Is a voting machine merger too big to stand?

[deminks]

Source: Associated Press

The largest voting machine company in the country bought its biggest competitor six months ago without advance fanfare. Now the Justice Department is investigating whether to unwind the merger that put a privately held Nebraska company in control of the voting machines in nearly 70 percent of the nation's precincts.

With midterm elections looming and a battle for control of Congress under way, a coalition of election officials from several states and voter advocate groups is pressing the Justice Department to unscramble the combination of two companies. Critics say the merger could cause foul-ups at the polls on Election Day, and some even characterize it as a national security risk.

The emergence of one megaplayer in the electronic voting machine industry may be an unintended consequence of reforms enacted after the presidential election debacle in Florida a decade ago. Few companies can afford to get into the business due to the expense of developing the electronic voting safeguards that reformers insisted on.

Senate Rules Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has raised concerns about the purchase, in which Election Systems & Software Inc. of Omaha, Neb., bought the voting machine subsidiary of Diebold Inc. of North Canton, Ohio.

The Justice Department's antitrust division is doing a post-merger review that could result in the government's trying to persuade ES&S to sell off some of its assets or face a court suit to force a sell-off. An announcement could come soon.

Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011250641_apusvotingmachinecontroversy.html?syndication=rss

---

"and even some characterize it as a national security risk."

[annabanana]

1. I don't want ANY Nebraska interest with it's sticky fingers in my

voting apparatus.

[Proletariatprincess]

2. Have we learned nothing?

I don't know why I bother to vote in national elections at all. Voting machines can be and have been manipulated to change results...and now they will be held in the hands of one company for the most part? Are we crazy in this country? What a joke our so called democracy is now.
We already know that our "elected" representitives don't give a damn what the people want, now it will just be easier to steal elections anyway. Why vote at all? It's really over in this country.

[tom_paine]

11. No, we've learned nothing. But we should definitely still vote!

1) Just in case it's not as bad as we think it is.

2) More votes needed to be flipped/elimianted means more chance people might awake to what is going on.

[glitch]

12. 3) MAKE them steal it. Why give it to them?

Not voting just gives it to them, and if they are forced to steal it, who knows, we may actually get someone in power willing to investigate and prosecute (it could happen).

[Supersedeas]

16. well said, tom

[No Elephants]

14. Why only national elections? Does your locale use different voting methods for state and local

elections than it does for national elections?

[salguine]

3. Yes it is. Which is why it will stand.

[FailureToCommunicate]

4. How did this slip by (last September)??!?

[Bitwit1234]

5. I don't understand what every happened to the monopoly rule

did Reagan kabash that when he got rid of the Fairness Doctrine.

[salguine]

6. The monopolies pay your legislators and regulators to ignore it.

[No Elephants]

15. I don't know about the timing, but the Reagan administration is responsible in

at least several ways.

1/ The laws or regulations or both about the ability of the Justice Department to review a merger for anti-trust ramifications changed under Reagan There were dollar figures that brought a transaction within the purview of the Justice Department and they were raised fairly soon after Reagan got into office (and probably also during later administrations, but I did not track those).

2/ In general, Reagan convinced many people that government, even if well-intentioned, is every American's worst nightmare. This mentality, rejected under FDR, but brought by Reagan to almost cult status, paved the way for all kinds of evils.

3/ Reagan's single minded idolatory of business as the only hope of America, calcified during his years as a G.E. spokesmodel, combined with Reagan's eye-opening o election results, jerked the Democratic Party to the right.

What probably accounted for a good measure of Ron's popularity were his having been America's All American symbol for decades, his having been America's living rooms for a few more decades, his good natured "aw shucks M.O. and his sense of humor.

However, Democrats could not duplicate any of that. Instead, they followed his unthinkingly pro-business, pro-military policies, forming the DLC with PNAC ideology. So, Reagan Bush was followed by Clinton, who, among other things, demanded repeal of Glass Steagall get to his desk ASAP.

4/ Reagan, not Poopy Bush, was Dummya's political idol and role model. Whatever wrong thing Reagan initiated, Dummya probably made worse.

[bvar22]

7. This is a very scary issue.

You would think that after the obvious THEFT in 2000, and the unanswered questions in Ohio 2004, that Election Security would be a front burner, red hot issue with the Democratic Party.
.
.
.
but instead...SILENCE.
WHY?
.
.
I can think of only ONE answer, and it scares the hell out of me.

Joe Stalin had THAT answer:
"He who votes decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything."

Do the Corporatist in command of BOTH Political Parties believe that elections are too important to let The People decide?

[bvar22]

8. This scares the HELL out of me....honestly.

You would think that after the obvious THEFT in 2000, and the unanswered questions in Ohio 2004, that Election Security would be a front burner, red hot issue with the Democratic Party.
.
.
.
but instead...SILENCE.
WHY?
.
.
I can think of only ONE answer, and it scares the hell out of me.

Joe Stalin had THAT answer:
"He who votes decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything."

Do the Corporatist in command of BOTH Political Parties believe that elections are too important to let The People decide?

[femrap]

9. I can't believe this is the first I

have heard of this...

Corporations rule. Democracy is over. Welcome to Fascist Rule.

[Doctor_J]

10. If you believe your vote still counts, you probably

also believe that Obama = FDR. I envy you your rose-colored glasses

[Blue Owl]

13. Privitizin'

The GOP can't win without cheating, lying, or stealing.

They just can't.