News Poll: Was the 2004 election rigged?

[Astronuc]

Oops - I meant Gore over Bush in 2000 in the popular vote.

 

[pattylou]

Oops - I meant Gore over Bush in 2000 in the popular vote.

I thought so, but also thought it was a typo worth pointing out!

"I would not feel good about such a victory."

Me neither. Didn't seem to bother bush.

 

[pattylou]

Here's some old news, but it was "news to me"

But Diebold is haunted by more than negative product evaluations. Last November Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) posted on his congressional Web site excerpts from the Diebold employee manual. In this manual, the company instructs employees to lie about the accuracy of its AccuVote-OS, a machine that reads paper cards on which voters have penciled in circles to designate their selections.

If ballots are not correctly counted by a malfunctioning AccuVote-OS, the Diebold manual instructs employees to tell election officials that poll workers "were not observant when using the AccuVote-OS." After delineating numerous reasons that a recount might not be accurate, including "slightly skewed sensors" on the unit and the smearing of the ballot by the voting machine, the manual reminds employees, "Irrespectively, we must always promote the consistency and accuracy of our voting system."

http://www.citybeat.com/2004-02-11/statehouse.shtml

I would also consider it evidence of a corporate mindset willing to lie to further their own interests. Although this has no bearing on whether elections were rigged, and notwithstanding many corporations may engage in deceitful behavior, it *does* illustrate that Diebold thinks it is fine to be dishonest, if it helps their company.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's some old news, but it was "news to me"

http://www.citybeat.com/2004-02-11/statehouse.shtml

I would also consider it evidence of a corporate mindset willing to lie to further their own interests. Although this has no bearing on whether elections were rigged, and notwithstanding many corporations may engage in deceitful behavior, it *does* illustrate that Diebold thinks it is fine to be dishonest, if it helps their company.

News to me too. In any case, I agree with you - this is an example of the do-whatever-it-takes-to-make-the-sale mentality of many corporations. But it doesn't really have anything to do with possible fraud.

 

[pattylou]

But it doesn't really have anything to do with possible fraud.

Let's say hypothetically, fraud was illustrated through some means acceptable to everyone. Would the fact that the employee manual says:

"Irrespectively, we must always promote the consistency and accuracy of our voting system" (even if that means lying about it).

...be a reasonable thing for the prosecuition to include in their case?

 

[The Smoking Man]

News to me too. In any case, I agree with you - this is an example of the do-whatever-it-takes-to-make-the-sale mentality of many corporations. But it doesn't really have anything to do with possible fraud.

One has to ask just where 'the line' is?

If they are able to promote lies inside their company about their products and deficiencies, how can they be trusted not to build in proactive measures in something like a voting booth?

Did the government ever do a test on these things that consisted of two votes ... one a paper ballot AND the peperless terminal?

I think everyone would have loved to have seen a test like this done on a surprise basis in one or two constituencies.

I'd like to KNOW the two votes matched before handing the decision of who will control the US arsenal and the US economy to a company who admittedly LIES about their products.

But then ... how could this happen when most of the Sr. Voting officers doing the supervision are appointees of the incumbent.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's say hypothetically, fraud was illustrated through some means acceptable to everyone. Would the fact that the employee manual says:

"Irrespectively, we must always promote the consistency and accuracy of our voting system" (even if that means lying about it).

...be a reasonable thing for the prosecuition to include in their case?

Only if the company was complicit in the fraud. See, that's one of the problems with all this speculation: we're casting a wide net and not really saying who was involved -- because, of course, there is no evidence that anyone was invovled since there is no evience of fraud. Tough catch-22, I know, but you're putting the cart before horse is even born.

But sure, for pure idle speculation: yeah if there was fraud, and yeah, if the company was complicit, yeah, that could be evidence of a coverup.

Hey, did you hear that NASA is covering up the existence of a second moon around the earth? Ask them and they'll deny it...

 

[russ_watters]

TSM, since paper ballots have their own error margin (half a percent or so), a paper ballot and electronic ballot would be very unlikely to match even if the electronic one was perfect. Remember, not all sources of error (for both paper and electronic ballots) are the fault of the machine doing the counting/balloting.

See, the thing I like about electronic balloting (in theory) is the potential for zero error for the balloting mechanism. No manual form of balloting even has the potential for zero error in the casting and counting of ballots.

