Voter Fraud, 2006

[Wuptdo]

Well, there are stories all over the blogoshere about abuses at the polls, already. It is bound to be a nasty day today at polling places around the country. Just an FYI for NC:


North Carolina
The North Carolina law bearing any relation to photographing or videoing around polling places is titled “Limitation on activity in the voting place and in a buffer zone around it.”

N.C.G.S.A. § 163-166.4 ( http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-166.4.html). This law makes unlawful activities that “hinder access, harass others, distribute campaign literature, place political advertising, solicit votes, or otherwise engage in electionrelated activity in the voting place or in a buffer zone which shall be prescribed by the county board of elections around the voting place.” This law does not explicitly mention filming or photography, and these activities may be lawful so long as they are not done in a harassing manner.However, North Carolina may be particularly in flux regarding the issue of observing people at polling places. In 1998, the North Carolina Attorney General issued an advisory opinion that polling place observers appointed by political parties should not use video cameras. 1998 N.C. AG LEXIS 43, October 22, 1998.

This same opinion noted that use of video cameras by the news media was appropriate. However, this opinion was issued 8 years ago, and relies in part on statutes that are no longer law (§§ 163-135 through 163-159, labeled “General Instructions,” were repealed in 2002).According to Sec. 4.1 of the Raleigh municipal code (http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=10312&sid=33), they follow the North Carolina state voting laws with only one except relating to campaign expense regulation.

IMHO, voting with the dead is a very unpleasant experience. :wink:

Wuptdo B-)

[DarylB]

Voting with the "landscapers" and "migrant workers" that can't read the ballot is another discomfort, that is worse than watching the dead vote. Every illegal alien vote is a fraud, and takes away from the very idea of citizenship and democracy.

David Price is going to win this election the old fashioned way... he's going to steal it!

[francejamie]

Voting with the "landscapers" and "migrant workers" that can't read the ballot is another discomfort, that is worse than watching the dead vote. Every illegal alien vote is a fraud, and takes away from the very idea of citizenship and democracy.

David Price is going to win this election the old fashioned way... he's going to steal it!

LOL! You mean the way Bush did the last 2 presidential elections?


The 2006 U.S. Midterms: Another Stolen Election?

by Prof. Michael Keefer

November 4, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

During the lead-up to the November 7th midterm congressional election, the Republican Party has appeared to be in serious trouble. George W. Bush’s approval ratings have been so consistently low (they’re currently hovering around the mid-30s) that most Republican candidates for seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives have been about as eager to be seen in his company as to fall into the embrace of a carrier of bubonic plague. The Democrats have led by growing margins in every one of the 110 generic opinion polls taken since September 2005, and currently hold a more than 14 percent lead over the Republicans in the “5-poll moving average” used by pollsters as the most reliable guide to trends in public opinion.1

On the reasonable assumption that the Democrats could expect to receive 60 percent of the undecided vote, the noted polling and exit-poll analyst who posts at the Progressive Independent website under the name ‘TruthIsAll’ has calculated their average anticipated share of the November 7th vote, as of October 28th, to be 57.8 percent. He estimates that in an election free from fraud, there is a 97.5 percent probability that Democratic candidates should garner, on average, more that 56.4 percent of the votes cast. Even if the Democrats were to win only half of the undecided vote, they would quite certainly—in a fraud-free election—recover control of the House of Representatives, gaining at least 25 seats. Whether or not they win control of the Senate as well would depend—again assuming a clean election—upon the share of the undecided vote that they receive: the probability that with two-thirds of the undecided vote the Democrats would win control of the Senate is calculated by ‘TruthIsAll’ as 78 percent.2

But it might be premature to get excited over the prospect of the United States ceasing to be a one-party state. For if the Republican party is in trouble with the electorate, American democracy is in a much more parlous condition—thanks largely to the devious machinations of the Bush Republicans. Given the accumulating evidence of large-scale and systematic preparations by the Republicans and their corporate allies for suppression of the Democratic vote, for mis- or non-counting of the vote in Democratic strongholds, and for an unprecedented level of electronic vote-tabulation fraud, the likelihood of these midterm elections being clean is approximately zero.

In the 2000 election, it was only through a combination of Jim Crow vote suppression tactics and a rich array of different methods of vote-count fraud that George W. Bush was able to arrive at a point at which his father’s Supreme Court appointees could push through what has been appropriately described as a judicial coup d’état. His party won control of the Senate in 2002 through what was almost certainly vote-tabulation fraud.3 The 2004 presidential election was marked by fraud on a gigantic scale, not just in Ohio, which ended up being the deciding state, but in many other states as well: by January 2005 there was compelling evidence to show that had the votes been honestly counted, John Kerry would have defeated Bush by a commanding margin.4

My purpose here is not to review yet again the evidence on which these observations are based, but rather to provide a very selective list of recent books, articles and documentary films which assess and analyze the evidence of flagrant Republican breaches of the most fundamental principles of democracy, together with the prospects for a repetition and extension of these fraudulent practices in the 2006 and subsequent elections.

These items are divided into three categories. The first category, “Critical Studies,” includes exemplary work by Steven Freeman (the book he co-authored with Joel Bleifuss is, in my opinion, the single most important of these studies), as well as work by other major contributors to an emerging understanding of the theft of the 2004 election.

In the second section I have listed films, including one by the prize-winning director Dorothy Fadiman, which bring together documentary footage and illuminating interviews with election analysts.

