Skip to main content

View Diary: Oliphant: "Phase 2" of Kerry Counterattack To Begin (190 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not Diebold (none)
    I think it's probably going to far to say Diebold themselves will rig it, their role is just making the system easy to foul and unverifiable. It's dirty dealers at the local level who could attempt this, and I hate to say it but the Republicans aren't the only ones with a motive to do it. Why this is not a strongly bipartisan concern is beyond me. Either the Republicans are thinking "Diebold is on our side, we're safe," or they really don't grasp the basic realities of the technology, or they're basically indifferent to accurate vote counting, or they really feel that improvements in handicap accessibility and overvote prevention are more important than a credible and verifiable vote count.
    •  Diebold hacked their own machines (none)
       . . . in a southern California election this spring.  Returns were being totalled after the vote and they were coming in with a clear Dem edge.  Suddenly, the machines "would not upload" their results.  A Diebold techinician was called in to fix the jam, and after a few minutes at his lap-top the machines were uploading again.  And the Dem edge disappeared.  Just. Like. That.  

           Certain folks here at D.Kos are not up to speed.  My only hope is that Kerry's people have given this as much thought as they have given SBV.  

      •  without knowing specifically what happened (none)
        that's kind of a meaningless, though cautionary, anecdote. Leads can change on election night in the course of all the districts reporting. The real shame is with no transparency in the technology and no hard copy of the votes it's hard to disprove your thesis that the vote was tampered with.
        •  You have the burden of proof wrong (none)
               Elizabeth D--A democracy cannot function unless elections are plainly fair--which includes correctly recorded and tabulated.  It is not my job to prove the election was hacked beyond a resonable doubt.  Preponderance of the evidence is enough, indeed the mere demonstrated possibility--as in the Maryland tests--ought to be enough to make us reject ether voting.  

               We have excepted a system less reliable than the paper ballots they use in third world countries.  How is that?  

          •  I agree completely (none)
            I'm just saying that that burden ultimately doesn't lie on Diebold. It's for the people and their elected representatives to insist that their government only buy elections equipment with technological transparency, voter verification, and hard-copy recount capability. And then we wouldn't be buying this Diebold crap.
      •  link? (none)
        got a cite or a source for that story?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site