What does his knowledge of chemistry have to do with a hackable vote counter?
Is it fair to expect an attorney to be an expert on a matter he’s arguing? Isn’t he simply a licensed person who’s good at making arguments out of real experts’ evidence?
Yes, exactly.
It makes me wonder why Republicans are so virurently opposed to making any effort to ensure that elections are done fairly. It’s almost as if they’re afraid something bad might happen to them if every persons vote counted.
I certainly don’t have a problem with preventing fraud, but I do have a problem with getting the machines out of use for no good reason. So let’s see what happens as far as actual proof goes - what did Diebold claim, versus what is actually true.
If he has witnesses, and if he can prove his case, fine by me. Take em to court and smack em down hard. I certainly think that IF he has positive proof its something that should be pursued to the full extent of the law, and that the folks who did (supposed) fraud on something so vital to the US should get whatever is the maximum penalty for doing it (hell, I’d take em out in the desert, cover them in honey and bury them in an anthill…with no hat!). I have to agree with Airman though…the, er, timing seems a bit suspect to me.
Now, before you guys get your panties in a bunch, thing about this…its early in 2004 and Bush et al suddenly find some sooper dooper ‘new’ dirt on the competition and start some ‘investigation’ into it. That going to get a pass around these part? In fact, I seem to recall that Bush et al did just that (several time), and I don’t seem to recall such a mild response…
Just sayin.
-XT
Indeed.
Except for the slight problem that I can’t find any cite that shows Diebold ever marketed their machines as “unhackable.” There’s plenty of lefty commentary using that phrase sarcastically, but a curious lack of any actual statements from Diebold to that effect.
So let me ask-- where and when, precisely, did Diebold claim its machines were “unhackable?”
And what would you recommend in the event of ‘inconclusive’ - is it worth it to ensure we have no fraud, or is the onus to prove we have fraud before we do anything?
I ask because no matter who wins the suit, that’s what we’ll really have. Some people will be convinced there was fraud, some will be convinced there wasn’t, many will say there is a small but real chance there was, or will be, fraud.
What do you recommend in the event of imperfect knowledge?
My answer: I think it’s worth the investment.
A qui tam lawsuit permits a private individual with knowledge of fraud against the government to bring suit on behalf of the government. The plaintiff must show by preponderance of the evidence that the government was defrauded. If the evidence is inconclusive, I would “recommend” - and expect - that the verdict be on behalf of the defendants, Diebold.
I’m struggling to understand what point you’re trying to make. If the court finds that Diebold didn’t live up to its claims, then let’s fix things. If the court finds they did, then what’s the problem? If you want to tighten up the specs for next time, tighten them up. Knowledge is always imperfect and what ever system you devise, someone will always have a better system (for more money). I don’t see anyone here arguing that we should be sloppy about vote counting. But it seems that certain individuals will not believe any vote count that doesn’t give the Democrats a win.
That’s not the question I was trying to ask - I wasn’t clear. Of course if there’s insufficient evidence, and you’re the judge, you find for Diebold by default.
I mean, what do you recommend for the country after this? Is it incumbent that someone show actual fraud before we make the investment to remove the potential for fraud? Or is your threshold that the potential for fraud, where the remedy would remove that potential, enough? Or what?
Well, as with any other project, it all comes down to managing risk. We cannot possibly remove all potential for fraud. That would be too expensive, and not achievable in any case.
What we can do is manage the risk – decide on what measures provide an acceptable fraud deterrent when weighed against the costs to implement them.
That’s what was done when Diebold was selected as the vendor, presumably, and that’s what should continue to be done.
What is the precise weighing methodology used to balance fraud and cost here?
I don’t know. I leave that decision to the elected or appointed officials who are charged with making that determination.
Let me see if I have this right here. Are you saying that, even if no fraud is found in a court of law we should (perhaps) STILL not use the machines because…well, because some liberal/democrat groups/individuals still feel they are bad somehow? Or perhaps you are saying that just because the company didn’t defraud the government, that the machines themselves are still flawed in some way so should still be removed? Or maybe you are saying something else ?
-XT
They could say the same thing about democrats’ resistance to requiring government issued photo-IDs in order to vote.
[shrug] The word is used in the lead paragraph of the linked article but it’s not clear it’s a direct quote. Maybe the author just meant (or the litigants mean) that the machines were guaranteed to be practically unhackable in view of the time, effort and level of access required to hack them. For a political buzzword to use discussing/blogging about this story, “unhackable” would be a fair shorthand for that and nothing to which you could reasonable object. Whatever representations Diebold did make when selling the machines will come out in the litigation – I doubt there’ll be much controversy on that point, it’s bound to be too well-documented.
Quite the opposite thing. The Pubs are into “voter suppression,” nowadays, as we learned in [2004. The Dems want as many people as possible to vote. It might have a chilling effect if a photo ID is required, especially of the voter has to pay for it – that’s like reviving the Jim Crow era poll tax through the back door. (To say nothing of all the other privacy-based objections many Dopers have raised to a national ID card.) As for the argument that the ID would prevent noncitizens or otherwise ineligible persons from voting, every time it has come up in this forum I have demanded a cite showing that has actually been a problem, or even that it has actually happened in any documented instances, and so far nobody has been able to provide one.
For my part, I’m all for a national ID card so long as it’s provided for free – mainly because it would make voter registration unnecessary. Your card would be your registration. That would be good for voter turnout. 
Not quite, but close.
Closer.
You’re right, I’m saying that showing that Diebold defrauded the government is perhaps not the correct test in determining if the machines are good enough for voting. If the potential for election fraud that is hard to detect is easy to accomplish in those machines, then perhaps they should be removed anyway. Or, if the fraud is easy to accomplish on those machines, and there’s a fairly easy way to fix it, do that, whether or not actual fraud has been detected.
You wouldn’t need to prove actual intruders to yourself before you fixed a broken lock on your front door, would you?
Can someone explain why we’re using millions of dollars of complicated machinery instead of pen and paper? I mean, there’s still the potential for fraud of course but at least there’s no electronic voodoo that’s practically impossible to detect.
That is exactly what happened in my county. The Diebold touch screen machines got unplugged, and paper ballots used, because of doubts of their reliability. Link - mostly about how long it took to count ballots the first time.
As you’d expect in Silicon Valley, the people looking at the voting machines are not clueless politicos. I know one person on the team, and he sure as hell knows what he’s doing.
If a technical person said the machines are unhackable, then I wouldn’t trust him an inch assessing their security. If a marketing guy is selling the machine as unhackable, he’s lying. But tthe real issue is not whether or not they’re unhackable, it is whether they are adequately hack resistent. So far, around here anyhow, the answer is no. The lack of a paper trail makes it even worse, since if there were rumors of a hack, or suspicious results, we’d never know.
Much as I dislike Microsoft, I’d bet their programmers are better than Diebold’s. This is way too important to trust Diebold that their code is bullet-proof. Also remember that the left can hack these machines as easily as the right - this should be a nonpartisan concern.
That’s why.
The other reason is . . . it’s just so low-tech! Come on, plain paper ballots might be good enough for the Canadians, but this is America! If it’s not shiny, electronic and expensive it just isn’t real! 