What most people don't like about electronic balloting is the "black box" part. The name says it all - "black box": you can't see in it, so you should fear what is going on inside. That is a human failing, not a flaw inherrent to the machine. People don't trust machines. That's gradually going away as people who can remember life without computers die, but the fact that people are afraid of machines is not an indication of a flaw in the machines.

Now before people jump all over me, I am not saying the machines are perfect - they are, after all, made by people. But the potential exists for them to be vastly superior to other methods of balloting/counting. Whether they are currently is a matter of debate, but that is largely separate from the fraud debate (though part of the reason for bringing it up is to make people think they are one and the same).

 

[arildno]

There IS ample evidence of fraud, russ watters.
It is you who have the burden of proof:
YOU must bring valid reasons for why exit polls have been a perfectly reliable indicator
earlier, but suddenly was wildly inaccurate.

You are simply actively choosing not to take upon your responsibilities, because it suits your own, narrow political interest.

 

[russ_watters]

There IS ample evidence of fraud, russ watters.
It is you who have the burden of proof:

What court of law did you see that in? Burden of proof goes to the one trying to prove that a crime existed. It is you who needs to prove it to me.

YOU must bring valid reasons for why exit polls have been a perfectly reliable indicator
earlier, but suddenly was wildly inaccurate.

Not my job, as I said above, but its too easy to not: There are two, and both are killers (and I already said both):

-exit polls are not designed for that purpose.
-a discrepancy is not in and of itself evidence of fraud. Heck, other Democrats here are arguing that the machines make mistakes due to bugs (and they do). You can't have it both ways.

The study done by Berkeley (iirc) misused the exit poll data for the purpose of spreading a conspiracy theory. And bitter Democrats bought it hook-line-and-sinker.

You are simply actively choosing not to take upon your responsibilities, because it suits your own, narrow political interest.

Pot-kettle.

 

[arildno]

not at all pot-kettle; you are simply obfuscating because you love Karl Rove's close buddy so much.

 

[BobG]

Hey, did you hear that NASA is covering up the existence of a second moon around the earth? Ask them and they'll deny it...

Which one are they denying covering up, Cruithne or J002E3?

 

[The Smoking Man]

What most people don't like about electronic balloting is the "black box" part. The name says it all - "black box": you can't see in it, so you should fear what is going on inside. That is a human failing, not a flaw inherrent to the machine. People don't trust machines. That's gradually going away as people who can remember life without computers die, but the fact that people are afraid of machines is not an indication of a flaw in the machines.

No, what most of the people hate about these machines is that they were made by an overt Bush supporter.

They can also be faulted for not having a paper trail.

There were problems during the election and some results were presumed lost until there was a download done to some machines ... Should that be allowed, by the way?

Nobody is allowed to be alone with an unsealed ballot box for fear of tampering and yet we have people at the company who manufactured these products able to dial in and download to them??

Now, with manual systems, paper can be counted and recounted as needed.

In the case of allegations of electronic fraud on an automated terminal ... what do you count.

Manual systems record the intent of a person by taking a physical impression of that intent on a computer card or piece of paper which the voter can then verify before putting into a box. To tamper would require the disposal of thousands of paper ballots and the substitution of the same number of ballots in the other direction. Logistically a hard task to achieve.

A computerised system merely accumulates to a total and by the nature of a secret ballot, allows a very easy method of tampering. Hidden self deleting code can supply an algorythm that will fix it ... or a dial up.

 

[pattylou]

Thank you for coming back to this issue, Russ.

See, the thing I like about electronic balloting (in theory) is the potential for zero error for the balloting mechanism. No manual form of balloting even has the potential for zero error in the casting and counting of ballots.

Me too.

What most people don't like about electronic balloting is the "black box" part. The name says it all - "black box": you can't see in it, so you should fear what is going on inside. That is a human failing, not a flaw inherrent to the machine. People don't trust machines. That's gradually going away as people who can remember life without computers die, but the fact that people are afraid of machines is not an indication of a flaw in the machines.

Not me. A very important aspect of voting has been lost with these machines.

With hand counted ballots, you have members of both parties involved with the counting process. I don't know specifics, but I recall the Ohio recount had three people from each party present.

With machine counted ballots, you have a Secretary of State (partisan appointment) certify a vote counting method. If this method is a machine, then the method is partisan as well in our present situation.

Members of both parties look at the tallies to make sure they are ... acceptable? ... but are not part of the counting process, have no access to the code; basically the safeguard that was built into hand counted ballots (having both parties participate in the counting) is completely gone.

