Rolling Stone interviews a Diebold whistleblower

In what is perhaps the most astonishing turn of events in the ongoing Diebold fiasco, a new article in the latest issue of Rolling Stone -- with extensive information direct from a named former company consultant -- makes one of the most damning cases against the embattled company. The article weaves an elaborate tale of how Diebold had at the very least some extremely skeezy deals signed in 2002 with the state of Georgia, which allowed Diebold to replace all existing voting equipment, and to speed things up by the fall election: "The company was authorized to put together ballots, program machines and train poll workers across the state - all without any official supervision." As if that weren't enough, days before the primaries, the president of Diebold's election unit, Bob Urosevich, personally distributed a patch to the elections software. The article goes on: "Georgia law mandates that any change made in voting machines be certified by the state. But thanks to Cox's [Georgia's Secretary of State] agreement with Diebold, the company was essentially allowed to certify itself." Before the election, the two Democratic candidates in the two major races (for one Senate seat and the state governorship) had been ahead in the polls, and on Election Day, Republicans won the two races by a slim margin -- and given that no paper trail exists there is no way to prove or disprove that the election wasn't tampered with in some way. And you wonder why we continue to insist on paper ballots for the time being?

[Adam B. @ Sep 24th 2006 1:50AM]

Even paper trails can be screwed with to look like they produced an accurate result, yet inside the system, an inaccurate result is recorded. Electronic voting machines won't be reliable for a while.

[ECM @ Sep 24th 2006 2:06AM]

Calling all barking moonbats!!

[LittleJoe @ Sep 24th 2006 2:10AM]

A rigged election?!?!?! Nooooo!

:rolleyes:

What election hasnt been rigged? We have such little control its ridiculous.

[schtum @ Sep 24th 2006 2:14AM]

That's an excellent point, ECM. However, have you considered the equally potent counterpoint:

Calling all raving wingnuts!!

Clearly, this debate won't be settled anytime soon. It's a good thing we have honest and capable minds such as yours tackling the difficult issues of our time.

[Luke @ Sep 24th 2006 2:18AM]

It's a good thing that we teach principles like honesty and integrity in our public schools...

It's always good to know that we're raising up another generation capable of self-government.

[RWD fan @ Sep 24th 2006 2:50AM]

The polls are never wrong, there is no justice in this country!

There should be a paper trail, and it should start at every polling place verifying the eligibility of the voter, with a valid picture ID. We all know that the only people who rig elections are republican anyways, so I'm sure no dems would disagree with that. (wink, wink, to any Daley fans in Chicago...)

[oneteam @ Sep 24th 2006 3:33AM]

I think it's important to clarify that there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that the machines were rigged in any way shape or form. The way you reported this, you give the impression that the mean old republicans were in on this whole thing. Yes, it was irresponsible management of the process and it should be something that they learn from, but to infer in any way that it was malicious in nature is simply showing your bias against the Republican party.

Am I wrong? :-)

[Luke @ Sep 24th 2006 4:05AM]

Yeah I completely agree with you oneteam. I noticed the same bias myself. The entire nature of Republican belief in small government and order and justice speak more to the process than the beliefs of their opponants.

I should hope that the difference between Republicans and Democrats are that Repulicans will be concerned about this and make sure it gets fixed EVEN IF it's benefiting them. I would hope the Democrats would as well.

[jollyllama @ Sep 25th 2006 2:38PM]

Ah, look at the cute idealist young Republicans. That's just adorable.

[clearview @ Sep 24th 2006 3:59AM]

Um, unless I'm confused, why would anyone want to point out that a DEMOCRAT (Cathy Cox) allowed such a potentially skewable system to fall into place and then hint that an election may have been rigged in favor of REPUBLICANS?

Talk about stupid commentary. I like this site, mostly, but this is pure crap.

Stick to your known metrics, folks: technology geekdom.

[Vince @ Sep 24th 2006 7:29AM]

I don't think that Engadget is really going off their line with this post. Clearly, electronic voting machines and the hackability of said voting machines is within their purview. Though, it's also clear that clearview is 100% correct in saying that no one has any evidence of the Diebold electronic voting machines being tampered with to throw the results of an election. Yup...100% percent correct.

Of course, he's missed the point that the way these machines have been built and disseminated means that no one could know if they were tampered with. That these machines have no way to verify the integrity of their results is becoming increasingly clear. Initially, the lack of a paper trail or other physical means of confirming the electronic vote was justified by claiming that (1) it was virtually impossible for anyone to tamper with the machines, and (2) if someone did, it would be detected by failed checksums (or some other digital signature). Both of which look to be false. So, what some people suspected from the start is probably true, these voting machines can be hacked in an undetectable fashion by either election officials, their manufacturer or probably even a civi.

