Skip to main content

View Diary: Revote in Ohio -- More Votes Than Voters Recorded on Diebold machines (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Diebold Tabulator Audit in Alaska: (4.00)
    This could be big, since the central tabulators play a role in the most likely election manipulation scenarios, particularly after the claims made by the computer literate here of simple, auditproof hackability of tens of thousands of votes in a few seconds was demonstrated for the public in FL.


    1) Diebold agrees to waive proprietary claims to GEMS database files
    http://www.bbvforums.org/...

    This is big, and has nationwide implications as it can open up access
    for Volusia County, San Diego County, DuPage County, and other
    areas where questions have arisen on voting machine results.

    Black Box Voting has been assisting the Alaska Democratic Party
    in fighting for the right to obtain the Diebold "central tabulator"
    database files.

    The crux of the dispute: According to Alaska Democrats, official
    results from Alaska's 2004 election are riddled with discrepancies
    but  the Alaska Division of Elections refused to turn over the
    voting files to the Democrats, arguing that the data format belongs
    to Diebold and can't be made public. Diebold told Alaska officials it
    owns the "structure of the database."  

    Today, Diebold caved and released its proprietary claims. The
    formal letter from Diebold and the implications of this, which are
    significant, can be read at the link above.


    •  Backgrounder (4.00)
      Here is the Alaska Dems web page on how the numbers differ in this case.  Crazy!

      http://www.alaskademocrats.org/...

      •  Hard to believe this PR given the stuff here (none)
        California Tests Find Diebold Touch-Screen Voting 100 Percent Accurate During November 2005 Election

        January 23, 2006 11:37 a.m.

        ALLEN, Texas, Jan. 23 PRNewswire-FirstCall -- A report released by the California Secretary of State in early January indicates that the Diebold Election Systems touch-screen voting systems used in California proved to be 100 percent accurate during the thorough Parallel Monitoring accuracy testing conducted during the November 8, 2005 statewide election. A directive from the California Secretary of State requires Parallel Monitoring accuracy testing of all touch-screen voting systems during each election conducted within the state.

        The Parallel Monitoring testing procedure includes the random selection of touch-screen voting stations the morning of an election from various precincts within counties using the technology. Once selected, the touch-screen units are thoroughly tested for accuracy and reliability by designated California Secretary of State election personnel. The accuracy testing runs the entire duration of the election. Election result reports are then generated from each touch-screen unit once the election concludes so the accuracy of the system can be validated. The accuracy of Diebold's touch-screen technology has been tested several times within California and in other states as well, and results of these Parallel Monitoring tests have proven the technology to be 100 percent accurate each and every time.

        "We are extremely confident in the proven performance of our touch-screen technology, and the successful results of the California Parallel Monitoring accuracy testing substantiate the reliable operation of our voting systems," stated David Byrd, vice president of operations, Diebold Election Systems.

        "The performance of Diebold's touch-screen technology was also verified during the extensive system volume testing conducted in September in California, when more than 11,000 votes were cast on 100 touch-screen stations with voter-verifiable paper audit trail printers with 100 percent accurate election results and very reliable system operation. The California Elections Division determined that the volume test would be deemed successful if no more than 1 percent of the machines experienced a failure that affects the record of the vote on the AccuVote-TSX or on the VVPAT paper trail. Diebold surpassed these test criteria with flying colors."

        The performance of Diebold's touch-screen voting systems have proven to be the most accurate in the industry as documented by a comprehensive Cal Tech/MIT study completed following the November 2004 election. In the state of Georgia, as an example, voter error was reduced nine-fold once Diebold's touch-screen systems were deployed statewide. More than 103,000 additional votes were accurately counted during the November 2004 election that would not have been counted if legacy voting systems remained in use within Georgia jurisdictions. Each Diebold touch-screen voting station offers market leading accessibility, including voice guidance capability, so blind and physically challenged voters can independently cast their ballot.

        Diebold Election Systems, Inc. is a wholly owned operating subsidiary of Diebold, Incorporated, a global leader in providing integrated self-service delivery systems and services. Diebold Election Systems provides high-quality voting technology to jurisdictions of all sizes, along with comprehensive service and support capability, and is committed to elections accuracy, security and integrity. For more information on Diebold Election Systems, visit the company's Web site at http://www.dieboldes.com, or call 1-800-433-VOTE.

        SOURCE  Diebold Election Systems, Inc.
        /CONTACT: Media, David Bear of Diebold Election Systems, Inc., +1-800-433-8683, ext.1112, or Cell, +1-317-997-9300, or dbear@pstrategies.com, or Investors, John Kristoff of Diebold, Incorporated, +1-330-490-5900, or kristoj@diebold.com

            /Web site: http://www.diebold.com

        •  Note the most important thing: (4.00)
          (emphasis mine)
          "The performance of Diebold's touch-screen technology was also verified during the extensive system volume testing conducted in September in California, when more than 11,000 votes were cast on 100 touch-screen stations with voter-verifiable paper audit trail printers with 100 percent accurate election results and very reliable system operation. The California Elections Division determined that the volume test would be deemed successful if no more than 1 percent of the machines experienced a failure that affects the record of the vote on the AccuVote-TSX or on the VVPAT paper trail. Diebold surpassed these test criteria with flying colors."
          If they can do it in a test, why don't they have the bloody things on every one of their voting machines?

          And fer cripes sake, every other machine Diebold makes (ATMs, etc.) offers receipts to the user, plus keeps an internal paper record. It's not like they don't know how.

    •  This info... (none)
      ...should be made into a new diary.  I have only seen one mention of this and that was from a very very blue radio station (KUDO 1080 AM).

      KUDO bandied about a 100k overage figure which equates to roughly one extra vote cast for Bush per every fifth Alaskan.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site