Diebold Admits ATMs Are More Robust Than Voting Machines

[kpete]

Diebold Admits ATMs Are More Robust Than Voting Machines
Posted by Soulskill on Friday April 25, @08:23AM

An anonymous reader points out a story in the Huffington Post about the status of funding for election voting systems. It contains an interesting section in which Chris Riggall, a spokesman for Premier (formerly Diebold) acknowledged that less money is spent making an electronic voting machine than on a typical ATM. The ironically named Riggall also notes that security could indeed be improved, but at a higher price than most election administrators would care to pay. Also quoted in the article is Ed Felten, who has recently found some inconsistencies in New Jersey voting machines. From the Post:

"'An ATM is significantly a more expensive device than a voting terminal...' said Riggall. 'Were you to develop something that was as robust as an ATM, both in terms of the physical engineering of it and all aspects, clearly that would be something that the average jurisdiction cannot afford.' Perhaps cost has something to do with the fact that a couple of years ago, every single Diebold AccuVote TS could be opened with a standard key also used for some cabinets and mini-bars and available for purchase over the Internet."

links and more at:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=57951

[BeFree]

1. And opened they were

Diebold machines stole the election for Bush. Over 20 million new voters came out in 2004 and Bush is said to have gotten 12 million of them to vote for him. That's plain out and out a lie. Of course some people think some 4 million Gore 2000 voters made the diff for Bush in 2004. Have you ever heard such BS?

[midnight]

2. Maybe we should insist that our vote be considered

equally as valuable as our money. It is a shame that a few months before another presidential election we have not answered those pesky concerns!!!!!!!

[puebloknot]

3. When I'm out in public, I remark as often and as loudly as I can ...

(Edited for typo.)

... that the machine I use to buy a parking ticket in a lot near a popular restaurant, and the new automated check-out systems in grocery stores, work with amazing accuracy -- as opposed to the voting machines we're all faced to use. They give me the correct change, and then a computerized voice even wishes me a good day.

The joke's on We the People, and I'm going to share a joke I once heard that seems to sum up the topic of this thread nicely.

A man is on a road trip and keeps seeing signs for "Grandma's Place," with pictures of "hot" women, scantily dressed. Like the Burma Shave signs we used to see on the highways (dating myself here by referring to those signs and using the word "highways"), the provocative signs continue to appear every few miles.

Finally, Joe Tired Traveler decides to check out Gramdma's Place, pulls into the parking lot, sees the front of a large edifice with a stairway that goes up to about the third floor (with no access for the first or second floor). There's a place to insert cash into a machine which delivers a plastic entry card for access through the large and ornate door at the top of the stairs.

Joe climbs the stairs, inserts his card, pushes the door open and steps out into darkness and a quick plunge to the ground. Picking himself up and dusting himself off, he turns around to see the back side of the structure, where there is a brightly-lit banner which says: "Congratulations. You have just been screwed by Grandma."

It's just about that bad that We the People are being screwed out of our votes by every excuse in the book about those damned voting machines. "We can't afford to use machines that will assure a reliable vote count" is right up there with becoming sane a la George Orwell:

“You are a slow learner, Winston,” said O’Brien gently.

“How can I help it?” he blubbered. “How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes. they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

We're being had, and the sound of silence on this subject by *both* of our Dem candidates is positively deafening!

[RC]

4. And that scares me. Neither has said much on any important issue.

They touch on the subjects sure, but there is really no depth, no substance, no workable solutions. Be it health care/insurance, Iraq, 9/11, the war crimes of the bu$h administration, whatever.

[Djinn]

8. That's because they share a consensus

on far more issues than they disagree on, adding to your examples there's; NAFTA (and a host of other exploitative "trade" deals) the role of various unaccountable multilateral agencies (WTO, IMF) economic redistribution (can you even imagine a Democrat uttering that phrase), crime and punishment (particularly the explosion of prisons for profit and the resultant increase in incarcerations) Israel, American hegemony (or Empire to give it's real name) the "war" on drugs etc etc

It's appropriate that more resources go into ATM design than voting machines, for the vast majority of people an ATM working properly has more relevance.

When Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum are your choices it's probably a moot point if the machines are faulty (or deliberately rigged) you end up with the same policies for the most part anyway.

[bleever]

5. K5R,

and a happy weekend to everyone still devoted to unstolen elections.

[sellitman]

6. Translation : Robust= Accurate

Bastards!

[Djinn]

7. Free and fair elections in 3 easy steps

1. Federal independent body that runs ALL elections (having politicians control it is INSANE)

2. Paper ballots

3. Party scrutineers watching count

It's not hard. India manages it with a population of a billion.

[pacalo]

9. Paper ballots & indelible markers are even cheaper, Mr. Rig-All.

[tbyg52]

10. >>"'An ATM is significantly a more expensive device than a voting terminal...'

In other words, money is more important than democracy.