True, any vote can be manipulated. I lived in Chicago where even the dead (or at least of of 'em) can cast a ballot. But it still seems ludicrous to me for anyone to use the general potential for voter fraud as a rationale for not addressing the shortcomings of these electronic voting machines. Moreover the lack of transparency with which these machines are handled, and the partisanship of their manufacture's executives creates an air of suspicion that cannot be easily dispersed.

Also, associating Cathy Cox with this debacle is nothing more than a red herring. The move to electronic voting was mandated by a state law so she had little choice.

[Anthony @ Sep 24th 2006 4:35AM]

And the U.S. calls itself a demcracy? If it was a democracy I doubt very much Bush would be in power. And if it was a substantive democracy I doubt the Democrats or the Replubicans would be in power.

[Luke @ Sep 24th 2006 4:53AM]

Anthony I am almost finished with a Master's in Political Science. Nearly 100% of my professors probably voted against Bush. And yet to put things in perspective, even they would be amused (or embarrassed) by your claims.

Fact that you can deduce the intricacies of representative government based on a few election machines in rather rich. My State uses vote by mail, I suppose that makes us very democratic no? I for one welcome our new vote by tree-killing (I mean mail) overlords. Not.

[fuzzybee @ Sep 24th 2006 9:18AM]

Actually, the United States consiedrs itself a Republic, not a Democracy.

If you honestly believe that Bush *wasn't* elected in the first election, and you believe this despite the media recounts that had him winning Florida, as well as Gore's tenuous lead in New Mexico - a state which he, for some reason, *wasn't* fighting for a recount in - then I truly feel sorry for you.

[CRH @ Sep 24th 2006 12:44PM]

Tony my man,
America calls itself a Republic, not a democracy. And in America, whoever gets the most votes wins, not the most hanging or dimpled chads.

[Joe091 @ Sep 24th 2006 4:51AM]

I think verifiable paper trails should be required. It's been proven that it is quite easy to hack these machines, and some recent election exit polls haven't matched up even closely to the final election results. How hard can it be to write this software? Hell, you could probably use an excel spreadsheet and get pretty accurate results.

[Bedpanjohn @ Sep 24th 2006 5:45AM]

I really think we should have online voting. If they are allowing electronic counting, why not be able to do it from your home. I have been able to pay my taxes online for the past 6 years, so there has to be some sort of safety if the government can exchange billions of dollars over the internet. I am sure one reason that it hasn�t even came up is because this country is ran by people that don't know how to use the internet. Also if they did allow online voting then people from the age 18-35 would actually vote and boy how would things change? John Stewart would be our next president.

[Bp @ Sep 24th 2006 6:04AM]

... However; to add to that, I do understand that there is a large difference from a local level hack, like these Diebold machines, and a 'hack' of votes on a national level, which would be a problem with online voting.

When the security is available, (vista? ha) I do think it will greatly change the dynamic of where our country is headed and who is running it.

[Graham @ Sep 24th 2006 6:41AM]

I do not understand the attitude some people have in their replies.

If there is a possibility of a security breach in something as critical as voting, then the vote should be considered invalid until either the security problem can be shown to be unexploited (difficult to impossible) or the effected votes are confirmed with the voters. Or the vote is taken again.

I don't see the problem with this logic. With computer security you can never take a 'it will have to do' attitude.

One report referenced in that article found 120 security vulnerability with the machines used. One security vulnerability should be enough reason to discontinue use of the machines until it is fixed. Yet 120 isn't?

120. One report.

[Anthony @ Sep 24th 2006 7:30AM]

Luke, presupposing someone's opinion isn't much of an argument. Why don't you stick to explaining your own thoughts?

Don't get me wrong, the U.S. is a free country in many ways that surpass most others, however having a constitutional right to important information doesn't make a democracy. For a start people actually have to look at and use that information. Stalin would have been amazed at the degree to which the propaganda system in the U.S. can delude people into thinking they're free. In many ways the system in the U.S., and other western countries, while a bit more aggravating for elites, is in fact far more effective than anything Stalin came up with, for the simple reason that people actually believe they are free and that their government is looking out for their interests.

