Who approved such a deeply flawed system and what must be done in the future?
On July 29, 2005 it was reported that certification of the Diebold
TSx GEMS v. 1.18.22 had been denied by the Secretary of State, Bruce
McPherson. The initial report told of a 10% failure rate due to jammed
printers and computer "crashes". 
Just 5 days later,
the newspapers reported that the failures were twice as bad as
originally reported, and the failures were not centered in the printers
but were instead software issues. Of the 96 voting machines tested, 19
failed with a total of 21 crashes resulting in a blue screen and
messages about an "illegal operation" or a "fatal exception error."
Also, 10 machines had a total of 11 printer jams. Nearly one-third of
the test machines failed in one way or another. 
This failure of 29 voting machines out of 96 is a revealing
example of what can go wrong in an election when voting systems that
are not ready to be used are subjected to a real-life scenario. What if
the state had followed the lead of the federally certified Independent
Testing Authorities and passed this system as being acceptable? What if
the state had followed the lead of the Elections Assistance Commission
(EAC) Voting Systems Panel and accepted this system as fully qualified
for use in an election?What does Diebold have to say
about their voting systems and their failure rate? On July 15, 2003
Diebold Elections Systems Inc. responded to a request posed by the
state of Ohio: "Provide documentation to support the claim of a 20-year
DRE life expectancy." The response from Diebold was, in part, "If a
customer had 4 elections per year, then the unit would theoretically
continue for 250 years before failing." Since Diebold was referring
to their TS system, how much longer life might they have estimated for
their newer, improved TSx systems that failed so badly in California
dring a 7-hours mock-election?
what does all of this prove? Of course the obvious answer is that the
Diebold TSx with AccuView voter-verified paper audit trail (vvpat)
printer is a miserable failure. It also certainly lends credence to all
who have been asking for a voter verified paper ballot and audit
requirements. On May 16, 2005 the Diebold TSx voting system (the
one that failed testing in California) was given the National
Association of State Elections Directors (NASED) "Seal of Approval" and
the EAC gave the system its federal qualification approval. This was
the result of what is supposed to be a rigorous period of testing and
inspection by federally certified Independent Testing Authorities
(ITA). Yet, at its first trial run, over 30% of the approved units
failed to function as they are supposed to function.
many of the systems that are now being used in states and counties
across the country were passed through this same testing process with
serious flaws that weren't detected? How does anyone know that the
machines that they are using to cast their votes are working properly
even though they passed through the process successfully?
voter verified paper ballot and audit requirements are certainly
essential to ensure the machines can be checked for accuracy. But there
is a more urgent need. Right now counties in Utah, Mississippi,
and Ohio are planning to purchase the exact same machines as those that
failed testing in California. Why has no one at the EAC or NASED
demanded a recall and a disqualification of the Diebold TSx GEMS v.
1.18.22? Why has nothing been done to warn the elections officials in
those states that this system is a failure? In response to the testing
failure the Secretary of State of California has established stringent
new standards for all voting systems in his state.
Why hasn't there been a similar response from the EAC or NASED? We can only hope that something is done quickly. "Initial report undersold e-vote snafus", by Ian Hoffman, Oakland Tribune, 08/03/2005
 "Representations made by Diebold to the State of Ohio regarding its AccuVote Voting Machine"
Comment on This Article
You must login to leave comments...
Other Visitors Comments
You must login to see comments...