And finally, the short list of items anticipating Republican fraud in the midterm election offers a representative cross-section of current concerns—including evidence of further massive purges of voters’ lists, and evidence from unimpeachable sources that the touch-screen machines manufactured by two of the major suppliers of voting machines, Diebold and Sequoia, have been designed to facilitate electoral fraud.

It’s worth noting, by way of coda, that these skewed machines were hard at work well before election day. According to a report published in the Miami Herald on October 28th, voting machines in Democratic-leaning Broward and Miami-Dade counties in southern Florida had already during the preceding week been detected flipping the choices of early voters from Democratic candidates to Republicans. The problem, as the corporate press likes to insist, must be understood as one of “glitches”—or, more strangely, of a kind of computer fatigue that supposedly induces the video screen “on heavily used machines to slip out of sync” with “the electronics inside.”

Only “conspiracy theorists” or voters rendered “particularly skittish” by “a history of problems at the polls”5 would want to go so far as to suspect that electronic voting machines made by Republican-leaning corporations might be inclined to behave in this way, not because they’re tired or having bad hair days or hissy fits, but because they’ve been programmed to do so.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20061104&articleId=3700

[francejamie]

However- from a purely non-partisan position - surely we can all agree that every electronic voting machine needs to have paper backup, to allow a true, accurate recount?

[Wuptdo]

How about a little photo Id or address verfication and after voting, a little ink on your finger. Works for me.

Wuptdo B-)

[Dharma]

Daryl,
If I were you, I wouldn't play this game today. You might be considered a conspiracy theorist. Oh but it's okay to make accusations as long as you're a Republican, right?
There have already been reports in 6 states of people who have voted for Democrats but the bottom of the electronic ballot said they voted for Republicans. The machines are owned by Republicans (Diebold, ES&S).


OK, Will This Election Be Stolen??

Jimmy Carter, the man who many of us consider the most credible voice on whether an election is fair and accurate, had a few things to say on NPR Monday night. He was being interviewed about his observation team's impressions of the Nicaraguan elections, conducted on this week. His comments were full of compliments like these, "the officials are so meticulous and careful," there were only "minor problems," "the Supreme Electoral Council has corrected almost all the problems," and "I think this present election is very likely to be much better than we've seen in the past."

After a lengthy interview about the extensive work he has been done in that Latin American country, the former president was asked a question about the very hotly contested election we are currently conducting here. His analysis was nowhere near as positive as his previous remarks, in fact he called our electoral system "severely troubled." He went on to chastise America in a way he has several times before, suggesting that tomorrow's election "would not qualify at all for instance for participation by the Carter Center in observing."

Actually, let me just add his entire answer:

"But there's no doubt in my mind that the United States electoral system is severely troubled and has many faults in it. It would not qualify at all for instance for participation by the Carter Center in observing. We require for instance that there be uniform voting procedures throughout an entire nation. In the United States you've got not only fragmented from one state to another but also from one county to another. There is no central election commission in the United States that can make final judgment. It's a cacophony of voices that come in after the election is over with, thousands or hundreds of lawyers contending with each other. There's no uniformity in the nation at all. There's no doubt that that there's severe discrimination against poor people because of the quality of voting procedures presented to them. Another thing in the United States that we wouldn't permit in a country other than the United States is that we require that every candidate in a country in which we monitor the elections have equal access to the major news media, regardless of how much money they have. In the United States, as you know, it's how much advertising you can by on television and radio. And so the richest candidates prevail, and unless a candidate can raise sometimes hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, they can't even hope to mount a campaign, so the United States has a very inadequate election procedure."

Of course, Jimmy Carter is not alone in criticizing our election procedures, but, let's face it, his is a very credible voice to remind everyone who cares about the election outcome that these problems can't be ignored. While the focus is directed towards spending another million on last minute attack adds or diverting more resources into getting all the targeted voters to the polls -- the fact is that there could be elections lost everywhere because we are not focusing enough effort on all of the problems with our voting system -- from electronic voting machines with no audibility and recount capacity or allowing our elections to be overseen by partisan elected officials (remember Ken Blackwell and Katherine Harris) who can (and do) decide which precincts will get the most voting machines, who's provisional ballots will get counted and how they feel like interpreting all of the new draconian voter identification laws that are sprouting up everywhere around the country.

Even Robin Carnahan -- the Democratic Secretary of State in Missouri had to fight with a poll worker to convince her that she was eligible to vote. Are progressives going to keep arguing that it will all be fine if there are more Democratic secretaries of state or is it time to set about the business of repairing our broken elections. It is a sorry state of affairs when Nicaragua is conducting more fair and democratic elections than America......

And:


In Missouri, election officials ask Sec. of State for photo ID even after law was struck down - 11/07/2006 01:12:00 AM

The GOP in Missouri passed a punitive law requiring photo ID from voters. The law was designed to suppress the vote of elderly and lower income voters. Fortunately, the law was struck down. But that hasn't stopped the Republicans. Last week, the Missouri Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, who led the opposition to the law, was asked for photo ID anyway when she went to vote. Big mistake:

Missouri's chief elections official said Monday she was asked for photo identification at the voting booth despite a court ruling striking down the requirement.

"I'm guessing this may be happening in other parts of the state," warned Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who had opposed Republican efforts to mandate a photo ID in Missouri.

She said that a worker at the St. Louis Election Board asked her three times to show photo ID when she went to cast an absentee ballot Friday.

