Now we know that we're not supposed to take pleasure in the misfortunes of others, but when habitually-shady voting machine manufacturer Diebold loses a $9 million contract and starts whining about it in court, well, we think it's okay to make an exception. As the nation's leading
election thrower e-voting provider, old Diebold thought that it was a shoo-in to win the Massachusetts Secretary of State's bid for 3,500 terminals for disabled voters -- and was so shocked when the contract was awarded to rival AutoMARK, that it's actually going to court to have the contract overturned or revisited at the very least. The company's completely immodest argument against the state and Secretary William Galvin basically boils down to this: "Since we've beaten AutoMARK for contracts all over the country, it only makes sense that we get this one too -- and because we didn't, there must be some cheating going on." For his part, Galvin calls the suit "frivolous" and claims that the best candidate did in fact win: disabled voters who tested all the machines reportedly formed a consensus around the AutoMARKs, and those machines have the added benefit of employing the same paper ballots as regular units, helping to ensure users' privacy. Despite the fact that it has "no hard evidence of unfair treatment," Diebold is nonetheless seeking an injunction on the use of its competitor's gear (some of which has already been delivered), or optimally, a complete reversal of the state's decision. No timetable on a decision yet, but when Diebold's forced to crawl back to Ohio with its tail between its legs, we'll let ya know.