No Surprise Here: Lost Votes In Last Election Due To Faulty Diebold Equipment

from the anyone-surprised? dept

Back in December, we pointed to yet another (in a long line) of stories about lost votes on an e-voting machine in an election in California. The machines in question were from Premier Election Solutions, the shiny coat of paint put on the e-voting unit of Diebold, whose name had been tarnished for a long history of defective, highly vulnerable e-voting machines (along with a long history of denying any problems whatsoever with those machines). You would think after all these years of criticism, and a shiny new name, the company would be a bit more careful to make sure its machines weren't actually defective. No such luck.

As Slashdot points out, the Secretary of State's report on the matter clearly places the blame on Diebold's faulty equipment (warning: pdf file). Still, the scariest part is what we noted in the original story about the problems: despite all of the claims to the contrary, the 200 or so lost votes wouldn't have been noticed at all under Diebold/Premier's normal auditing process. It was only because of an experimental "transparency" project set up by local officials that the mistake was noted. Thus, Diebold machines in other regions may have lost votes, and no one will know about it. So can anyone explain why anyone still uses e-voting machines from this company? For years they've lied, stonewalled, denied problems, attacked critics... and produced faulty equipment over and over again. And it's still being used.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: california, e-voting
Companies: diebold, premier voting


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Brad, 5 Mar 2009 @ 2:01am

    Not "up for vote"

    The problem is that this sort of thing isn't really up for any kind of public review. What typically happens is a county voting supervisor gets a visit from a guy in a nice suit that says "You know how it's expensive to collect all those votes? Let me do that for ya. It'll cost you half."

    The guy listens carefully to the very polished presentation about security, auditability, hacker-proof, blah blah blah. He's way out of his league, technologically, but it sounds good.

    It goes to a committee. Typically a half-dozen old people who have been in local politics most of their autumn years, and prior to that ran local businesses and the PTA. They all listen to the exact same presentation, now backed by their colleague. They're all served a nice dinner, paid for by the guy in a nice suit.

    Then it gets dropped in as a footnote at some town hall meeting or other public forum. "Next year we'll be using BrandY machines instead of BrandX. This will cut costs in half and get results faster." The dozen or so citizens (mostly retirees and homemakers) that actually bothered to attend don't know anything about what's going on, and all nod in agreement. The plan moves forward.

    Once the news is finally made public (a few weeks before the election, when there's no time to change), the ACTUAL public hears about it. People talk about security concerns and are brushed off with excuses "Too late now" or dismissed as being crazy nuts.

    That's the problem with things like this - they're not subject to actual public scrutiny and input - not for lack of trying, but for lack of interest. If I got local political news delivered with the skill and cadence of a CNN reporter I might listen. But instead, it's relegated to the back page of the local free weekly, and has little to no thought or presentation.

    I don't have a solution here, but I do see how companies that are so bad continue to flourish with public money - they're not selling to the public, they're selling to a couple of people with a little more authority than they should have.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.