Carnahan said that she tried to explain a photo ID was not necessary, but that the election worker replied that she was instructed to ask for one anyway. Carnahan said she eventually was allowed to vote without displaying a photo identification.

"To have that experience personally was very troubling," she said.

It's going to be very troubling when GOP poll workers pull the same stunt on people who don't know the law. But, they really screwed up trying to pull one over on Robin Carnahan.

And: (oops)


Webb for Senate has recording of threatening phone call

Tim Daly from Clarendon got a call saying that if he votes Tuesday, he will be arrested. A recording of his voicemail can be found online at:

http://www.webbforsenate.com/media/phone_m...

The transcript from his voicemail reads:

"This message is for Timothy Daly. This is the Virginia Elections Commission. We've determined you are registered in New York to vote. Therefore, you will not be allowed to cast your vote on Tuesday. If you do show up, you will be charged criminally."

Daly has been registered to vote in Virginia since 1998, and he has voted for the last several cycles with no problem. He has filed a criminal complaint with the Commonwealth's attorney in Arlington.

And that's just what I've read in the last hour!! 8O

[Wuptdo]

Ok, boys and girls, today's word is Chicanery (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/chicanery).

Another word you will never see on the EOG's (any grade) in North Carolina. 8O

The more you know......

Wuptdo B-)

[Brent]

However- from a purely non-partisan position - surely we can all agree that every electronic voting machine needs to have paper backup, to allow a true, accurate recount?

Absolutely. The biggest voter fraud perpetrated to date is that done by Diebold and their cronies. A secure voting machine with paper records is absolutely essential.

And yes, Wup, showing photo ID should be required too. It continues to boggle my mind that you could have gone to the fire station today and, when asked your name, said "Brent Miller" and you could have cast my vote, no questions asked (not that I'm suggesting that anyone would ever voluntarily identify themselves as me :-D but you get the point).

[Dharma]

More hijinx... 8O


GOP candidate uses Emergency Alert System to play ad!
Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 07:13:42 PM PST
This is a test of the Emergency Alert System: Vote for Dick Mountjoy!

In an apparent violation of FCC rules, conservative talk radio station KFBK 1530 AM in Sacramento transmitted a paid political advertisement to an unknown number of other stations in the area, using the Federal Emergency Alert System (EAS), thus automatically forcing the ad onto the stations' airwaves. This is according to a press release issued today by KDVS-FM, a non-commercial community station in Davis that received and inadvertently aired the transmission.

I really have no words to describe this.

From the SA Forums:

This morning Monday, Nov. 6th at 10:02 am my radio station recieved an Emergency Alert System (EAS) test that came through with a radio advertisement for republican senate cantidate Dick Mountjoy coming on after the familiar "this concludes this test..." message.

EAS is a system where two or three stations per county are Local Primary (or LP) stations that iniciate system tests or actual warning messages in times of an emergeny such as a natural disaster. The alert is broadcast over their normal signal in the form of data tones followed by a voice or video message pertaining to the alert (or a voice saying "this has been a test.. etc). Radio stations are required to have an EAS unit that listens to these LP stations, and when an EAS broadcast comes through it interrupts the normal air feed to rebroadcast whatever is coming from the LP signal.

Upon further investigation we discovered that the message originated from local Clear Channel owned conservative talk radio station KFBK in Sacramento. We gave them a call inquiring about the incident and they admitted to broadcasting the message as a result of a "training snafu".

[DarylB]

More hijinx... 8O

That was, in its totality, the summary of her wisdom on the matter. The remainder was... (drumroll please) yet ANOTHER cut and paste.

So, here's to you, Dharma....knock yourself out....

http://www.aarp.org/learntech/computers/howto/Articles/a2002-07-16-cutpaste.html

[Wuptdo]

S.C. Governor Turned Away by Poll Worker
Nov 07 1:13 PM US/Eastern
By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer

SULLIVANS ISLAND, S.C Nice place, but I prefer Hilton Head Island

Even the governor needs the right ID to vote in South Carolina.

Gov. Mark Sanford learned that lesson the hard way Tuesday _ he had to make a second trip to his Sullivans Island polling place because he forgot his voter identification card the first time. The poll workers, following the rules, had turned him away.

"I hope my luck turns," Sanford said. "Yesterday, I had the eye issue, today I was absent-minded and didn't have my voter registration card."

The first lady's identification was in order, and she was allowed to vote, said poll Manager Bob Crawford at the Sullivans Island Elementary School. But the governor showed a driver's license with a Columbia address the first time, and that didn't cut it. He said Sanford came back about 90 minutes later and cast his ballot.

Sanford has had a tough few days.

The Republican, running for a second term, burned his eyes under bright stage lights on Sunday and had to skip campaigning on Monday to go to the doctor and recuperate.

Sanford's eyes were red and watery as he stood in line at the voting site on Tuesday, but he said, "It's behind me and the prognosis is good.

We could a lot from our neighbors to the South.

Wuptdo B-)

[DarylB]

..... The machines are owned by Republicans (Diebold, ES&S).

Dharma, you've made this claim so often, I think it's time you either back it up, or shut up. Please provide the evidence you have that Diebold, as a company, is owned and operated by the Republican party. In fact, show any affiliation with the Republican party you can prove. But be warned that just raving and conjecture and deriving conspiracy theories about Diebold as a company will no longer fly....

Here's a head start...