A representative democracy (by definition) is meant to have free elections. Not only was Bush not elected (but selected) in his first election, but it's now clear that subsequent "elections" were "won," very marginally, on the basis that the voting machines, which don't record varifiable votes, were controlled by a Republican fundraiser who committed "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President." That's some "representative democracy" you have there.

Now if the U.S. had a substantive democracy (such as a functioning participatory democracy) rather than a broken representative "democracy" I really don't think you would have the one party system you currently have, hence neither the Republicans (one wing of the Big Business Party) nor the Democrats (the other wing of the party) would be in power.

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 24th 2006 7:42AM]

So we're basically screwed then.

Super.

[Steve @ Sep 24th 2006 8:43AM]

How come you never hear electronically elected politicians complain about e-voting, only the losers? Oh wait, I figured it out...

[nick @ Sep 24th 2006 9:52AM]

Actually, the United States consiedrs itself a Republic, not a Democracy.
fuzzybee, you are a tard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#Concepts_of_democracy

[Pete L @ Sep 24th 2006 10:30AM]

Oh gimme a friggin break. While I agree that an electronic voting system without a paper trail is a significant and stupid risk to take, this highly partisan article attempts to level accusations that the 2004 election _actually_ were fixed are unfounded and il-supported. The author, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, is a well known Democrat and VERY much to the left and has been at this 2004 elections_were_rigged thing for a LONG time (read this: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/).

The entire basis for the latest twist on his accusations is really only ONE source. Even if we assume his source is telling the truth, it means very little. First, the fact that the CEO of Diebold may have deployed patches is not terribly meaningful. Any unsupervised person installing a patch could rig it even if that patch were "certified by the state"--there would be no sure way to vet that patch that was installed was actually the same. The fact that it was the President, as opposed to some state employee, means very little. Second, this specific claim is being made for Georgia! Bush won Georgia by ~10% in 2000 and all polls in 2004 had him winning by a equal amount. It would make no sense for the CEO to take this risk himself, endangering his company and his well being, especially if the election is a shoe-in for Bush. All this says is that the Georgia election process was horribly mismanaged.

On a different note, the fixation with electronic voting machines as some kind of holy grail is quite silly. Yes, if we're going to vote electronically, we need a papertrail to provide some minimum of security against wide-scale rigging (the real danger). However, what is the point of recording the original vote electronically if pretty much any close election is going to be forced to be recounted on paper? There is not much reason for it. Furthermore, by introducing computers into the polling stations, you are adding complexity. The crux of the problem in the 2000 elections in Florida was that some people were too senile/stupid to figure it out (the fact that the ballots happened to be paper played a relatively minor role). These computer systems provide no assurances that it will be any easier. What's more, the same people that couldn't manage to vote as intended in 2000 are not necessarily going to know how to read their receipt properly to "check their vote" and could quite easily be thrown off by a malicious programmer/hacker...

No election is going to be perfect, but some are going to be better than others. This should be obvious to anyone with knowledge and common sense.

[Travis @ Sep 24th 2006 10:32AM]

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It doesn't matter what political party you belong to... the fact is that this is scary.

Republicans aren't evil (though a lot of them are seriously f'd in the head)... but the people who run Diebold are evil. And by their own words will do anything to get Republicans into office.

[Blacknimbus @ Sep 24th 2006 11:20AM]

Paper ballots were just fine, but Gore wanted to recount Florida until he got the result he wanted, so now we have these machines. Butterfly ballots were too hard. Be careful what you wish for.

Get over 2000...Gore lost that election and until the Left realizes that it's their crappy ideas that cost them elections instead of voting machines they will never win. And I miss a functioning two-party system.

[crono141 @ Sep 24th 2006 11:27AM]

This whole article is crap. I have only 1 thing to back up this statement:

It came from Rolling Stone. It has to be the most liberal, fingers in ears going "lalalala", stupid, biased magazine I have ever read.

Besides, isn't rolling stone supposed to be about music, anyway? They're more interested in making crap up about republicans than promoting artists.

[rockintom99 @ Sep 24th 2006 7:15PM]

Actually, that is not really the case. The person with the most *electoral* votes wins. By popular vote, Kerry would actually have won ;)

[Rick Person @ Sep 24th 2006 12:53PM]

Funny you mention that. MTV stopped the only thing it was good at a long time ago - playing music videos. Instead they are the main source of bias news and social commentary for a new generation of naive losers.

