By John Gideon, Information Manager, VotersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSA.org
August 03, 2005
On July 29, 2005 newspapers in California were reporting that the
Diebold TSx voting machines had failed in a mock election test. The
papers reported a 10% failure rate on a voting system that had just
been federally qualified only 2 months previously.
The reports from California led to the following email to be sent to the Elections Assistance Commission:
To: , Subject: E-voting machines rejected after state tests
article in the Fresno Bee is striking in that it points out how poorly
a particular voting system (Diebold TSx 1.18.22) performed during
certification testing in a state (California). This exact same voting
system has been purchased by the state of Mississippi and is being
forced on it's counties. This is probably the exact same voting system
that is to be purchased by the state of Utah.
The one question
on everyone's lips is; "How did this system get qualified?" The idea of
the ITA qualification system should be to ensure that any voting system
being sold to states and/or counties is accurate and works as it is
is apparent that the ITA qualification system failed miserably in the
case of this voting system. 96 machines were tested with a 10% failure
rate. Those are miserable results. If this voting system is an
exemplar for voting systems that have been ITA qualified and are being
used across the country then we should all be very concerned. There is
a problem that needs to be fixed and it needs to be fixed as soon as
possible for the good of our democratic process.
(Copies sent to Senator's Cochran, Lott, Bennett, and Hatch via other means)
August 3, 2005 the newspapers reported that the reports from July 29,
2005 did not reflect the actual results of the testing. In fact the
failure rate was nearly 20%. This is an amazingly high number of
failures for a voting system that has just been federally tested by
certified Independent Test Authorities and reviewed by a panel of
This newly reported information led to the following email to be sent to the Elections Assistance Commission. Note that no reponse was received to the first email:
To: , , Subject: California Test Failure Rate Twice Original Report
Today's news brings the word that the results of the California mock election/test of the Diebold TSx v. 1.18.22 w/vvpat printer were nearly twice what was reported last week. Also, the report changed the poor results from an emphasis on paper jams to an emphasis on "crashes".
is an unbelievable revelation. These machines went through weeks of
Independent Test Authority testing. The testing and paper work were reviewed by your panel of experts and yet, one in five machines crashed in a mock election.
ask again, because I was not given the courtesy of a response to my
first query; "How did this system get certified?". How can any voter
feel comfortable using a voting machine that has the assurance of NASED
and the EAC?
The ITA test system must be the "Good Housekeeping"
of elections systems. We, the voter, must feel comfortable, when we go
to the polls, that the machines we use for elections are going to work
properly. It is apparent that we cannot rely on the present system if
it fails as badly as this failure. The state of Mississippi has
contracted with Diebold for these same machines. The state of Utah is
planning on using these same machines. The state of Ohio is doing the
same. These machines need to be recalled and states need to be warned
not to buy them until the problems are fixed and they have been