BBV: Diebold Used Uncertified Software in the Maryland Primary

[JohnGideon]

Diebold has admitted that they used federally uncertified software in the Maryland primary. TrueVoteMD.org has released the information of what they have found and they are asking questions like who in the state knew about this and when did they know it.

http://www.truevotemd.org/Press_releases/html/2004-06-17_Diebold_Reveals.html

Diebold Election Systems, Inc. has admitted that the electronic voting machines used in the March 2004 primary in Maryland contained software that had not been federally qualified (which makes it use in the Maryland primaries ILLEGAL). Maryland law requires that voting systems and any modifications to those systems comply with applicable federal qualification standards before the State Board of Elections may certify them for use in an election.

Diebold made the admission in an official report to Alameda County, California election officials. The report -- entitled "Diebold Election Systems, Inc. Report of Assurances to Alameda County" (available at http://www.truevotemd.org/ebold_rpt_alameda.pdf) -- touts Diebold's use of the federally unqualified GEMS version 1.18.19 in the March 2004 primaries in Maryland: "he State of Maryland successfully utilized GEMS 1.18.19 in their March Primary Election in their 22-county roll-out of touchscreens." The report elsewhere acknowledges, however, that the software was not federally qualified even as of the date of the report, April 26, 2004, which was long after the March election.

<<snip>>

[indepat]

1. Would I be right to guess the right won those elections?

[Andy_Stephenson]

2. Well Well Well....

The just hits keep on coming.

[BevHarris]

3. Thank you, JohnGideon, for this post

This is why it's so important for citizens to sleuth out and share the documents from one part of the country to another. Here, Diebold was explaining itself to Alameda County in California and in doing so, stepped into trouble in Maryland.

In another case, Diebold was explaining itself to Cleveland, and Kathleen Wynne, co-chair of the Committee for Vote Integrity and Protection under the Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition, shared the transcript with me, and we discovered WHY Diebold put new voter card encoders into Alameda County and San Diego, causing a meltdown from more uncertified software: In the Cleveland transcript, it was revealed that they are trying to get rid of the pollbook, which compares # of voters to # of votes.

Will this become a Maryland meltdown? Can we afford a meltdown in November? At what point will officials start dealing with this problem, instead of stonewalling?

More to come, I'm sure. Thanks to Kevin Zeese, and Linda Schade, of TrueVoteMD.org, for their courage in filing that lawsuit and their skill in uncovering the facts.

Bev Harris

[RedEagle]

4. How many malfunctions and illegal operations is it going to take?

The axe should fall on computerized elections for November. If we don't count with paper, we'll never have an election that will appear legitimate.

Kudos to Maryland voting advocates!

[KittyWampus]

5. Wouldn't This Invalidate The Results & The Election?

[Mechatanketra]

6. Apparently, nothing invalidates elections.

That's basically where we got screwed up in 2000. All the legal geniuses crafting laws over the years, and somehow (in effect) there's no teeth in the law to sack someone out of office because some prankster in the bureacracy switches the names on the result announcement. It's as if the urban legend was true and Jack Palance really can give Marisa Tomei an Oscar just by announcing it so, envelope be damned -- only regarding life and death issues.

That was the most chilling thing to the Bush v. Gore SCOTUS decision: that apparently at no point, even in the ostensible rationale for the decision (the one they give because "Hey, cool, it's like we get to pick the Prez all by ourselves" won't exactly fly well with the body politic), did the concept enter in that the election isn't supposed to be about whatever numbers and names get written down but about what votes were actually cast. Even worse, neither did they seem to consider that, much like a custody battle, the ultimate interest in an election dispute isn't either candidate's but the voters themselves. How can you 'damage' a guy by reversing an apparently incorrect election result if he didn't actually win the election? The only damage you can do is to the body politic, by thwarting their mandate.

[KittyWampus]

7. Are You A Professional Writer?

asking cause your post was really well written :)