GAO report upholds Ohio vote fraud claims

Great Debates
141

[QUOTE=xtisme]
The government awards the contract and a contracting officer oversee’s the project (perhaps by assigning some GS as a project manager, perhaps assigning additional personnel…it varies) to ensure that goals are met and that the project is completed to satisfaction. An evaluation is done of the final product to make sure it meets the original RFP as well as any changes requested by the government during the project (I’m glossing over a bunch here to save space as you probably realize). Once the government signs off then they have accepted the product as meeting their requirements. [.QUOTE]
Correct, as far as it goes, but there is still recourse if the end product is so horrible that no corrections can be made. Usually that is not the case. We’re not talking about minor bugs due to requirements creep or unforeseen gotchas that always crop up, we’re talking about the really horrible stuff, like if it doesn’t work at all.

They’d have a rough time of it. The defects would have to be so bad, that there is no other recourse. If the flaws are in the government spec or RFP, and the top documents that the government wrote or signed off on, it would be some government guy who’d be in deep shit. The saying “be careful what you ask for” still holds. If the company (Diebold) did what they were told to do, then they are not at fault. Software is complex. You can not account for every “what if” that may (or not) happen. You can only deal with the known quantities. There are numerous versions of the software before you get the final version, and each is a snapshot of the requirements as you saw them at the time. That is why the certification of compliance always includes the words “to our knowledge”. No company would sign off a cert that says the software is completely and absolutely perfect. They will sign off that it meets the Understood requirements and will function - but not that it is perfect.

Well, if the government did it themselves, they would get a big increase in cost, with no guarantee that the product would be any better, or even equal. They’d have to hire and train programmers, and then manage them. They’d have to design and install the testbeds. It’s much cheaper to go to a company that already has the resources. Also, the software and the hardware are often designed, built and tested concurently. So, neither the software nor the hardware side knows for sure just what the final system will really be until near the end. This generates more requirements creep, as things get firmed up. Bugs found during FCA/PCA and testing get reflected back into the design. Then back to more testing. Back and forth until everyone is happy.

Again, with an oversimplification, if Diebold did what they were told to do in the RFP and performance specs, they are blameless. “Be careful what you ask for, you might get it”.

142

That said, true as it is, it doesn’t go far enough. Government agencies don’t prepare specs in isolation, then toss them over a wall to bidders who have no clue what’s coming and simply work in isolation to meet them. There’s some give and take throughout the process - the agencies will discuss the spec package with potential bidders, taking care to avoid the appearance or reality of favoritism, often by sponsoring Bidders’ Conferences. That helps them take advantage of knowledge that the agencies don’t necessarily possess, and helps refine the spec package. Bidders offer their knowledge of the products and technologies in an attempt to help the end result be better. The motivations of all aren’t nefarious, not necessarily or even primarily; there is a strong sentiment that all want to do the job as well as possible and serve their customers as well as possible, and some give and take is necessarily required to do so.

But if Ohio left control of the machinery and software to a contractor, favored or not, anyway, that certainly looks like dereliction of duty at the minimum.

143

See what? You haven’t presented any evidence.

The title of the OP, and here:

Well, I don’t believe you for a split-second, if that is what you mean.

If the political parties were reversed, you wouldn’t believe that anything untoward happened, and would dismiss real evidence (if there were any) out of hand.

Well, I am not really presenting a case. I am pointing out that you don’t have one. So I don’t have to convince anyone. You do - and it might help if you could convince someone who is not willing to believe without evidence. Naturally the Usual Suspects are going to jump onboard - you might want to try to appeal to someone a little more tough-minded.

Which is going to require evidence, and that seems to be hard to come by.

Regards,
Shodan

144

Gee… Here in Washington State it’s the Republicans who keep ‘losing’ elections through fraud. Or so they claim.

145

SteveG1, good post. I’m in agreement with you and it certainly LOOKS like thats what happened. Obviously the GAO and their own IG group may turn up some shady dealings…and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case. But I don’t ASSUME thats the case until more facts are presented than I’ve seen thus far. Especially in light of how I know how this process actually works (as you do obviously).

