{"id":6967,"date":"2009-03-05T16:31:19","date_gmt":"2009-03-06T00:31:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bradblog.com\/?p=6967"},"modified":"2009-03-06T06:46:20","modified_gmt":"2009-03-06T14:46:20","slug":"daily-voting-news-for-march-05-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bradblog.com\/?p=6967","title":{"rendered":"‘Daily Voting News’ For March 05, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Diebold\/Premier spokesman, Chris Riggall, has finally spoken about the California Secretary of State’s report on the discovery of violations of the accuracy standards<\/a> required by federal law and violations of the voting systems standards. In our featured article<\/a> Riggall shrugs off their violations by minimizing the report.<\/p>\n

“I think it’s fair, from our perspective, to say that the report editorializes in a number of ways that don’t reflect the sort of even-handedness that one would like to see,” Riggall said, adding that he sees the software error simply as a “contributing factor” to Humboldt County’s inaccurate election results. “To say it caused it and to solely attribute that discrepancy to the software is, in our judgment, not accurate and not objective.”<\/p>\n

I say balderdash. Diebold knew they had a problem back in 2004 and they issued “work arounds.” If they had a problem and knew it why did they not recall the software and provide good software in its place? Why did they not provide warnings and instructions in their operator’s manual? Why did they only send an email with a two paragraph attachment that didn’t even have the company’s logo on it? What did\/does the company have to hide? How many elections nationally were affected before Diebold discovered the problem? How many elections were affected after Diebold sent their unofficial “work around”? …<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n