Diebold Corporate Headquarters

Diebold, Incorporated
5995 Mayfair Road
P.O. Box 3077
North Canton, Ohio USA 44720-8077

Phone number

1-330-490-4000

[MattD]

..... The machines are owned by Republicans (Diebold, ES&S).

Dharma, you've made this claim so often, I think it's time you either back it up, or shut up. Please provide the evidence you have that Diebold, as a company, is owned and operated by the Republican party. In fact, show any affiliation with the Republican party you can prove. But be warned that just raving and conjecture and deriving conspiracy theories about Diebold as a company will no longer fly....

Here's a head start...

Diebold Corporate Headquarters

Diebold, Incorporated
5995 Mayfair Road
P.O. Box 3077
North Canton, Ohio USA 44720-8077

Phone number

1-330-490-4000

The Republican Party DOES NOT OWN the voting machines. However, I believe the quote is "The machines are owned by Republicans."

Proof (and sorry for the cut and paste) that Republicans own the machines:

#1 Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (Republican) has revealed that he has owned stock in the Diebold voting machine company, to which Blackwell tried to award unbid contracts worth millions while allowing its operators to steal Ohio elections. A top Republican election official also says a Diebold operative told him he made a $50,000 donation to Blackwell's "political interests." Blackwell is currently running for Governor of Ohio.

#2 In 2003: Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc, company that sells voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." In his invitation letter, O'Dell asked guests to consider donating or raising up to $10,000 each for the federal account that the state GOP will use to help Bush and other federal candidates

So there are two examples of Repubicans owning the machines.

[DarylB]

..... The machines are owned by Republicans (Diebold, ES&S).

Dharma, you've made this claim so often, I think it's time you either back it up, or shut up. Please provide the evidence you have that Diebold, as a company, is owned and operated by the Republican party. In fact, show any affiliation with the Republican party you can prove. But be warned that just raving and conjecture and deriving conspiracy theories about Diebold as a company will no longer fly....

Here's a head start...

Diebold Corporate Headquarters

Diebold, Incorporated
5995 Mayfair Road
P.O. Box 3077
North Canton, Ohio USA 44720-8077

Phone number

1-330-490-4000

The Republican Party DOES NOT OWN the voting machines. However, I believe the quote is "The machines are owned by Republicans."

Proof (and sorry for the cut and paste) that Republicans own the machines:

#1 Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (Republican) has revealed that he has owned stock in the Diebold voting machine company, to which Blackwell tried to award unbid contracts worth millions while allowing its operators to steal Ohio elections. A top Republican election official also says a Diebold operative told him he made a $50,000 donation to Blackwell's "political interests." Blackwell is currently running for Governor of Ohio.

#2 In 2003: Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc, company that sells voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." In his invitation letter, O'Dell asked guests to consider donating or raising up to $10,000 each for the federal account that the state GOP will use to help Bush and other federal candidates

So there are two examples of Repubicans owning the machines.

There are major differences between contributing to the outcome of an election, as has been done right here in Wake county by every business and homebuilder with a pulse for these school bonds, and interfering with the voting process. What Dharma is openly stating is the act of committing a crime, that being tampering with the equipment through ownership of it. Since all of what you've stated is found in FEC records, and is within the established laws for political contributions, where is the fraud? Republicans have business interests in MANY companies, Diebold being one of them, but that in no way infers or proves that their products are being used by them in a fraudulent way. Their participation in the ATM market doesn't imply that they are using those machines to generate themselves an extra paycheck, any more than their participation as an executive in the company involves casting extra votes. If you have proof to the contrary, I'm sure there's some jail time for the culprits involved, and I'd be the first one to say that's where they belong. Short of that, it's time to shut the &*%$ up.

Just what seems to me to be an obvious question, but why would anyone conttribute money to a campaign, if all they had to do was change the vote total on the machines?

[Tonya]

..... The machines are owned by Republicans (Diebold, ES&S).

Dharma, you've made this claim so often, I think it's time you either back it up, or shut up. Please provide the evidence you have that Diebold, as a company, is owned and operated by the Republican party. In fact, show any affiliation with the Republican party you can prove. But be warned that just raving and conjecture and deriving conspiracy theories about Diebold as a company will no longer fly....

Here's a head start...

Diebold Corporate Headquarters

Diebold, Incorporated
5995 Mayfair Road
P.O. Box 3077
North Canton, Ohio USA 44720-8077

Phone number

1-330-490-4000

The Republican Party DOES NOT OWN the voting machines. However, I believe the quote is "The machines are owned by Republicans."

Proof (and sorry for the cut and paste) that Republicans own the machines:

#1 Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (Republican) has revealed that he has owned stock in the Diebold voting machine company, to which Blackwell tried to award unbid contracts worth millions while allowing its operators to steal Ohio elections. A top Republican election official also says a Diebold operative told him he made a $50,000 donation to Blackwell's "political interests." Blackwell is currently running for Governor of Ohio.

#2 In 2003: Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc, company that sells voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." In his invitation letter, O'Dell asked guests to consider donating or raising up to $10,000 each for the federal account that the state GOP will use to help Bush and other federal candidates

So there are two examples of Repubicans owning the machines.

