From Raw Story's
exclusive:
"My feeling having been really deep inside the company is that initially Diebold, being a very conservative and Republican company, felt that if they controlled an election company, they could have great influence over the outcome," the source, a registered independent, said...."Obviously screwing with the software would be a homerun—and I do think that was part of their recipe for getting into the election business."
Now, I'm relatively new to this fray, and realize there's some kind of gag order on election-fraud speculation (as opposed to rampant speculation on every other topic under the sun), but how high is that evidence bar set?
I did an extraordinary amount of research on this topic last year, in preparation for starting a non-profit that ultimately didn't get off the ground.
The more you read, the more damning it gets. This is just another piece in the puzzle. And I would say whisteblower interviews come pretty darn close to meeting "Armando's Seven Tasks of Truth," or whatever.
Update: As seen in
this diary below, but mine goes meta, so I'll keep it up. Apologies.
Update II (meta): Election reform/fraud is a HUGE issue with the grassroots/netroots. Witness the MoveOn "priorities" vote after the 2004 election. Or take a look at the recommended list for this diary.
If I were a longtime Koser, I would appeal to the powers that be to reinstate this issue. Obviously, you don't want this site to devolve to all conspiracy, all the time. Or a fraud debating club. But apparently there's a pent-up collective desire to discuss Diebold and friends. And with a few more articles like the one in Raw, the "tin-foil" crowd will be almost respectable.
At least on this issue.
Update III: Cross-posted at My Left Wing...and no more updates.