This Is Directly From Diebold

[ruggerson]

http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/faq.htm

<snip>

The image of each and every ballot cast on the voting station is captured, and can be anonymously reproduced on standard paper should a hard copy of ballots be required for recount purposes. Once voting concludes at a precinct, a printed election results report is printed as a permanent record of all activity at each voting station. This printed record is used to audit the electronic tabulation of votes conducted during the election canvas process, when final, official election results are reported.

<snip>


If this is true, doesn't this debunk much of the tinfoil hat whining consuming so much space here?

[Avalux]

1. No

not when the source code is private and owned by Diebold. Means nothing.

[KittyWampus]

2. If The Vote Tally Has Been Altered The Machine Would Just Produce

fraudulent paper copies of fraudulent vote totals.

[Straight Shooter]

8. BINGO!

Took the cyberwords right out of my fingers.

:thumbsup:

[Starlight]

15. Diebold can go back & "create" a faux paper trail

after they're done "creating" the vote tally. And the OP apparently thinks we're "whiners" if that's not good enough for us. :eyes:

You know, I work as a manager in the brokerage department of a large bank. If I was to try to pull a scam like that I'd be in jail in a heartbeat. I am totally dumbfounded that anyone lets them get away with this stuff. :crazy:

[0rganism]

3. "The image of each and every ballot" -- what do you think that is?

It's just a stored database line, there's nothing physical about it, it can be marked any way the programmer decides to mark it. The voter doesn't get to verify what's getting put in memory. There is no physical paper trail that doesn't proceed from the data "image".

The difference between this and a true paper ballot is day and night.

[LightTheMatch]

4. No.

Apparently this is only available at the back end, i.e. when the votes are tabulated at the counting centers. In order to be valid, they would need to be printed and visible to the person who just cast a ballot, to ensure their votes were counted correctly, and -then- stored like a paper ballot so that these receipts could be hand-counted to verify that the machine tabulations were correct.

[JohnnyCougar]

5. In Florida, it was more the Op-Scan machines that were out of whack.

or problems with the central tabulators.

The real problem was that you can hack into the vote database as easy as you can hack into an unprotected personal computer.

Your "discovery" means nothing.

[Avalux]

6. LISTEN*****

The code - what's programmed into the machine - must be PUBLIC. It's possible to tell the machine to record differently that the button you press or the paper you print. What's on the paper and what is counted may not match. The code must be public and available to outside programmers. Right now, Diebold (and other co's) have control over it.

[Eloriel]

7. Smoke and mirrors

but others have explained it VERY well.

[Straight Shooter]

9. Don't forget the dog and pony show

prancing among the smoke & mirrors. ;)

[underseasurveyor]

10. Oh brother

Like Diebold is really going to admit anything different:eyes:
PT Barnum was Soooooooo right!

[UdoKier]

11. This "tinfoil" crap is insulting, I suggest you drop it.

If you want to have any kind of serious discussion, don't start it off with freeperish insults.

And NO, it doesn't debunk ANYTHING. The fact that the printers CAN be used was never in dispute. The problem is they are NOT being used.

[SoCalDemocrat]

12. So are we supposed to be dumb enough to believe that?

That probably works on the Bush voters though.

[high density]

13. So it can generate a printable image of each fraudulent ballot

Big whoop. What we need is a paper record of every vote that is verified and then placed by the voter into a box before they leave the polling place. Printing out paper ballots later on that are based on the digital record is a waste of time and paper.

[shanti]

14. whining???

you've blown your cover, bud.

[TryingToWarnYou]

16. No, fraud is a real possibility.

Until the actual source code is made public, anything is questionable.

As a programmer, you can write the code to manipulate the totals however you want, respond to actions by the voter, cover its own tracks etc. This is not rocket science.

As is seen in Votergate, its very easy to manipulate the totals on the backend since these machines apparently use Access for their databases. An image of the vote totals is only going to show you an image of the altered votes.

Again, until the software is made public, (and isnt it suspicious that MATH should be proprietary?) we will have this issue.

Strange also that these companies, owned by Republican supporters, control much of the vote. Even stranger is how none of these machines ever seem to error in the Democrats favor.

[demwing]

17. OK, think of it this way

Open a business account in my bank. I won't send you statements of any kind, but I'll keep track of your money going in and out-TRUST ME. Just so you're not too concerned, I take a picture of your money as it comes and goes-TRUST ME. Oh, no, you don't get an ATM receipt, or a deposit receipt, or a withdrawal receipt. Hell, we don't even use deposit SLIPS. Just throw your money through the hole in the door. We'll know its from you. We're professionals. TRUST ME.

Oh, btw, I happen to sit on the board of directors of your biggest competitor, and I've said publically that I want your business to go bankrupt. I hope that doesn't alarm you...

What, you don't want an account at my bank? What are you whining about? Don't you TRUST ME?