Who Dares Defend Humboldt's Relationship With Diebold? (LTTE in Eureka Times-Standard)

[GuvWurld]

http://www.times-standard.com/letters/ci_11183863

Any defenders?
Letters to the editor
Posted: 12/10/2008 01:15:38 AM PST

First I'd like to congratulate Kevin Collins, Tom Pinto, Mitch Trachtenberg, Parke Bostrom and all the volunteers of the Election Transparency Project.

Their work revealed a discrepancy caused by Humboldt's electronic voting equipment last month.

Over the last few years I've made many different arguments for getting rid of the Diebold (now Premier) equipment used to count votes in Humboldt County. Somehow it wasn't enough that they “count” in secret, can be easily manipulated without detection, and report results impossible in a legitimate election.

Somehow local decision makers weren't deterred from doing business with a company that admitted to illegally installing uncertified software here and elsewhere; that was sued in class action suits filed by company shareholders; and whose then -- CEO said he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes” to Bush in 2004.

Now we learn that Humboldt has finally experienced what is euphemistically called a “glitch.” In reality it was a bug in Diebold's central tabulation program, GEMS. This caused the results of November's election, already certified as accurate by Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich, to be proven inaccurate.

Worse still, Diebold knew about the bug at least four years ago and never fixed it. Other counties were made aware of the problem and told how to work around it. Crnich says she never knew, and I believe her.

This raises many questions, most important among them: Who dares defend the continued use of these machines and the county's relationship with Diebold/Premier?

Dave Berman
Eureka

[BeFree]

1. Just for the hell of it I'll give 'er a go, Dave

First, how much $$ did Diebold get from Humboldt in the last year?

2nd, just how many votes were counted and how many were miscounted?

Once answered I then will be better able to defend Diebold against these most serious accusations. After all, it is of the utmost import that a company that is in control of the voting apparatti be as circumspectualy circumspected as possible. My task shall not be an easy task, as one who defends a company as scurrilous as Diebold must really become a truly devilish advocate, so I beg of yall a small degree of latitude as we progress.

Many thanks and stay tuned.

[BeFree]

4. Sorry Dave

To be such a bother. I know you have far more important things to do than answer a few simple questions. Carry on.

[Wilms]

2. Why is Humboldt County using this version of software?

Why are two other counties using it?

Why are there two different sets of software for one machine model being used in a single state?

Why didn't Crnich "get the memo"?

Did Bowen have "the memo"?

What is the exact nature of the "normal complications" triggered the softwares bug, as Crnich reported to Kim Alexander.
http://www.calvoter.org/news/blog/2008_12_01_blogarchive.html#8990658356970071161#8990658356970071161

If a bad guy had knowledge of this bug, could it be used to rig an election?

Is this software version in use elsewhere in the US?

Have other software versions for this machine (and others for that matter) been vetted for this problem?

Will the EAC launch an investigation AND decertify the software?


OK. I'll stop now.

K&ARRG!

[GuvWurld]

3. I believe most of the questions above are answered

in the BradBlog piece

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6733