I'd be far more comfortable if members of each party could acces the code and memory cards of the machines at any point to make sure the count was going as it should. This would be far more analogous to hand counted ballots than what is presently used, in terms of safeguards, and would still allow the superiority of machine counting to ---- reduce costs, time, and errors, etc.

The study done by Berkeley (iirc) misused the exit poll data for the purpose of spreading a conspiracy theory. And bitter Democrats bought it hook-line-and-sinker.

I hadn't heard that before. I am aware of (IIRC) four documents going back and forth over the last ten months - two by edison and mitofsky (polling organisation, explaining the Ohio exit poll discrepancy) , and two by the "berkely group" (statisticians? claiming the explanations don't hold up.)

Your quote sounds like an opinion. If you have a reputable source ("evidence?") showing that the motives are to spread a conspiracy theory -- ("evidence" might be something like an admission by one of the authors, or some such) I'd appreciate it. Otherwiuse, i don't think you can distinguish this sort of statistical analysis from any other; and any weight it is given should depend on whether it was done properly or not.

If the quote reflects your bias or opinion only, I'd appreciate some sort of nod to that effect.

 

[SOS2008]

The issue of election reform has become a very big issue for very real reasons. Comparing this to far-fetched conspiracies that we never went to the moon is ridiculous--Please!

 

[arildno]

The moon comparison is a typical example of such obfuscation.
It is an undeniable fact (belittled and waved away by apologists) that exit polls are, in general, extremely accurate, both in Europe and in the US.

This IN ITSELF should have warranted a thorough investigation of the marked exit poll discrepancy.
That was actively discouraged from Republicans in key positions, and such attempts were quashed at the very start.

Now, the most probable explanation of this course of events is..."to be filled out by russ watters"

 

[loseyourname]

There IS ample evidence of fraud, russ watters.
It is you who have the burden of proof:
YOU must bring valid reasons for why exit polls have been a perfectly reliable indicator
earlier, but suddenly was wildly inaccurate.

You are simply actively choosing not to take upon your responsibilities, because it suits your own, narrow political interest.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_freeman_pap.html

Absent further data from NEP, you can choose to believe that an existing problem with exit polls got worse this year in the face of declining response rates and rising distrust of big media, that a slightly higher number of Bush voters than Kerry voters declined to be interviewed. Or, you can believe that a massive secret conspiracy somehow shifted roughly 2% of the vote from Kerry to Bush in every battleground state, a conspiracy that fooled everyone but the exit pollsters - and then only for a few hours - after which they deliberately suppressed evidence of the fraud and damaged their own reputations by blaming the discrepancies on weaknesses in their data.

Please.

http://mayflowerhill.blogspot.com/2004/11/mayflower-hill-exclusive-warren.html

One possibility he was able to rule out, though, is touch screen voting machines that don't leave any paper trail being used to defraud the election. To prove this, he broke down precincts based on the type of voting machine that was used and compared the voting returns from those precincts with his own exit polls. None of the precincts with touch screen computers that don't leave paper trails, or any other type of machine for that matter, had vote returns that deviated from his exit poll numbers once the average 1.9% non-response bias was taken into account.

Perhaps the above can at least put to rest the idea that this had anything to do with electronic voting machines, something the Berkeley paper never addressed.

There is also the CalTech/MIT (institutions with far less bias than Berkeley) voting project study that concluded no evidence of fraud could be found by statistical analysis (I posted this for Ivan last time, but he still seems to think Berkeley is more trustworthy). I cannot seem to find that anymore, but if you actually read the post on Mystery Pollster that I linked to, his previous post discusses the voting project. He notes that it may come to a different conclusion because it seemed to have used the exit poll data after it was weighted to reflect voter turnout and the Berkeley paper seems to have used the raw data, pre-calibration. Note that Mitofsky (the head of the NEP) says that raw data uncalibrated is no good and should never have been released in the first place.

 

[SOS2008]

Let's not become too derailed from the main points. Is there anyone who argues there is no need for election reform, for example, is there anyone who feels a paper trail is not a good idea? We know there were complications in key/swing states such as Florida in 2000, and now in Ohio in 2004.

Perhaps conservatives are having difficulty with the concept that many people do not feel the recent elections of 2000 and 2004 were conducted appropriately--on many levels. Perhaps the same way liberals can't understand how people still believe there were WMD, or the photo e-mailed to me today of soldiers in Iraq standing in a formation that reads: "9-11 We Remember" -- Aarrgh!

