Diebold Goes 0 For 3 In Massachusetts Case

beetle496 writes "ComputerWorld reports that last week a judge denied Diebold's request to block ES&S pact with Massachusetts. This is a follow-up to the earlier discussion here after Diebold contended that the state had erred in selecting the machines of its rival, citing accessibility provisions of the HAVA law. Quoting: 'Diebold's request for an injunction to block the execution of the contract with ES&S was rejected... The judge also denied Diebold's request to have an accelerated discovery process and to keep the state's legal team from viewing internal Diebold documents... "The suit is still there, but they went zero for three yesterday," the spokesman said.' The actual accessibility concerns have been discussed over at the TEITAC listserv, including a few telling observations from experts familiar with accessible voting and at least one state insider."

[99 44/100% OT] boiling frogs

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

For what it's worth, snopes.com [snopes.com] says the legend of the boiling frog is false. But I do wonder sometimes if we should just get it over with and start fucking things up ASAP. :)

Re:Isn't it time for open source?

[Rob the Bold]

There are several open source voting machine projects on SourceForge. WTF is our problem for not getting our governments to use the auditable machines?

ES&S has an x86-based iVotronic machine that does run Linux. The project was shelved in 2003. It's got a touchscreen (with working Linux driver), pushbuttons (with working driver), audio-out (working under Linux) and a printer option. I bet you could compile several of those to run on that platform.

Same Sh*t, Different Flies

[lagartoflojo]

Are we supposed to be cheering because Diebold got rejected? From here [wikipedia.org]:

Thom Hartmann stated in CommonDreams.org (Nov 4 2004, [32]): "About two years ago [Jan 2003], I wrote a story for these pages, "If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines," that exposed how Senator Chuck Hagel had, before stepping down and running for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, been the head of the voting machine company (now ES&S) that had just computerized Nebraska's vote. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska, nearly all on unauditable machines he had just sold the state."

As we would say here, ES&S is the same shit with different flies. Until the law changes [slashdot.org], it doesn't matter if you vote on a Diebold machine or on an ES&S machine, you will still have not idea what really happened to your vote.

What about PWDs?

[beetle496]

1) I find it highly offensive and irresponsible that the discussion on /. for this case (both this story and the one before) has automatically presumed that the disabled community is being used as a witless proxy for larger battles.

2) Having read and digested the entire nuanced thread, particularly posts like this [teitac.org] and that [teitac.org], I have come to the reasoned conclusion that disability access is being used as a proxy for larger battles. I also duly note the similarly with the Massachusetts fight over ODF, but disavow that this is a pattern. Even if Peter Korn of Sun [sun.com] thinks differently. <*sighs deeply* />

I would like to quote a well connected individual who this all into perspective for me a week ago:

It is curious that the original inquiry sources a New York Times company product. The NYT Co. and the Sulzberger family that controls it have been highly skeptical in the advancement of independence for people with disabilities. The latest criticism and skepticality from them regards the cost and reliability of accessible voting machines. The NYT co. product below [boston.com] fails to explain that this is a simple contract dispute and does not involve access issues. Diebold believes it met the requirements of the RFP more than ES&S and therefore should be given the contract rather than ES&S.

The difference of course is that the Diebold system for access is completely electronic and would need to blend the results with the paper optical scan ballots while the AutoMark simply prints a completed paper ballot and no blending of results is necessary. The Diebold DRE is a lot less expensive than the Automark, which is their biggest selling point.

This is likely the last big contract outstanding and could add to the sale price of the election division when Diebold decides to sell it. The new CEO already has said in Fortune magazine that the election division is not a long term strategic fit for the company.

And I initially thought he was just being cynical!

Not that anyone at /. cares, but here is a link to Voluntary Voting System Guidelines [eac.gov] which both the ES&S and Diebold products fail to completely satisfy.