[LTM @ Sep 24th 2006 1:00PM]

The U.S has been bought and sold so many times now it's democracy in name only and this is coming from an American. Diebold is corrupt; it's as simple as that. As for rigged elections; watch what kind of F*#&@ up results we'll have in November due to this wonderful and fair system that we've created because of maniacal power hungry politicians that have turned this country into a shadow of its former self. Keep deluding yourself into believing this country does anything above board anymore. It's become corrupt to the core. All the proof you need is with that idiot in power right now and his moron friends and what they've done since they've been in power taking the heart and soul out of this country and turning us into the most hated country on the planet. Do your homework on the horrors of electronic voting. It should be banned until it's been done right and fair ( assuming that's even possible ). Right now it's one big cluster FU#$

[Rick @ Sep 24th 2006 1:26PM]

Well you are definately in the minority LTM. Eventhough the press would like to think many more ascribe to your views, the far majority (like myself) thinks the system works. If you are unhappy with who is in office you need to appeal to the apathetic voters. Your energy would be far better spent.

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 24th 2006 2:45PM]

LTM,

I ascribe to your views completely.
I no longer believe in the process and think we are completely screwed.

The "greed is good" credo was bought into completely and the average guy on the street is no longer being represented in any way.

-if an advanced intelligence comes and wipes us all out to make some sort of bypass we have it coming to us.

That's right. I'm ashamed to be from this PLANET.

[scott @ Sep 24th 2006 2:47PM]

How does Rolling Stone have any business to be involved in politics?

[Dave @ Sep 24th 2006 3:17PM]

The bigger issue, beyond whether or not it is possible to verify that this single incidence of voter fraud actually occurred, is that this scenario is even possible. What evidence is there that the scenario described did NOT occur? None--and that should enrage every American of ANY party. There need to be sufficient safeguards in place to prevent voter fraud.

[AJ @ Sep 25th 2006 1:50AM]

RockinTom,
Is it really so hard to remember back to 2004. Kerry did not win the popular vote.

[Robert @ Sep 25th 2006 5:59AM]

sorry but your thinking of 2000 where gore wont the popular, bush won it in 2004

[Robert @ Sep 24th 2006 7:30PM]

This is a horrible situation. Even if these machines were made to be 99.99% dependable (it should be obvious to everyone that they are not) not enough people will ever believe it.

A paper printout is something that can be visually inspected by the voter, then held by officials to be checked against the electronic record. Nothing is hack proof, but I think that is as fool proof as it can get. The conspiracy theory is why this isn't being done, laziness, greed, or something more insidious.

Democrats and Republicans are upset at each other for insinuations made on this blog and the larger media. I think everyone needs to refocus on the problem at hand, that these voting machines are not up to the standard they need to be. Otherwise, as politics becomes more polarized voting becomes insignificant. A choice between a communist and a fascist is not a choice.

[CRH @ Sep 25th 2006 7:52AM]

Actually Robert, that is the case. I didn't say anything about "popular vote", I said vote.

[ArielZusya @ Sep 24th 2006 9:32PM]

Alright... democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, American or not, anyone who believes in freedom should agree that transparency in government is important. So in the spirit of transparent government let's take a closer look at electronic voting and allegations that Republicans fixed the elections in Florida and Ohio in 2004. Query: is there any direct evidence connecting Bush or Cheney to the voting debacle in 04? Answer: No. Query: is there any direct evidence connecting any other high profile (or otherwise close to the pres or vp) republicans to the debacle? Answer: yes. Here's some transparency via Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/20-09-2004/7038-voting-0) though this info appears all over the place:



Michael McCarthy, owner of ES&S (formerly known as American Information Systems), served as Senator Chuck Hagel's campaign manager in both the 1996 and 2002 elections. Senator Hagel owns close to $5 million in stock in the ES&S parent company. In 1996 and 2002 eighty percent of Senator Hagel's votes were counted by ES&S.

Diebold, the most well known of these three major groups, [Sequoia, ES&S and Diebold,] is under scrutiny for a memo that Diebold's CEO, Walden O'Dell, sent out promising Ohio's votes to Bush in the 2004 election. Beyond this faux pas, intra-office memos were circulated on the Internet stating that Diebold employees were aware of bugs within their systems and that the network is poorly guarded against hackers.

...

Diebold in an effort to take the onus off themselves has contracted Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego, to take responsibility for security issues within their software. But this has heavy implications also � SAIC has strong ties to Donald Rumsfeld.




But this sort of self-feeding beast of corruption isn't anything new... wait... who was the CEO of Halliburton before taking office? What's that you say? The VP? But didn't they get no-bid-contracts for Afghanistan, Iraq, Louisiana, and Mississippi? I wish I had was a corrupt business man so I could take advantage of presidents and vice presidents with no morals.

