-
We’re discussing ESabbath’s idea that Diebold has committed a crime, not breach of contact. AS I’ve said already, whatever local entity bought these machines would have civil contract claim if the machines were, in fact, defective.
-
I’m not that up on Federal Acquisition Regulations. How do Federal regulations that seem from your description to apply to product acquistions by units of the Federal government relate to a pucjase of a machine by Ohio?
The FAR won’t apply, since it only deals with purchases by the federal government. My head was off in “the Zone” I guess, due to a low level of caffeine. Still, if there was faulty coding, or insufficient security built into the programming / equipment, that would be a breach of contract. If it was delivered and was known to be bad, or if known defects were deliberately hidden, then in addition you might have a fraud case which is criminal. But it has to be proved. If you are wrong, you are at risk of getting your own ass kicked for making false accusations.
There are definately defects in the system which were pointed out before the elections.
What is a “partisan company”? If Diebold were excluded from the bidding process, would that not be an infringement of free speech?
While I share your concern, how would you propose stopping a CEO of such a company from making political statements, as long as he does so in an unofficial capacity?
Nothing can stop him, except the his own common sense. He’s free to speak, but he’s an idiot if he doesn’t realize the questions it raises. Caesar’s wife, and all that.
How about avoiding the mess altogether and don’t privatize vote counting?
Since the government (state in this case) send out an RFP, took bids, evaluated the various proposals, awarded the contract, oversaw the deployment and signed off on the end product…how exactly would having the government do everything have changed the end result? They got what they asked for, they signed off on it that it was they asked for and what they wanted.
-XT
Drawing again, from federal experience (which probably has an equivalent at the state level).
Just because someone “accepted” the product, does not let the manufacturer of the hook. Ultimately the contractor is still responsible. The inspector, purchasing officer, or ACO does not have the time or the in depth technical knowledge to personally inspect/verify every requirements flowdown item or every line of code. He or she does a short review, as more or less a quick overview and then accepts. He or she can and does have options, even after stamping or signing. Signatures and stamps can be voided out. Corrective action can be levied. Financial consideration - a full or partial refund can be ordered. There are many options.
Now if their “performance spec” was an unrealistic, unattainable or poorly written pile of crap, and the final product conforms to that spec, and the company could make a case that they had pointed it out, made recommendations and were turned down, then the company can righly say they did what they were told to do.
He is. But not by rigging the equipment. Even suggesting the possibility taints the credibility of the results, don’tcha think? Is that not a problem for you?
It would be a protection of the election process. The needs of the many, etc.
Is that a constitutional argument? I’m going to remind you of this exchange the next time you claim that some politician is running rough shod of the constitution.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say you are correct, and it would be constitutionally acceptable to silence a private citizen in order to protect the election process. Now, nothing would have changed about the CEO’s political views except that you wouldn’t know what they are. He would still be running the company, and still supplying the voting machines. Which scenario is better-- you knowing that he promises to deliver Ohio, or you not knowing that?
I don’t think anyone is going to argue that the whole process can’t be improved. Clearly, we need a better system that instills more confidence in the outcome. But we don’t need to violate the constitution in order to do that.
I’m not sure what you mean. Do you want the government to manufacture the voting equipment? If that were the case, wouldn’t the same people now be claiming that Bush (or some state governor) meddled in the process to rig the election?
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. I just don’t understand the details of your proposal.
Unfortunately, it’s not against the law to be an idiot. 
I doubt that anyone is going to argue that it was a smart thing for the guy to say. If that were the debate, w’d probably all be on the same side of it.
At a slight remove, but yes, election laws derive from the Constitution. More directly, there’s the ol’ Equal Protection clause - oh, wait, SCOTUS overturned that in Bush v. Gore - oh, wait, that was “present circumstances” only. But yes.
Excluded middle. The better scenario is to keep the process, including the machinery and software, transparent to and controlled by a government agency acting nonpartisanly - ya know, so the question doesn’t come up if the contractor is doing what he says (or doesn’t say) he’s going to do.
It was a dumb thing to say. But, there is a big difference between saying something dumb and doing something illegal.
No, of course not.
Any fool can sling mud, and a lot of them do. You taint the credibility of the results by producing some kind of evidence that they are tainted. Which, to date, no one has done.
Regards,
Shodan
Nope. You ensure the credibility of the results by ensuring there’s no prima facie reason to question them.
You do know the line about Caesar’s wife, don’t you? What does that mean to you?
So what? Free speech rights “derive from the constitution”, too. Why does one trump the other?
I didn’t exclude anything. You endorsed the idea that the free speech rights of the Diebold CEO be abridged. If you want to propose another solution, fine.
I didn’t suggest otherwise.
Rights come into conflict with each other all the time. This is such a case. You do know, of course, of all the myriad ways free speech is limited, the First Amendment’s text notwithstanding.
I have done so. If you don’t want to discuss it, fine.
I’d call for an investigation.
Which I’ve done in this very thread.
I wouldn’t claim that fraud had definitely been committed.
Which is what the OP of this thread does.
See the difference?