If Diebold helped write the specs then they couldn’t bid on the contract…it would be illegal. Thats not to say they might not have helped under the table of course…but if they did the GAO WOULD nail their ass. Do you have any indication that Diebold helped write the original specs or help the government define their RFP?

-XT

146

I can truthfully say that the needs of the voting software are not complex. Considering known hardware, known environment, it should be damn near trivial for any coder to build something more secure than this. I admit I havn’t coded beyond simple shell scripts in a decade, but this sort of thing is not hard.

This following is a short history of Diebold, and where my ire in their monkeyshines comes from.

the source inside Diebold – who “for the time being” is requesting anonymity due to a continuing sensitive relationship with the company – is charging that Diebold’s technicians, including at least one of its lead programmers, knew about the security flaw and that the company instructed them to keep quiet about it.

A California court has approved a $2.6 million settlement between Diebold and the State of California and Alameda County. The state and county had sued Diebold for fraudulent claims about the security of its electronic voting machines.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3449691?headline=Diebold~to~Settle~with~California

In a landmark case, a California district court has determined that Diebold, Inc., a manufacturer of electronic voting machines, knowingly misrepresented that online commentators, including IndyMedia and two Swarthmore college students, had infringed the company’s copyrights. This makes the company the first to be held liable for violating section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which makes it unlawful to use DMCA takedown threats when the copyright holder knows that infringement has not actually occured.
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040930201813382

Critics of the Diebold (search) touch-screen voting machines turned their attention Wednesday from the machines themselves to the computers that will tally the final vote, saying the outcome is so easy to manipulate that even a monkey could do it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133214,00.html

At least five convicted felons secured management positions at a manufacturer of electronic voting machines, according to critics demanding more stringent background checks for people responsible for voting machine software.

Voter advocate Bev Harris alleged Tuesday that managers of a subsidiary of Diebold, one of the country’s largest voting equipment vendors, included a cocaine trafficker, a man who conducted fraudulent stock transactions and a programmer jailed for falsifying computer records.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html

More Diebold funnies, no longer readable thanks to time
lectronic voting machine producer Diebold admitted today that ‘thousands’ of voters were turned away from the polls during the Super Tuesday Presidential Primary because of flaws in Diebold’s machines. Diebold Election Services Inc. president Bob Urosevich said ‘We were caught’, and answered ‘yes’ when asked ‘Weren’t [California voters] actually disenfranchised?’

SACRAMENTO, California – An audit of Diebold Election Systems voting machines in California has revealed that the company installed uncertified software in all 17 counties that use its electronic voting equipment.

147

So the smoking gun in this case is the scale of the allegations??? Doesn’t that seem like a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy? “Well, their must be something to what I’ve been yelling about…just look at how loud it’s being yelled about!”

I read this thread at several different settings over several days, so maybe I missed it. Has anyone presented and evidence or proof of vote fraud, or is it all just a partisan whine fest as usual?

148

Need you ask? :rolleyes:

149

Governor Taft was guilty of ethics violations (failing to report golf outings and other gifts to the Ohio Ethics Commission). This at worst relates to sleazy influence-peddling. It has nothing to do with “monetary fraud” or vote fraud.

One could just as easily say the Democratic Party has a history of vote fraud (Illinois’ vote in the 1960 election, anyone?).

It was stupid and ethically questionable for the president of Diebold to announce his intentions to help “deliver” a state for Bush, given his company’s role in tallying the vote. It is also inane to think that he would publicly reveal beforehand an attempt to steal the election.

I am concerned about the possibility that voting technologies are susceptible to hacking/rigging, and that paper trails should exist to counter suspicious tallies. I welcome the idea of safeguards. I can do without the hysteria and accusations founded on nothing more than hot air.

150

And your opinion is at variance with the facts. I linked to a report from the Sec State of Ohio wherein the equipment supplied by Diebold passed the scrutiny of an independently run test of same. What you think has no real bearing.

151

You, too, seem to not be aware of the facts. Diebold was not left in control of the machinery and software. Independent tests of the Diebold’s electronic voting system were undertaken. I linked the Sec State’s report earlier. You can choose to ignore it if you wish, but posting false statements because you choose to ignore evidence will be roundly met with hoots of derision every time you do so.