There are major differences between contributing to the outcome of an election, as has been done right here in Wake county by every business and homebuilder with a pulse for these school bonds, and interfering with the voting process. What Dharma is openly stating is the act of committing a crime, that being tampering with the equipment through ownership of it. Since all of what you've stated is found in FEC records, and is within the established laws for political contributions, where is the fraud? Republicans have business interests in MANY companies, Diebold being one of them, but that in no way infers or proves that their products are being used by them in a fraudulent way. Their participation in the ATM market doesn't imply that they are using those machines to generate themselves an extra paycheck, any more than their participation as an executive in the company involves casting extra votes. If you have proof to the contrary, I'm sure there's some jail time for the culprits involved, and I'd be the first one to say that's where they belong. Short of that, it's time to shut the &*%$ up.

Just what seems to me to be an obvious question, but why would anyone conttribute money to a campaign, if all they had to do was change the vote total on the machines?

Easy answer: sometimes all the money in the world can't buy you a win. Reference the 2000 election... :|

[Dharma]

Daryl,
Please Google Wally O'Dell, Diebold. You'll find tons of articles about Wally O'Dell and his mass corruption while running Diebold. Look it up and you'll find your proof. He's just one of the articles you'll find.


MONEY AND BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK
Machine Politics In the Digital Age

By MELANIE WARNER (NYT) 2144 words
Published: November 9, 2003

Correction Appended

IN mid-August, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., sat down at his computer to compose a letter inviting 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends to a Republican Party fund-raiser, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. ''I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year,'' wrote Mr. O'Dell, whose company is based in Canton, Ohio.

That is hardly unusual for Mr. O'Dell. A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's ''Rangers and Pioneers,'' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race.

But it is not the only way that Mr. O'Dell is involved in the election process. Through Diebold Election Systems, a subsidiary in McKinney, Tex., his company is among the country's biggest suppliers of paperless, touch-screen voting machines.

Judging from Federal Election Commission data, at least eight million people will cast their ballots using Diebold machines next November. That is 8 percent of the number of people who voted in 2000, and includes all voters in the states of Georgia and Maryland and those in various counties of California, Virginia, Texas, Indiana, Arizona and Kansas.

Some people find Mr. O'Dell's pairing of interests -- as voting-machine magnate and devoted Republican fund-raiser -- troubling. To skeptics, including more than a few Democrats, it raises at least the appearance of an ethical problem. Some of the chatter on the Internet goes so far as to suggest that he could use his own machines to sway the election.

Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, does not buy such conspiracy theories, but he said he was appalled at the situation.

''It's outrageous,'' he said. ''Not only does Mr. O'Dell want the contract to provide every voting machine in the nation for the next election -- he wants to 'deliver' the election to Mr. Bush. There are enough conflicts in this story to fill an ethics manual.''

Mr. O'Dell declined to be interviewed for this article, but a company official said that his political affiliations had nothing to do with Diebold's operations, and that the company derived the bulk of its revenue from A.T.M.'s, not voting machines. ''This is not Diebold; this is Wally O'Dell personally,'' said Thomas W. Swidarski, senior vice president for strategic development and global marketing at Diebold, who works closely with Mr. O'Dell. ''The issue has been misconstrued.''

BUT the controversy surrounding Diebold goes beyond its chief executive's political activities. In July, professors at Johns Hopkins University and Rice University analyzed the software code for the company's touch-screen voting machines and concluded that there was ''no evidence of rigorous software engineering discipline'' and that ''cryptography, when used at all, is used incorrectly.''

Making matters worse, the software code for the machines was discovered in January by a Seattle-area writer on a publicly accessible Internet site. That the code was unprotected constitutes a significant security lapse by Diebold, said Aviel D. Rubin, an associate professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins, co-author of the study of the code.

Mr. Swidarski said the code on the Internet site was outdated and was not now in use in machines.

About 15,000 internal Diebold e-mail messages also found their way to the Internet. Some referred to software patches installed on Diebold machines days before elections. Others indicated that the Microsoft Access database used in Diebold's tabulation servers was not protected by passwords. Diebold, which says passwords are now installed on machines, is threatening legal action against anyone who posts the files or links to them, contending that the e-mail is copyrighted.

A recent report for the state of Maryland by SAIC, an engineering and research firm, has added to concerns about the security of Diebold's systems. It recommended 17 steps that Maryland election officials could take to ensure better security when using Diebold's machines.

The company seized upon this as evidence that its systems, if used properly, were secure. But the report's overall assessment was not particularly upbeat. ''The system, as implemented in policy, procedure and technology, is at high risk of compromise,'' SAIC wrote.

It has been a bumpy couple of months for Mr. O'Dell, 58, who is known as Wally and spent 33 years at Emerson Electric before joining what is now Diebold Election Systems. Associates say he was stunned by the reaction to his August letter and now regrets writing it.

''Wally's going to take a lower profile on this stuff,'' Mr. Swidarski said. But Mr. Swidarski did not indicate that Mr. O'Dell would put a halt to all of his political activities. Those have included attendance at a Bush fund-raiser in Cincinnati on Sept. 30 and a flight to Crawford, Tex., in August for a Pioneers and Rangers meeting attended by the president.

Other Diebold executives have contributed to President Bush's re-election campaign. According to data reported to the Federal Election Commission, 11 executives have added a total of $22,000 to the president's campaign coffers this year. No money from Diebold or its executives has gone to Democratic presidential candidates this year.