All that aside, at least here in Colorado we've got an interesting cross between paper and electronic. Here when you vote by machine you see a printout right next to it which lets you verify your choice before submitting it. Admittedly there is probably a way to force these machines to ignore my vote and instead record yet another stolen vote for a republican but its a step in the right direction. After all, these machines do bring some benefits, like the ability to increase image size for voters with limited vision, the ability to read the text on the screen to voters with even greater limitations on their vision, and the ability for voters with motor skill difficulties (like people suffering from Parkinson's or severe arthritis) to make their choices by touching a large box rather than gripping a pencil and marking a small line or small box. So I'm going to side with the local courts which ordered the republican secretary of state to allow us to use the new machines but, in an attempt to prevent another Ohio or Florida also ordered guards to watch the machines and prevent republican tampering. So... the moral of the story is, electronic voting might be ok as long as you guard against republican fraud.

[Charles R Hamilton @ Sep 24th 2006 10:02PM]

You leftists keep believing that fraud is the reason you lose elections. You will never win another using that logic.

[Edward @ Sep 24th 2006 9:59PM]

Fuzzybee you are full of crap. Every check of the ALL of the votes in Florida shows Bush lost in 2000. Do yourself an educational favor and look up the Miami Herald investigation repeated in the NY Times. The facts are that the limited recount asked for Gore ORIGINALLY showed a Bush win, the statewide recount Gore asked for soon afterwards shows by EVERY account a Gore win. This doesn't even take into account the tens of thousands of people (mostly black) scrubbed from the voting lists by the 95% incorrect lists put togther by choicepoint not to mention the thousands of Jews who voted for Pat Buchannen by accident on the butterfly ballots. The exit polls were right on. Gore won Florida and it wasn't really that close.

[Charles R Hamilton @ Sep 24th 2006 10:09PM]

You are talking out of your ass Ed.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Read it and weep. All over again!

[Robert @ Sep 25th 2006 6:02AM]

sorry but your thinking from your ass to, bush won it in 2004 in florida. Check anyone but the slimes (Times) and the Herald they are paid to say something more so than you and i make in a year.

[Prester John @ Sep 25th 2006 2:36AM]

Okay, this is a completely non-partisan statement.

Until we: 1> Get some stringent national standards regarding the use of electronic voting machines; 2> Get some machines that meet those standards, along with a workable method to detect outside-party tampering, and; 3> have the results of those machines verified by a non-partisan oversight body, these machines should not be used.

There. No political slings or arrows to throw. Acceptable?

[John @ Sep 25th 2006 8:14AM]

If you are non american, read this thread and you will get an idea of the comical lntellect of the american voting public. Republican leaning posters believe that there is nothing wrong with the machines and that leftist should stop whining. Their counterpart on the other hand complain about how the machines are costing them the election everywhere including Texas!
Now push forward, a republican actually loses in a place he is suppose to win and the machines are used and this thread's direction will change. Republicans hating the machines and democrats supporting it. Laughable.

[JD @ Sep 25th 2006 9:30AM]

We need realtime electronic voting ... everyone should vote with their TiVo remotes, and if the person's "public popularity" goes way down, they are executed and the next person steps in. Wait, wasn't that a show that I saw on Sci-Fi last summer?

[D-man @ Sep 25th 2006 9:31AM]

It is amazing to me how so many of you, 80% of which who are employed, most likely works with computers. The rest of you probably know computers well enough to realize that if it is electronic it can be hacked. Hell anything can be hacked.

The fact is, electronic voting may never be safe from hacking as long as a person is responsible for programming it, updating it or verifying the data collected by it.

[Joe Shmoe @ Sep 25th 2006 1:12PM]

I like how John seems to think that Americans are the only humans on Earth to fall for false dichotomy arguments. Dichotomies are a universal hallmark of humanity, think about the way that your leaders villify their opposition. Liberals and Conservatives, Facists and Communists, Capitalists and Socialists, West and East. Commonality is not a trademark of human interaction, it is the exception to the rule of constant antagonism. Don't pretend that being other than American makes you somehow immune to the same kind of logical fallacy.

[Anthony @ Sep 27th 2006 3:18AM]

And the U.S. calls itself a demcracy? If it was a democracy I doubt very much Bush would be in power. And if it was a substantive democracy I doubt the Democrats or the Replubicans would be in power.

[eRk @ Sep 28th 2006 9:12PM]

wow