I believe Wikipedia to be as reliable a source as any, and this is the source I provided. According to this source there has been controversy about these elections. And as a result, election reform is a big topic. Fair elections are in the best interest of everyone, so why can't we get some consensus on this?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm in the middle and think there was electronic tampering on both sides. I don't think the fact that Bush won means that he rigged anything and I don't think the fact that Kerry lost means that he didn't.

Now I want to know how you intend to find people who are impartial to make these voting machines and to run voting booths. I think that would be pretty unlikely don't you?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Now I want to know how you intend to find people who are impartial to make these voting machines and to run voting booths. I think that would be pretty unlikely don't you?

There is a big difference between making the device that records the vote and running the centre containing the voting booths.

I'd rather have an old conservative granny checking my name off the list than a young Neocon programming the software, in other words.

 

[Skyhunter]

Doesn't Diebold also make ATM machines?

I have used a bankcard almost everyday since their introduction and have never had a problem occur.

Since ATM machines are reliable and they are made by same company, why is there such a problem with voting machines?

Could it possibly be that they were designed that way?

Just wondering.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, I found us some more stuff about voting machines and Diebold, though I guess this deviates from the main topic. (Nonetheless, I'm sure anyone who is interested will find it to be useful information, and none of it comes from a partisan source.)

First off, the CalTech/MIT report I was looking for earlier:

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/VotingMachines3.pdf

You'll notice, in particular, that the two most hotly contested states, Pennsylvania and Ohio, only had electronic voting machines in 26% and 15% of precints, respectively. Florida had 53%, and they also had no punch card machines this time, which were all the rage in 2000.

Also:

If we look at the 51 separate exit state polls, we see that 30 predicted more votes for Kerry than he actually got, while 21 predicted more votes for Bush than he actually got. Therefore, at the state level, the polls favored Kerry less than the sum of all the polls aggregated up to the national level. Furthermore, if we do a statistical test to see whether the differences between the exit polls and the official returns are significant, only three out of 51 are.

In the footnotes you will see that three states that showed a statistically significant difference between predicted results and actual results were Rhode Island, New York, and Oklahoma. None of these were 'battleground' states. Rhode Island and New York were won easily by Kerry; Oklahoma was won easily by Bush.

The addendum to this report:

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/Addendum_Voting_Machines_Bush_Vote.pdf

Here is an article from the http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20050214-1340-electionchanges.html discussing another report by the CalTech/MIT project (I cannot find the original report) regarding residual, or 'lost' votes:

It was one of the fundamental problems of the 2000 voting stalemate and a focus of subsequent reforms.
. . .
In 2000, the national residual vote was 1.9 percent of ballots cast for president. The report found a significant improvement this year, with the residual vote falling to 1.1 percent. The analysis examined 37 states and the District of Columbia; figures were unavailable elsewhere.
. . .
Florida, the scene of the 2000 postelection stalemate, and Georgia had the biggest drop in residual votes. Florida went from 2.9 percent to 0.4 percent; Georgia went from 3.5 percent to 0.4 percent. Both underwent comprehensive reform, with Georgia putting in electronic voting machines statewide, Florida scrapping punch cards and both launching ambitious voter education campaigns.

Remember what they were saying in 2000 about wanting every vote counted? Well, they certainly got a lot more of them counted this time.

Regarding the evil diebold, that company that is so blatantly part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, look here:

http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/map.php?topic_string=5estd&state=Ohio&county=Cuyahoga

If you remember, Cuyahoga County in Ohio was the site of most of the accusation this time around about election-stealing. The voting machines that were used in Cuyahoga County were not made by Diebold.

And about the paper trails:

http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?list=type&type=13

You'll note that on 05/07/2004, six months before the election, the state of Ohio passed H.B.262, mandating a paper trail for all voting machines.

I guess we can't blame either of those boogeymen.

 

[loseyourname]

Doesn't Diebold also make ATM machines?

No, but they do make the Agilis software that can be used by ATM machines. The software was first certified on 04/23/2003. If it is installed on any machines you use, it hasn't been for very long. Diebold does provide and has long provided maintenance services for ATM machines, though.