The controversy over security has started to affect Diebold's business. Last week, the office of the California secretary of state halted certification of Diebold's latest touch-screen voting machines, which individual counties are considering using. In Wisconsin, security concerns have soured election officials' perceptions of computerized voting. ''We were already not strongly in favor of it, but the whole problem has changed when you're getting e-mails every week saying, 'You're not going to do this, right?''' said Kevin J. Kennedy, director of Wisconsin's election board.

Matt Summerville, an analyst at McDonald Investments in Cleveland, said the California decision could cause Diebold to book less revenue in its voting division this year than it had hoped. ''It has certainly made their business a little more challenging,'' said Mr. Summerville, who expects the voting division to contribute $113 million this year to Diebold's total revenue of $2.1 billion.

So far, investors have not seemed concerned. Diebold's stock is up almost 36 percent for the year.

Until recently, Diebold's voting business looked extremely promising. Florida's electoral fiasco in 2000 confirmed what many state and county election officials had known for years: that punch-card systems were outdated. Encouraged by a new federal law that set aside $3.9 billion for voting improvements, many states and counties are moving rapidly to computer-based systems.

Analysts say the biggest beneficiaries of the federal dollars are likely to be Diebold, Election Systems & Software in Omaha and Sequoia Voting Systems, based in Oakland, Calif. So far, Washington has provided $650 million to states to buy new voting machines and improve the election process, though most of that has yet to be spent. An additional $830 million is waiting to be disbursed as soon as a new national oversight committee for elections is established.

NOT everyone is convinced that spending hundreds of millions of dollars to computerize the nation's voting is a good thing. The Johns Hopkins and SAIC reports are part of a growing chorus of criticism about the reliability and safety of paperless voting systems.

''There's a feeling in the computer scientist community of utter dismay about the state of voting-machine technology,'' said Douglas W. Jones, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa and a member of Iowa's board of examiners for voting machines.

David L. Dill, a computer science professor at Stanford, said: ''If I was a programmer at one of these companies and I wanted to steal an election, it would be very easy. I could put something in the software that would be impossible for people to detect, and it would change the votes from one party to another. And you could do it so it's not going to show up statistically as an anomaly.''

Diebold says there are enough checks and balances in the system to catch this. ''Programmers do not set up the elections; election officials do,'' Mr. Swidarski said. ''All a programmer knows are numbers, which are not assigned to real people and parties until set-up time.''

But Professor Dill says the inherent complexity of software code makes it nearly impossible to ensure that computerized elections are fair. He advocates that machines be required to print out a paper ballot, which voters can use to verify their selections and which will serve as an audit trail in the event of irregularities or recounts.

Touch-screen machines from Diebold, called AccuVotes, do not have such a ''voter verified'' paper trail. ES&S and Sequoia are working on prototypes for machines with printers. Diebold's machines are like A.T.M.'s, in that voters touch their selection and hit ''enter'' to record their votes onto memory cards inside each terminal. After voting has ended, the memory cards are inserted into a Diebold server at each precinct. The results are tabulated and sent by modem, or the data disks are sent to a central office.

Rebecca Mercuri, a computer scientist and president of the consulting firm Notable Software, who has been studying election systems for 14 years, says the trouble with this system is that it is secretive. It prohibits anyone from knowing whether the data coming out of the terminals represents what voters actually selected. If someone were to challenge election results, the data in memory cards and the software running the voting terminals could be examined only by Diebold representatives.

MS. MERCURI ran up against this last year, when she served as a consultant in a contested city council election in Boca Raton, Fla. Her request to look at the software inside the city's machines, made by Sequoia, to see if there were any bugs or malfunctions, was denied by a judge on the grounds that the technology was protected by trade-secret clauses. Sequoia, ES&S and Diebold routinely include such clauses in their contracts.

''These companies are basically saying 'trust us,''' Ms. Mercuri said. ''Why should anybody trust them? That's not the way democracy is supposed to work.''

Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, is leading an effort to make computerized voting more transparent. His bill, introduced this year, would require that computerized voting systems produce a voter-verified paper ballot and that the software code be publicly available.

The bill, in the House Administration Committee, has 60 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

''Someone said to me the other day, 'We've had these electronic voting machines for several years now and we've never had a problem.' And I said, 'How do you know?' and he couldn't answer that,'' Representative Holt said. ''The job of verification shouldn't belong to the company; it should belong to the voter.''

Diebold said it would be willing to attach ballot printers to touch-screen machines if customers wanted them. But Mr. Swidarski said elections boards were not clamoring for it. ''We're agnostic to it,'' he said.

Mr. Swidarski disputed the assertion that Diebold's systems are vulnerable to tampering. Before each election, he said, the software goes through rigorous testing and certification by one of three companies contracted through the National Association of State Election Directors. Those companies ''go through every line of code,'' he said. ''It's an extensive process that takes several months, and then the machines go for testing at the state level.''

Critics say that the certification process is not as thorough as the companies would have people believe, and that the resulting reports, like the technology, are not available for public inspection. This opacity is what worries detractors most.

''We know from Enron and WorldCom that when accounting is weak, crooks have been known to take over,'' Professor Jones said. ''If vulnerabilities exist in any voting system for a long enough time, someone's going to exploit it.''

Correction: November 16, 2003, Sunday An article last Sunday about Diebold Inc., which supplies touch-screen voting machines through a subsidiary, referred imprecisely to the way Walden W. O'Dell, Diebold's president and chief executive, joined the company in 1999. He was hired with those titles at Diebold Inc., not the subsidiary, Diebold Election Systems; the subsidiary was created after Diebold Inc. acquired Global Election Systems in 2002.