In other news, there’s a election here in Ohio tomorrow - using some new Diebold electronic voting equipment.

And finally, what happened to the guy who posted the OP? Seems to me he, of all people, should have something substantive to add to this thing. But apparently not. There’s a rather pungent term for behavior like that.

152

I’d say it’s indicative of a general pattern of sleaze and bad ethics. I guess it’s not important to you, IOKIIRDI.

153

Yeah, everybody knows Republicans never get away with vote fraud! :dubious:

154

If that were ALL I had, yes. There’s no single bit of evidence you can put down and say, "There, there is evidence of vote fraud … 'cause if there were, I wouldn’t be calling for an INVESTIGATION, I’d be calling for JAIL TERMS. We’ve got software that has HUGE security flaws that Uncle Beer thinks don’t exist because one source ouf of the many that have tested it and found it wanting, did not find it wanting, we’ve got felons employed by Diebold, we’ve got the President of Diebold promising to deliver Ohio to the Republicans, we’ve got widespread allegations of vote fraud, we’ve got Republican officials caught in all sort of unethical scams … yeah, I’d say we’ve got FUCKING GROUNDS FOR SUSPICION.!!!

Just because a Republican won doesn’t mean no illegal acts occurred, no matter how dearly you’d love us to believe that.

155

Yeah, but I’m REALLY suspicious of what YOU think. There are many who’ve examined Diebold’s tech and found it seriously wanting … plenty of links to THEM in this thread. But just because ONE test finds them OK, you’re ready to renounce all suspicion. It’s almost like you had a preconceived outcome you would like to arrive at, and the test is just something for you to use to reach that outcome.

156

There are a whole lot of unrefuted stories suggesting otherwise, pardner.

Indeed that’s how it works here. :slight_smile:

The point of that?

Only if they had an unfair advantage in doing so. If every bidder had a similar opportunity, it would be fine. Bidders’ Conferences are heavily choreographed to do just what I said, provide a flow of useful information in both directions, while keeping excruciatingly fair.

Sigh. Go back and look at who wrote the OP. You just might find it wasn’t me. If you showed any concern about even basic facts, that is. :rolleyes:

There’s no need to read any more of your carping, is there? But let’s do so anyway:

Ri-i-ight. You have no evidence for your claim, is that what you mean? Sheesh.

157

So you didn’t recognize the other quote.

No, I meant your claims are worthless, because you have no evidence.

If you wanted to be believed in your allegations that your motives are actually high-minded, that’s going to be difficult. You might want to try something like applying your standards to Democrats, post something complaining of voter fraud in a blue state - something not so obviously hypocritical as to date.

If you are interested. It would be difficult to underestimate the impact you have had on my thought, so don’t feel the need on my account.

Laughing at the transparent dishonesty of posts like yours is half the fun of the SDMB.

Regards,
Shodan

158

You got test results from an independent examination by a qualified team, I’m willing to look at 'em, pad’ner. But garbage posted in a blog, which is about all I see here in this thread, does not an “unrefuted story” make. And even if you have independent test results, there’s no way they could be called “unrefuted,” since that report issued by the Sec State say the software and equipment met spec and no signifcant reliability issues could be found.

While you’re looking for that stuff, keep in mind the GAO report linked earlier doesn’t count. It has next to nothing to say about Ohio. Also remember, that the only point I’m contending is electronic fraud perpetrated through flaws in the Diebold equipment used in Ohio in the general election held in November 2004. I haven’t said anything, nor do I intend to, about the allegations of other types of vote fraud.

159

If there are credible links here, I’ve missed them. Can ya he’p me out?

160

Look who’s talking. As has been repeatedly been pointed out, the kind of evidence you are calling for would result in calls for JAIL TERMS, not investigations as to whether or not fraud had occurred. “Trasparent dishonesty” indeed. Denying the rationale of an investigation on the grounds that the sort of evidence that a successful investigation would produce does not already exist is just putting the cart before the horse. Transparently, as it were.