Florida Approves DieBold! The "Fix" Is In!

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

By J. TAYLOR RUSHING
Capital Bureau Chief

TALLAHASSEE -- Florida has certified the state's first touch-screen voting system by Diebold, a company whose machines have been banned or scrutinized in California, Maryland, Ohio and Washington.

The Diebold AccuVote TSR6 will be available for use in all of Florida's 67 counties, including Duval, where an official said they will be used as early as the Aug. 31 state primary election. Diebold had applied for certification on March 22 after past applications for earlier versions of the machines failed.

Ohio-based Diebold came under scrutiny during this year's primaries in Maryland, where its touch-screen machines delayed vote counts, and in Ohio, where state legislators and officials have questioned the machines' security. On April 30, California banned the machines in four counties after vote counts malfunctioned. A lawsuit also has been filed in Washington to ban the company's vote-counting software in several counties.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/051804/met_15634426.shtml

Touch-screen machines have been disparaged by critics who note they do not allow paper records or recounts, and Diebold's models have been particularly questioned by computer experts who say they can be sabotaged. Political donations by company executives or relatives -- more than $325,000 since 2000, much of it going to President Bush -- also have been criticized.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,186 • Replies: 38

No top replies

It seems like a conflict of interest for them to have given so much money to one candidate in a race in which their own machines will count the votes.

I don't understand how they are allowed to do this. And why aren't other politicians yelling about it?

0 Replies

The moral may be "If you live in Florida, don't bother voting, the result has already been decided by Diebold."

0 Replies

Disgraceful and not unexpected......you get the government you allow......

0 Replies

John Webb wrote:

The moral may be "If you live in Florida, don't bother voting, the result has already been decided by Diebold."

While I may not agree with your analysis that Diebold is fixing the Florida results, I do admit that it can raise suspicions because they donate to the Bush campaign and could leave them open to charges that their machines were purchased by Florida (governed by Jeb) because of their donations to the Bush campaign. And I am sure many of you here will leap to the conclusion that they have "fixed" their machines to provide the outcome Gov. Bush wants. But that type of speculation is better left to the conspiracy nuts. At least we won't be dealing with "hanging chads" and mispunched ballots. Give y'all something else to complain about this time if (a big if at this point) Bush wins.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

John Webb wrote:
The moral may be "If you live in Florida, don't bother voting, the result has already been decided by Diebold."

While I may not agree with your analysis that Diebold is fixing the Florida results, I do admit that it can raise suspicions because they donate to the Bush campaign and could leave them open to charges that their machines were purchased by Florida (governed by Jeb) because of their donations to the Bush campaign. And I am sure many of you here will leap to the conclusion that they have "fixed" their machines to provide the outcome Gov. Bush wants. But that type of speculation is better left to the conspiracy nuts. At least we won't be dealing with "hanging chads" and mispunched ballots. Give y'all something else to complain about this time if (a big if at this point) Bush wins.

define conspiracy nut.

0 Replies

I heard an explanation of how computerized voting could work and be free of mischief. The voter goes to the computer, makes his/her choices, then the completed ballot is printed for the voter to review. Once he/she approves, the voter puts the ballot into an optical scanner to be counted.

Of course, now that I think of it, I guess the optical scanner could be rigged, too...

0 Replies

The voter might be rigged as well.

0 Replies

Quote:

define conspiracy nut.

Ok, here is my personal definition of a conspiracy nut. Anyone who sees or looks for a conspiracy in every situation. Recent examples of conspiracy nuts.

1. Those who believed in Hillary's grand "right wing conspiracy".
2. Those who believed there was a conspiracy to cover up Vince Foster's death.
3. Those who believe Bush somehow knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks

There are 3 examples. As you can see, I am all inclusive when it comes to political affiliation. Nuts are found on both sides of the political spectrum. I'm sure if you want more examples I could provide some more. But I think you get my drift.

I don't see any proof of any conspiracy in the statements made in this thread. Could there be some sort of deal? I guess anything is possible, so yes. But you would have to offer some type of proof, not just the named set of circumstances. That said, I wish the machines to be used in Florida and other places where they are being installed for the first time were not made by a company which contributed (assuming they did) to the Bush campaign. But that does not translate into the election being "fixed" by Diebold. At least not in my book, unless of course you fall under my definition of a conspiracy "nut". :wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

1. Those who believed in Hillary's grand "right wing conspiracy".
2. Those who believed there was a conspiracy to cover up Vince Foster's death.
3. Those who believe Bush somehow knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks

66% is not a bad average.

0 Replies

kickycan observes, "It seems like a conflict of interest for them to have given so much money to one candidate in a race in which their own machines will count the votes. I don't understand how they are allowed to do this."