 

[Burnsys]

i am from argentina and some of the ATM machines (30% of them) has a Label: "Diebold"

 

[loseyourname]

i am from argentina and some of the ATM machines (30% of them) has a Label: "Diebold"

My mistake. They actually make the Opteva model.

http://www6.diebold.com/nasadmk/images/dm_atm_big_opteva740.jpg

 

[Burnsys]

Ok. now that we know diebold build atm machines, which needs the most higher standards in security. just imagine what a bug or a flaw could do in an ATM machine...unthinkable.. I wonder why don't they follow the same security standards when they designed the voting software... it dificult to think it wasn't on purpose...

 

[loseyourname]

Does nothing I posted mean anything to you people? Does it not matter that both the CalTech/MIT voting project and NEP confirm that there was no greater statistical difference between predicted results and actual results in states with machines v. states without machines? Does it make no difference that many Diebold machines were withdrawn before the election and that they didn't provide the machines to the most disputed county in Ohio? Does it make no difference that Ohio and Pennsylvania did not even use voting machines in most parts of the state? Does it make no difference that the most hotly disputed state in question - Ohio - had paper trail legislation and that lack of a paper trail is mostly what everyone is complaining about?

Really, do you even bother to read what I post? I don't know why ATM machines are so perfect and voting machines still have some bugs. Maybe it's that ATM machines have been around for fifteen years and the bugs have been worked out. Maybe ATM machines do still have security problems, but you don't hear as much about them. Maybe it's that ATM machines are not used by several hundred people in the span of an hour. Maybe it's that ATM machines record one transaction at a time, whereas a voting machine counts however many votes are taking place in that county (probably anywhere from 30-50) with each transaction. Or, maybe it's that Diebold is run by sinister neo-conservatives that brainwashed all of their programmers into writing self-deleting code into the system so that one percent of votes for Kerry would actually be counted as votes for Bush. And, golly gee darn it, they managed to steal that election even though they only made a quarter of the machines in three contested states that only used voting machines (many with paper trails) in less than one-third of their total precints.

 

[pattylou]

THanks for your searches, LYN.

ES&S is the other major vendor of vote machines. ES&S is also partisan to the GOP.

Chuck Hagel was CEO of ES&S until two weeks before he announced his candidacy for Senator. He won the election in an pset victory over the incumbent, and the votes were counted on ES&S machines. I haven't dug around much on these machines, and I am just stating information here, not accusing Hagel of cheating.

Does it not matter that both the CalTech/MIT voting project and NEP confirm that there was no greater statistical difference between predicted results and actual results in states with machines v. states without machines?

I haven't seen that report except for your description and I'll look into it.

Does it make no difference that many Diebold machines were withdrawn before the election and that they didn't provide the machines to the most disputed county in Ohio?

Was Cuyahoga County using ES&S by chance?

Does it make no difference that Ohio and Pennsylvania did not even use voting machines in most parts of the state?

No. It was a tight race and either candidate could have theoretically swung it with only a small percentage of counties.

Does it make no difference that the most hotly disputed state in question - Ohio - had paper trail legislation and that lack of a paper trail is mostly what everyone is complaining about?

No. THe paper trail isn't used to count the votes, except in a recount, and may not even be seen (I'm not sure) by the voter. I believe it is stored (of course) by the machine. Paper trails are very necessary. The recount in Ohio had some shady stuff goiung on, according to 'conspiracy' websites---

-The ballots weren't picked randomly
-The votes weren't kept securely before the recount (they were in an unlocked office the weekend or night before the recount.)

I expect to have my vote counted. I expect I live in a democracy. The magnitude of "wrongness" of having an unelected man sitting in the whitehouse --- Of the United States of America--- it's outrageous! And although in general Russ's earlier comment about who needs to prove what, may stand - in *this* case (Democracy, the basic building block of our country) it is *entirely* reasonable for the populace to demand the right to know that their *vote* is properly recorded. Democracy! Diebold refuses to have open source code, they are a black box not because they are a machine, but because they cloak themselves in secrecy (no opne source code, instructing employees to lie --- and when the memory card hack was demonstrated they didn't say "We'll get right on that," but instead they *sued* the people who demonstrated the hack for exposing the weakness of their system!)



Some good news: Diebold has not been certified by California (whew!) despite the fact that the governator appointed a guy to Sec of State, who was friendly with the Diebold company. (I was very depressed when that appointment happened!) Apparently the model had a 10% error rate. (!)

When California demanded a paper trail some years ago, seventeen other states followed suit. We hope that California's refusal to certify one of Diebold's models, has a similar effect.

