Las Vegas districts.
Local members of the Service Employees International Union happened to be in Washington Tuesday on a trip they planned weeks ago. They attended hearings and met with some of the state's congressional delegates.
"Oh my goodness, I'm just way more excited than I thought I'd ever be coming here, just knowing that we have the support of our representatives," said Fredo Serrano, an SEIU Nevada member and a registered nurse at Sunrise Hospital in Las Vegas. "I think it's a great time for us, and a great opportunity for workers. I'm excited for the country....
The Employee Free Choice Act would change federal rules, which call for unions to win a secret-ballot election before they can organize a workplace. Under the proposed law, unions could claim representation if they convince a simple majority of workers to sign cards seeking organization. The law includes no limits on when and where unions could ask workers to sign cards, and it forces both sides into binding arbitration if no contract emerges within four months of the beginning of negotiations.
Some business groups and labor experts decry card-check procedures, because they remove workers' anonymity. That lack of privacy could subject employees to intimidation and harassment by union organizers hungry for new members... And because organizing could happen off-site, an employer could find himself unionized without any warning."
http://www.lvrj.com/business/41077917.html
So the same Bozos who insisted the electronic voting machinese be implimented prior to their testing and validation - despite rampant allegations of problems even then, seem ready to resolve the issue of private voting entirely, thus obviating the need for voting machines at all.
I really fail to see why more and more jurisdictions are embracing direct electronic voting when e-voting really has serious problems in authenticating and verifying votes.
So, what’s wrong with paper ballots and optical scanning where you retain actual paper ballots, as opposed to a simple summary paper trail that can be compromised, exactly?
But not to worry... next week its rumored that, as the Democrats are inherently omnisicient, that they will move to eliminate the need for voting entirely. ;-) After all, it has worked tremendously well in Congress as they have eliminated the need for them to actually vote on their own pay increases!
And you will hear the masses who actually buy the bit about Obama's claim to be 'against big government' (...need those teleprompters, folks!) ooh and ahh over that notion.
After all, who needs a private vote anyway?
LOL!
Score: -8
|