Voting Machines Story

Watchdog Group Questions 2004 Fla. Vote

An examination of Palm Beach County’s electronic voting machine records from the 2004 election found possible tampering and tens of thousands of malfunctions and errors, a watchdog group said Thursday.
… “I actually think there’s enough votes in play in Florida that it’s anybody’s guess who actually won the presidential race,” Harris added. “But with that said, there’s no way to tell who the votes should have gone to.”

Through Brad Blog.

4 thoughts on “Voting Machines Story

  1. And this is supposed to surprise who?
    At 6 PM on election day I called FL and OH for the R’s, compliments of Dieboldt. It’s taking a really long time for that to be verified, but it was already noticeable on that day.
    This is why Kerry should never be allowed to represent Dems again — with a 45 million warchest for recounts he did not do a damned thing. So screw him as he screwed us.

  2. Here’s a chance for the liberals to do their favorite exercise, jumping to conclusions. This article points out errors logged on the voting machines. If anyone with a computer keeps error logs, you’ll see that even a home PC will quickly accumulate a large and growing log. As the article pointed out, an error was logged if someone inserted the card incorrectly. So does the error log on your or my PC indicate fraud? No it doesn’t, and neither do the error logs on the voting machines.
    This article perfectly fits the Democratic paranoid psyche. The article itself reaches no conslusion indicating voter fraud. That little inconvenient fact surely won’t stop the liberal conspiracy theorists from taking this ball and running with it.

  3. Happy – a question for you. Why are so many Republicans opposed to the idea of using voting machines that provide a way to tell FOR SURE what the count was?
    For example, the recent California switch, where the new Republican Sec State certified machines previously banned — done late on a Friday just before a 3-day weekend. They had been banned because they cold be tamoered with, and because they provided no way to prove how people voted.
    WHY has the Republican leadership made this a partisan issue – demanding use of machines that leave no way to prove how the vote went? And why do the voting machine companies (owned entirely by far-right Republicans) REFUSE to provide add-on printers, when that would be a boost to profits?

  4. Answer to first question: Two of the most ardent supporters of touchscreen technology, as identified by are Los Angeles County Registrar of Elections Conny McCormack and former San Bernardino Registrar Scott Konopasek. Neither are Republicans as far as I know. They both oppose printer technology because in two previous pilot programs using printer equipment in Sacramento and Wilton, Connecticut, both were appalling failures. The paper jammed, and the operators had to use coat hangers to try to unjam the equipment. They like the touchscreen because it has multiple back-up for recounts. First is the hard drive, second is the flash drive, and third is the paper with the totals. If you would specify which Republicans you are referring to that are opposed to these machines, I would be glad to address their reasons, if I know them.
    Addressing your example of California: There was no switch. The Diebold product line was always the only product line which met all the criteria for California. It was the only product line awaiting approval. The TSx touchscreen machine was approved, and it does have a paper roll printer included. In my opinion it is naive for you to assume the Diebold machines were banned because they could be tampered with. It was purely political, with other business interests trying to get their machines certified while the Ca Sec State had the issue on hold.
    Your second question: As I previously pointed out to you, the Diebold TSx does have a printer attached. As for the “Republican leadership” making this a partisan issue, please identify who in the leadership is doing that, and how they’re doing it, and I would be happy to address each specific instance.
    As for your belief that the voting machine companies are “owned entirely by far-right Republicans”, that is not true of Diebold. Diebold is a publically traded company, listed on the NYSE. They have very large daily volume, commonly exceeding 300,000 shares per day. They are widely held, with much of their stock in retirement portfolios, including individual accounts, corporate accounts and union accounts.
    On a humerous note, now is complaining that the Diebold machine approved in California violates the voter’s right to privacy, because it has a printer attached. I guess you didn’t get the talking points yet.

Comments are closed.