Distrust of the current process is fueling scrutiny into how these machines work. I had a brief email correspondence with a guy who testifies on these machines to Senate panels and whatnot. (He's been involved in over a hundred field observations of these sorts of machines.) He agrees there are insecure machines (in use) that should not be used. He maintains electronic voting *can* be secure.

I agree.

 

[pattylou]

INow I want to know how you intend to find people who are impartial to make these voting machines and to run voting booths. I think that would be pretty unlikely don't you?

As I mentioned earlier, you allow both parties access to the counting process at any time. Like in the good old days. It's fine to have a GOP friendly manufacturer, as long as dems can look at the code, the tabulator, the memory cards, ---- before, during, and after the election.

This would be more in line with how things used to be done (have both parties involved in the count, even if one party was responsible for the paper and pencils used to vote with.)

 

[loseyourname]

ES&S is the other major vendor of vote machines. ES&S is also partisan to the GOP.

Chuck Hagel was CEO of ES&S until two weeks before he announced his candidacy for Senator. He won the election in an pset victory over the incumbent, and the votes were counted on ES&S machines. I haven't dug around much on these machines, and I am just stating information here, not accusing Hagel of cheating.

You're digging is what you're doing. Name me a major manufacturer of anything and I'd guess there's a 90% the CEO is a Republican. That doesn't mean he's part of a conspiracy.

Was Cuyahoga County using ES&S by chance?

Yes, in the 15% of precints that used e-machines. Do you have dirt on them now too?

No. It was a tight race and either candidate could have theoretically swung it with only a small percentage of counties.

You do realize that neither anyone at the federal or state level, or anyone from any of the voting machine companies, had any say in which precincts had machines certified in time. Are you honestly alleging that this goes so deep that the officials in each county were in on this? The accusations keep getting wilder and wilder, patty. No offense, but it sounds like you're just being a sore loser here.

No. THe paper trail isn't used to count the votes, except in a recount, and may not even be seen (I'm not sure) by the voter. I believe it is stored (of course) by the machine. Paper trails are very necessary. The recount in Ohio had some shady stuff goiung on, according to 'conspiracy' websites---

You'll note that I made a very strong effort to only post reports and data from reliable, non-partisan sources, and I checked the methodology of each and even reported the errors that some may have made. I can only hope you'd do the same if you start referencing some of these claims.

I expect to have my vote counted. I expect I live in a democracy.

Well, good. I expect the same. Then again, my vote didn't count, because I live in California, and no matter how I voted, Kerry was going to carry the state, by a wide margin.

Either way, you should be happy that lost votes decreased dramatically from the last election, especially in states that used e-machines.

Diebold refuses to have open source code, they are a black box not because they are a machine, but because they cloak themselves in secrecy (no opne source code, instructing employees to lie --- and when the memory card hack was demonstrated they didn't say "We'll get right on that," but instead they *sued* the people who demonstrated the hack for exposing the weakness of their system!)

I'm not saying it makes me feel great as a consumer, but you have to know this is standard practice. Even petty little retail salespeople are instructed to overplay the strengths of their product and ignore its weaknesses. What you call lying, they call making a sale. As for suing the hacker, what would you do if someone publicly demonstrated how to break your system? This reminds me of an old episode of Oprah. She once had on a guy that demonstrated on her show how to break into people's houses by exploiting weaknesses in door security. If your house was broken into the next day by some guy that had seen the show, how would you feel?

Again, I'm not necessarily making an evaluation of their decision. I'm only trying to show that there are reasons for their actions that are standard to all business. Whether or not it makes them an ethical company I'll leave up to you, but it doesn't make them grand conspirators in stealing an election that the non-partisan experts seem to agree shows no evidence of being stolen.

Distrust of the current process is fueling scrutiny into how these machines work. I had a brief email correspondence with a guy who testifies on these machines to Senate panels and whatnot. (He's been involved in over a hundred field observations of these sorts of machines.) He agrees there are insecure machines (in use) that should not be used. He maintains electronic voting *can* be secure.

I agree.

Sure they can. They can much more secure than paper ballots. We did, after all, see the mess that paper ballots can make in the 2000 elections. Of course, everyone must realize that e-machines won't be perfect right off the bat.

You should really take a look at that verified voting website. They log every complaint made in each election by precinct. Just looking through very quickly you can see that there is still every manner of problem, very few of which have anything to do with machines. They mostly have to do with long lines and bad poll workers (they are, after all, barely-trained volunteers - even I was a poll worker once).