Photos: David L. Dill, a computer scientist at Stanford University, argues that it is nearly impossible to ensure that computerized elections are fair. (Photo by Thor Swift for The New York Times); As chief executive of Diebold, Walden W. O'Dell is both a voting-machine magnate and a big Republican contributor. (PRN)(pg. 11); Are touch-screen voting machines, like Diebold's, secure? Computer scientists are worried. (pg. 1)

Chart: ''A.T.M.'s and More''
Diebold, which makes automated teller machines and security systems -- and the software that runs them -- also makes touch-screen voting machines.

[DarylB]

Just what seems to me to be an obvious question, but why would anyone conttribute money to a campaign, if all they had to do was change the vote total on the machines?

Easy answer: sometimes all the money in the world can't buy you a win. Reference the 2000 election... :|

Pardon me for being a little puzzled by this response. My intent was to demonstrate that, given the easy path to an outcome by simply changing the vote total, the whole enterprise of campaigning and contributing would be a ruse and a waste of money. Who would bother to bet on a horserace and wait for the outcome, sweating impatiently and hiring stable managers, jockeys, paying breeding fees, and basically working their butt off for a given outcome, if all they had to do was walk over to the vault and pick up the cash?

If the Diebold machines were compromised, there would be no need for political contributions. Why buy something if you already possess it?

Tonya,
I hope what you're trying to infer is that an election is an expression of ones interests and opinions, and in spite of the amount of cash used to try and sway opinions, the money doesn't matter, the vote does. In that case, we're seeing that perfect example in the school bonds issue, with the pro-bond supporters bankrolling over $500,000 for ads and influence, going down to defeat to a loosley assembed group against it with only $60,000 with which to fight. Even though backed by nearly every business in Wake county, to include the richest man in NC and his wife, and the WHBA, the ideas are not popular, and will most likely be defeated. And so it was with the race in 2000. No outcome changing fraud, just a highly contested race, with a lot at stake.

[d4vendel]

Just so I am clear...

If Republicans win, the machines are rigged and the election results are fixed, the process is worthless, etc., etc.

If Democrats win, the system is just fine.

Does that pretty much cover it?

That being said, if someone wants to have a serious discussion about the dangers of not having a paper trail for auditing, etc, I'll by the first round. As a computer scientist, I have many concerns about electronic voting. I just don't buy into a lot of the conspiracy scenarios.

- David F.

[DarylB]

Daryl,
Please Google Wally O'Dell, Diebold. .... yada yada yada ....]

Being the owner of a company does NOT mean you get to dabble in the outcomes of its products. I don't get to change the data on pharmaceutical products just because that's what my business is, any more than Jim Goodnight can skim off the top of those companies that buy SAS software, just because he's the provider. Think about it....


Our organization develops, implements and services the world's most advanced self-service and security delivery systems, traditionally for financial institutions, and increasingly for retail and other applications.

Founded in 1859, the company employs more than 14,000 associates with representation in nearly 90 countries worldwide and is headquartered in Canton, Ohio, USA. For more information on Diebold, visit our About Us section.

Associates of Diebold, Incorporated enjoy a competitive salary, excellent company benefits, continuous development and education, career advancement opportunities, and an empowered team environment. Come and join our team!

Would you like to meet a Diebold representative? Click here to view our recruiting schedule.

As a candidate, you have two ways to respond online:

View our listing of Career Opportunities to respond directly to a specific position. Click here to go directly to our Career Opportunities.


Complete a Personal Profile to be entered into our central database. You will have the option to receive automated email based on your profile selections. You will also have the option to leave a copy of your resume here. Click here to submit your Personal Profile.
Please submit your resume using one of the options listed above.

NOTE: Third party resumes or applications will not be given consideration.

Diebold is an Equal Opportunity Employer, committed to a culturally diverse workforce (M/F/D/V).



Sounds to me like a publicly traded company that likely has as many Democrats on the payroll as Republicans 8-O

[Wuptdo]

Michelle Malkin sums up the "Diebold" story:

http://hotair.com/


I was sorta of hoping for "local" voter fraud, but it's another "runaway" thread here on CP. :D :D

Wuptdo B-)

[francejamie]

Dharma, you've made this claim so often, I think it's time you either back it up, or shut up. Please provide the evidence you have that Diebold, as a company, is owned and operated by the Republican party. In fact, show any affiliation with the Republican party you can prove.
[snip]


How quickly you forget. You simply asked for proof of affiliation. That is simple. Matt shows that quite well.



The Republican Party DOES NOT OWN the voting machines. However, I believe the quote is "The machines are owned by Republicans."

Proof (and sorry for the cut and paste) that Republicans own the machines:

#1 Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (Republican) has revealed that he has owned stock in the Diebold voting machine company, to which Blackwell tried to award unbid contracts worth millions while allowing its operators to steal Ohio elections. A top Republican election official also says a Diebold operative told him he made a $50,000 donation to Blackwell's "political interests." Blackwell is currently running for Governor of Ohio.

#2 In 2003: Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc, company that sells voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." In his invitation letter, O'Dell asked guests to consider donating or raising up to $10,000 each for the federal account that the state GOP will use to help Bush and other federal candidates

So there are two examples of Repubicans owning the machines.


