California County Keeps E-Vote (Diebold)

[phoebe]

Despite the release of a comprehensive report on Wednesday that showed the Diebold touch-screen voting machines to be "at high risk of compromise," election officials in California say they have no plans to replace the machines before the upcoming gubernatorial election.

snip
Alameda County, which includes the Northern California cities of Oakland and Berkeley, used 4,000 of the touch-screen machines in the state's last gubernatorial election, and Alameda Registrar of Voters Brad Clark said the county will not replace the machines before the recall election on Oct. 7.

snip
"Any election conducted on these machines is questionable," said Dill. "You don't have any proof that the election results are sound. On the other hand, a challenging party doesn't have any proof that the election is unsound, because the evidence is not there either."

"In fact, they have a disclaimer in the report saying they won't guarantee that they've found all the problems," said Dill. "Nowhere in the report is there any evidence that the machines are actually sound. All the report says is that they can mitigate the risks by changing procedures. But saying they can minimize the risks doesn't say they can make the risks acceptable."

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60618,00.html

[shirlden]

1. Calif. needs serious "exit polling"

by citizens....not some company. They can then have a way of comparing results. In precincts that are close and can go either way, is the logical place for the "fix" to be in. Harder to make a case of vote fraud.
I am constantly amazed when I read about election officials being concerned about the "time" element of voting. If it took two days or a week or more....what the hell is the problem? They are willing to forgo security for expediency. Bull Crap. Any official who uses this argument should be severely chastised.

:mad:

[intheozone]

2. The fix is in. . . .

the repugs will steal the recall election with these machines. That explains the new poll of the weekend showing high numbers for the recall and for Arnie, that poll is setting the stage for the votes to manipulated so that Arnie will be the new Gov. :puke: :puke: :puke:

Oh f**k, I can't stand much more of this shit!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[NoKingGeorge]

3. The results will be challenged

No matter who 'wins' the results will be challenged. The money and court documentation taken in that challenge will expose the idiocy in going ahead with deploying this unsecured technology.
I think that the other states ,like Maryland, who are trying to justify using this corrupted software ,will be forced to eat the cost. Their taxpayers will not be happy with the wasted money....

[Eloriel]

4. Hmmm

"If it's possible to hack the database, then there certainly is the potential for lawsuits from losing candidates, if they could show that the database has been compromised," Edlin said.
"If one could show that there was a sufficiently high likelihood that the results could be compromised, then one might be able to enjoin the election," Edlin said, in the manner that a recent lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union had endeavored to delay the recall election.

"It would take a judge with some backbone and one who was genuinely convinced that there was a very substantial issue here," Edlin said.

But Pam Karlan, professor of law at Stanford University, said it's unlikely an attempt to stay the election would succeed.

"You generally have to bring a lawsuit significantly far in advance so you can get a new voting system in place," she said. "Part of the reason the ACLU failed was because the court felt it was too close to the time of the election."

Karlan emphasized that post-election lawsuits would not win simply because a report proved the system was at high risk of compromise before the election.

"There is a risk of fraud in every election, but that doesn't tell you anything," said Karlan. "You need to know whether in fact something bad happened,"

The deal is, you can't show beforehand, and you can't prove afterwards with no VVPB. No one can examine the code, and any machine recounts would likely yield the same fraudulent results. No boter verified paper ballot = no proof. Cool, huh?

Eloriel

[Mari333]

5. California=Diebold testing ground to steal 2004 election

Nothing to see here, ignore the Man Behind the Curtain...