Of course it's a conflict of interest. But what else can we expect of Florida considering who the governor is, and his relationship to the current occupant of the WH?

Watch folks, as I predicted, solidly Democratic counties in Florida (Dade, Broward and West Palm Beach) will mysteriously product huge majorities for Bush/Cheney in November.

As I said, the "fix" is in.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
1. Those who believed in Hillary's grand "right wing conspiracy".
2. Those who believed there was a conspiracy to cover up Vince Foster's death.
3. Those who believe Bush somehow knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks

66% is not a bad average.

Well, I guess that qualifies you as a conspiracy nut in my book blatham. Congrats. Very Happy

0 Replies

infowarrior wrote:

kickycan observes, "It seems like a conflict of interest for them to have given so much money to one candidate in a race in which their own machines will count the votes. I don't understand how they are allowed to do this."

Of course it's a conflict of interest. But what else can we expect of Florida considering who the governor is, and his relationship to the current occupant of the WH?

Watch folks, as I predicted, solidly Democratic counties in Florida (Dade, Broward and West Palm Beach) will mysteriously product huge majorities for Bush/Cheney in November.

As I said, the "fix" is in.

Something tells me these machines are also in states that have democratic governors, who, if they beleived there was a problem or a potential problem, would pull them out and use some other method. Would not that make sense? Wait, there was one state that did that, but they have a republican governor, which flies against the conspiracy idea.

0 Replies

Not every pattern of intentional misbehavior is the product of conspiracy buffs, Coastal Rat. Ever hear of Watergate?

0 Replies

conspiracy/n. a secret plan to commit a crime: a plot: conspiring
SOURCE: Oxford Desk Dictionary 1997

So, a conspiracy might include a large portion of the CIA's behavior around the world.

At what point does a conspiracy cease being a conspiracy? When it serves US interests? The interests of the oil industry? The bank accounts of Bush and Cheney?

Just for purposes of discussion, of course.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Not every pattern of intentional misbehavior is the product of conspiracy buffs, Coastal Rat. Ever hear of Watergate?

You are quite right. And if indeed this is a conspiracy to "fix" the election, then I assume at some point proof will come out. Otherwise, it is nothing more than somebody here making a statement they cannot back up, and one which I don't see any mainstream media jumping onto.

Info's original post (and title) posit the idea that there is a fix. It is based on flimsy reasoning. Watergate was not originally believed to be a conspiracy, although as the media began digging, it became obvious that it was. But my point is that there was evidence involved that would lead someone to the reasonable conclusion that there was more to it than a mere robbery.

So where is the evidence here that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that the election has been "fixed"? The only possible conclusion that could be come to is that the fact Diebold gave to the Bush campaign may have influenced Florida officials to install their machines. And I am not sure if that can be traced to Jeb since I do not know if he personally would make that decision (I doubt it, but I would not presume to know for sure).

I am all for debate, but when anyone spouts something as some sort of fact just to slander an administration (whether dem or republican) when their opinion has no basis in fact, then I intend to call them on it.

0 Replies

As much as it pains me to side with the Left Wingers, I think Diebold machines should not be used in the 2004 elections. Given the hue and cry of foul despite that bipartisan experts judged the final 2000 vote to be legitimate, we don't need any question re the 2004 election. Diebold has too poisoned the waters with large contributions to the GOP and a public letter from their president supporting the GOP.

I don't think for a minute that Diebold machines will be in any way rigged or a problem, but there is just too much opportunity for the appearance of impropriety.

0 Replies

Yeah, I agree. So why are there no democrats bitching about it publicly?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

As much as it pains me to side with the Left Wingers, I think Diebold machines should not be used in the 2004 elections. Given the hue and cry of foul despite that bipartisan experts judged the final 2000 vote to be legitimate, we don't need any question re the 2004 election. Diebold has too poisoned the waters with large contributions to the GOP and a public letter from their president supporting the GOP.

I don't think for a minute that Diebold machines will be in any way rigged or a problem, but there is just too much opportunity for the appearance of impropriety.

I agree 100%. They have been shown to have problems and yes, I don't like the appearance of impropriety of those contributions. I would prefer the machines not be used anywhere. They have been proven too easy to compromise in my opinion based on what I have read about them. Heck, some democrat may "fix" it so that a dominantly republican county ends up going democratic. :wink:

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Yeah, I agree. So why are there no democrats bitching about it publicly?

Maybe they are too busy dreaming up things to bash Bush over, I don't know. (Just kidding there btw). I think this is something both parties should look at, because no matter the outcome of this election, we do not need another fiasco like we had the last time.

0 Replies

Florida Approves DieBold! The "Fix" Is In!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know