How is it possible that the Diebold company, which makes the
electronic voting machines used in many of the swing states in this
past election, is able to do this without objections to what is
usually referred to as 'conflict of interest'.  I have read that they
are big time Bush contributors; isn't this illegal, or shouldn't it
be?   Is it true that the codes used to program these machines are
secret?  if so, does this mean it would be secret even to an official
outsider checking their accuracy? Is it true that there is no way to
audit these results since there is no 'paper trail'?  I am not asking
for opinion; just the facts, ma'am.  Or mister.  And it would help if
explanations were offered along with links. thanks.

---

Clarification of Question by timespacette-ga on 09 Nov 2004 23:06 PST

Nobody's gonna touch this, huh? 

Here's something I found on the subject tonight:

"The election rigging juggernaut lurches forward unstoppable in the
guise of so-called election reform. Three Republican dominated
corporations now control over 80% of the vote count in the United
States: Sequoia Voting Systems Inc; Electronic Systems & Software Inc.
(ES&S); and Diebold" Inc. As this transition has taken place, a
pattern of election upsets which overwhelmingly favor Republican
candidates is emerging. These are only test runs in preparation for
the 2004 presidential selection. The Neocons have determined that
elections can be manipulated easily with the new touch screen voting
systems and when accompanied by a media pounding of lies the public
will accept the rigged election results as fact. The greatest
advantage of the new touch screen voting scam is the removal of a
paper trail and the blockage of access to the inner workings of the
software. 
 When a voter touches the screen to select a candidate there is no
confirmation that the machine has actually registered the correct
selection. In the old punch-card and fill-in-the-circle paper systems,
voters could see their choice marked on the ballot. In the event of
any confusion or question, a record of the vote existed and a recount
was possible. Since the new electronic systems leave no paper trail
there can be no recount and the results must be accepted as fact.
Attempts to examine the code used by the machines in Florida were
blocked in the courts by the GOP citing, "proprietary/trade secrecy"
protections under a law, which made it impossible for the DNC to
ascertain how the machines tabulated votes.
  It would be admirable if the American people could resist the next
rigged presidential election as they did the scam of 2000. Of course
the ?Supreme Court five? would uphold the "proprietary/trade secrecy"
protections and the bogus election results would be ruled as
legitimate. The coming election fraud has been so well planned that it
probably won?t make it into the courts. With the help of the media,
the Neocons will deliver the deathblow to democracy at the touch
screen voting terminals."

Can anyone challenge these claims?

Well, I'm not a researcher, timespacette, but I will offer a comment.

I live and vote in Silicon Valley, where there are a *lot* of people
who work in computers (and a lot of people who voted for Kerry).  At
my polling place, which featured electronic voting machines, I noticed
that about half of the people in line ahead of me requested paper
ballots even though they were not offered or promoted.  When I saw
that the sign-in sheets recorded a choice of "E" or "P" for each
voter, I made it a point to peek and saw the same pattern:  about half
of those who'd been marked off on the pages I saw had chosen "P."  I
chose paper myself, and so did my family.

To me that is a clear reflection of lack of confidence in the
electronic system and a desire for an audit trail.

I am also baffled by the fact that back in the days of marking an X,
we could have results overnight, but now, with faster-than-lightning
computers, it can take days.

I read somewhere a few days before the election that, according to
some poll, a whopping 48% of American believed that if their candidate
(whichever) lost, it was not because he'd been beaten but because the
win had been stolen from him.  That was a stunning number.  Now, there
had to be some Republicans in that sampling; it didn't say "48% of
Democrats."  And so I couldn't help wondering what the Republicans
knew that made them so suspicious.  I mean, isn't that an admission of
cheating?  Wouldn't good, trusting Republicans who believed their
leader had been duly elected in 2000 have *had* to say, "Oh, no, we
*couldn't* have a dishonest presidential election"?

Personally, I believe that this nation is going to be a long time
recovering from the crisis of confidence brought on by the 2000
election, and I, for one, do not believe that we saw a true count this
time.  Count me as one of that 48%.

Archae0pteryx

Hi ArchaeOpteryx!   and thanks for your comment.  I am among that 48%
too, although there is an awful lot of chatter on the internet these
days from both points of view . . . I do know that MoveOn is
encouraging people to sign a petition that's going to congress to
demand a recount of Ohio. They say there could be a decision about
whether to or not as early as Monday, November 15th. I agree with you
that the crisis of confidence has done untold damage, and I feel that
unless these things are challenged, the momentum that the Dem party
gained in the past four years will dissipate . . . or go underground .
. . or something, I don't know what.  Again thanks for responding,
cheers, ts.

You may find these webpages interesting:

E-voting Security:
http://avirubin.com/vote/
http://avirubin.com/

"Checks and balances in elections equipment and procedures
prevent alleged fraud scenarios":
http://www2.diebold.com/checksandbalances.pdf  (2003, 27 pages)

Diebold Election Systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold_Election_Systems