I will aso add the following:

COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm


And then we combine this with the fact that the machines have clear security holes and suspicious "patches"


Diebold Agrees Not to Sue Over Leaked Documents
Tuesday, December 02, 2003

SAN JOSE, Calif. — A major supplier of touch-screen voting machines has agreed not to sue activists and others who posted leaked documents on the Internet about alleged security shortcomings surrounding electronic voting

Diebold Inc. made the promise in a conference call Monday with a federal judge and attorneys from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group concerned about civil liberties in digital technology.

Diebold said it would not sue dozens of students, computer scientists and Internet service providers who had received cease-and-desist letters from the company from August to October.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104532,00.html


[snip]
Shortly after the election, a Diebold technician called Rob Behler came forward and reported that, when the machines were about to be shipped to Georgia polling stations in the summer of 2002, they performed so erratically that their software had to be amended with a last-minute "patch". Instead of being transmitted via disk — a potentially time-consuming process, especially since its author was in Canada, not Georgia — the patch was posted, along with the entire election software package, on an open-access FTP, or file transfer protocol site, on the internet.

That, according to computer experts, was a violation of the most basic of security precautions, opening all sorts of possibilities for the introduction of rogue or malicious code. At the same time, however, it gave campaigners a golden opportunity to circumvent Diebold's own secrecy demands and see exactly how the system worked. Roxanne Jekot, a computer programmer with 20 years' experience, and an occasional teacher at Lanier Technical College northeast of Atlanta, did a line-by-line review and found "enough to stand your hair on end".

"There were security holes all over it," she says, "from the most basic display of the ballot on the screen all the way through the operating system." Although the programme was designed to be run on the Windows 2000 NT operating system, which has numerous safeguards to keep out intruders, Ms Jekot found it worked just fine on the much less secure Windows 98; the 2000 NT security features were, as she put it, "nullified".
[snip]http://www.awitness.org/journal/diebold_security_flaw.html

Is what I have just provided enough for a case in court? Not yet, but it certainly warrants further investigation.

Don't you find is just a little suspicious that there 10-15% swing in voting on the day of the election in Georgia and no such swing in SC or NC, and only GA is using the Diebold machines? Also, the people in charge of these machines are almost exclusively Republican and contribute huge sums of money to the republican campaigns?

[Brent]

That being said, if someone wants to have a serious discussion about the dangers of not having a paper trail for auditing, etc, I'll by the first round. As a computer scientist, I have many concerns about electronic voting. I just don't buy into a lot of the conspiracy scenarios.

I'm with David on this (and I'll buy the second round).

I'm not into conspiracy theories, either, but these new machines with no paper trail that are easily hacked, and are being foisted on many voters, should scare everyone.

[Don]

Just so I am clear...

If Republicans win, the machines are rigged and the election results are fixed, the process is worthless, etc., etc.

If Democrats win, the system is just fine.

Does that pretty much cover it?

That being said, if someone wants to have a serious discussion about the dangers of not having a paper trail for auditing, etc, I'll by the first round. As a computer scientist, I have many concerns about electronic voting. I just don't buy into a lot of the conspiracy scenarios.

- David F.

agreed 100% David and Brent.

[d4vendel]

Wow. Alcoa only closed up 34 cents today (+1.18%). I would have thought there would be a run on tin foil with it being election day and all.... :wink:

- David F.

[Dharma]

Wow. Alcoa only closed up 34 cents today (+1.18%). I would have thought there would be a run on tin foil with it being election day and all.... :wink:

- David F.

David,
I wonder how you would be reacting if all the data that has come out about the 2004 election were reversed. You know, Kerry won and there were huge irregularities across the country with Dem backed voting machines? What if, in one Ohio county there were more votes for Kerry than REGISTERED VOTERS?
Also, if Diebold can put paper receipts in their ATM machines, why not put them in their voting machines?

[DarylB]

Wow. Alcoa only closed up 34 cents today (+1.18%). I would have thought there would be a run on tin foil with it being election day and all.... :wink:

- David F.

LOL... I think we have yet another candidate for the "quotable quotes". I hereby nominate this quote for inclusion into the CP Hall of Shame... err fame.. :oops:

[DarylB]

Wow. Alcoa only closed up 34 cents today (+1.18%). I would have thought there would be a run on tin foil with it being election day and all.... :wink:

- David F.

David,
I wonder how you would be reacting if all the data that has come out about the 2004 election were reversed. You know, Kerry won and there were huge irregularities across the country with Dem backed voting machines? What if, in one Ohio county there were more votes for Kerry than REGISTERED VOTERS?
Also, if Diebold can put paper receipts in their ATM machines, why not put them in their voting machines?

...Or even better, why not just go ahead and use the ATM machines to vote with your debit card... the one with the biggest cash advance wins, sorta like American Idol for $$$$$$.

[d4vendel]

Wow. Alcoa only closed up 34 cents today (+1.18%). I would have thought there would be a run on tin foil with it being election day and all.... :wink:

- David F.

David,
I wonder how you would be reacting if all the data that has come out about the 2004 election were reversed. You know, Kerry won and there were huge irregularities across the country with Dem backed voting machines? What if, in one Ohio county there were more votes for Kerry than REGISTERED VOTERS?
Also, if Diebold can put paper receipts in their ATM machines, why not put them in their voting machines?

As I have said - I have serious concerns about electronic voting. That is not a red or a blue statement. I have concerns. Period. I am happy to discuss them.

And by the way, when I, and most other people use the little winky face - WE ARE NOT BEING SERIOUS!

- David F.