Diebold's Demise Bad For Elections Administration

A quiet 2007 re-branding to Premier Election Solutions helped turn down the heat on Diebold, the villain of a thousand conspiracy theories. (The new moniker is bland and vacant, but at least the firm still deigns to make its name pronounceable, unlike Blackwater, their fiendish Bush-era contractor cousin, which is now "Xe.") The voting equipment outfit brought this notoriety upon itself: For instance, its CEO infamously wrote a fundraising letter for George W. Bush in 2003, asserting that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year," even as his company vied for a multi-million dollar contract from Ohio's Republican-run state government.

That Premier/Diebold might be on the verge of disappearing from the American political landscape could be mistaken for reason to celebrate. It was recently purchased by its major competitor, Election Systems and Software; if the acquisition is approved by the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, ES&S will manage elections in jurisdictions including 70% of the nation's voters. A small vendor, Hart Intercivic, is suing to block the merger; various election reform advocates are also working to stymie it.

There's a wider understanding than ever of the part private contractors play in the operations of our voting equipment and administration of elections. The popular reaction has been resounding: If the roles of these contractors were put to a vote, they would surely find themselves out of work. Distrust of elections is steadily on the rise, with some polls showing that a strong majority of respondents lack basic confidence that their votes will be recorded as intended.

Potential for malfeasance is not the only cause for concern, as these companies certainly influence our elections in other adverse ways. Voters should chase the vendors out of our polling places, and seize control of elections, once-and-for-all.

In "Privatizing Democracy: Promoting Election Integrity Through Procurement Contracts," Jennifer Nou notes that the Help America Vote Act, with its new mandates and billions of dollars for voting machinery, drove many jurisdictions to upgrade their equipment simultaneously, giving contractors inflated bargaining power and stunting the industry's motivation to make ongoing improvements to its technology.

Limited competition makes it easier for vendors to squeeze state governments for more money: They can stop servicing models artificially early, compelling states to buy new ones. They have reason to meet just the bare-bones requirements of contracts and limit the plasticity of their hardware so that they can compel upgrades on states that want to reform their voting systems.

Vendors keep tight control over their equipment and software, meaning states need to pay for service and programming help when there are problems, and decreasing transparency. When North Carolina's State Board of Elections in 2005 requested access to Diebold's software, following a state law requiring the Board to do so, the company simply refused.

When there is a clear problem with an election's administration, outsourcing allows for an extra layer of obfuscation and finger-pointing: Contractors quickly go on the defensive -- instinctively denying culpability, invoking property rights and striving to prevent scrutiny of software and records. For instance, when about 1,500 phantom over-votes were recorded in Washington, D.C.'s elections last September, the city tried to access the records and source code of the vendor, Sequoia Voting Systems. Sequoia refused, for nine months, finally succumbing in June under threat of a lawsuit.

Like any other corporations, elections vendors will do all they can to maintain their stature and revenue streams. They have discovered the benefits of the "revolving door," and building ties with politicians -- the famous Diebold quote is but one example:

-As he won an upset bid for Senate in a state that overwhelmingly used ES&S equipment, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel failed to reveal that he ran ES&S in mandatory disclosures.

-California Secretary of State Bill Jones began lobbying for Sequoia in 2002 -- the same year he ran for Governor. According to Nou, elections officials in at least four other states have also recently gone to work as lobbyists for the voting machine industry.

Such relationships have heightened the public's concerns and make clear that the contractors are not disinterested in the outcomes of the elections they facilitate.

We should hope that ES&S's acquisition of Premier is prevented, but that it looms so closely underscores that it is time to create an alternative to privatized election management. States should join the nascent movement movement towards systems that are owned and operated by the public. Oklahoma already has: In the 1990s it took ownership of its voting machines and source code. The state updates its own software, and recently developed a statewide optical scanner system, without fussing with contractors. Other states should learn from its experience - and from their own -- and follow suit.

Comments

[jsgaetano]

Electronic Voting- just as bad an idea today as it was in 2000... and will continue to be a bad idea forever.

The extent of Electronic Voting should be having an electronic screen which assists you in punching a paper ballot. Without a phyiscal ballot which can be auditted in a recount, you didn't really vote.

[Jaywalkker]

Considering that there are many districts, precincts, or entire states, that don't require data storage, that can be quite bad when after an election results are presented but no means of recount available.

Never lose the physical ballot or follow-up with (even encrypted) paper printout that says how voter voted. Could just be a scannable bar code.

[EndTheEcho]

How about the FTC, DOJ, and FEC make some rules/regulations that any election equipment used in government elections is forbidden from concealing how their software operates.

That would put the companies on notice, share it or keep it. If you can't share, you can keep your machine because it is illegal to sell to governments for the purpose of tabulating election results.

If they want our tax payer dollars, it is going to come with strings, and that string is you can't claim secrets.

[bronceye]

Diebold parked the neocon train on the White House lawn for 8 yrs. They are now moot. At least until they find someone as myopic and lacking as g.w.

[hippie chucker]

Segal-
Please explain the house victories in 2006, since you endorse the Diebold conspiracies.

Was Rove not able to press a keystroke to change the election? Perhaps he was busy that day?

Also, since you tacitly endorse ridiculous conspiracies, would love your thoughts on whether or not fire can melt steel.

[David Segal - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't specifically endorse any conspiracies, and the bulk of the article is focused on the point that whether or not there has been explicit malfeasance, there are many other ways in which the status quo is bad for elections administration and reform. But in the context of the few stark examples of inappropriate relationships which I point to, and many others, it should surprise nobody -- least of all the contractors themselves -- that voters don't trust these firms.

[joebaggadonuts]

Very important issue, David. Thanks for reporting on it. Good to know some states and nations can do better.

[dadw5boys]

Watch http://www.govdeals.com/eas/ -- for Diebold Voting Machines buy a couple and get the programing.

[Vinca]

I believe very many elections have been rigged for both parties. I feel positive George Bush , Jr. NEVER WON A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. How can we be sure our votes count?

[mommadona]

Very simple answer to this:

USE ATM MACHINES AS VOTING MACHINES

For election day - "lease" all ATM machine space - have election officials develop voting software compatible

(SAME PEOPLE WHO RUN ELECTION MACHINES ALSO BUILD ATM MACHINES)

1) every eligible voter would have access and a receipt issued.
2) obviously secure - everyone trusts security @ their banks, correct?
3) maintenance-assured

It is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

Don't want an ATM?

Simple:

NEWSPAPERS - print up 1/2 sheet ballots w/picture/bio of each candidate/­explanatio­n of each "proposition", etc.

Thumb print on picture/block is vote.

Happens in South America every year.

There ya go - two cheap/simp­le/accessi­ble/transp­arent methods of voting processes.

(I wait with bated breath)

[ObamanextPresident]

From the article:

"Oklahoma already has: In the 1990s it took ownership of its voting machines and source code. The state updates its own software, and recently developed a statewide optical scanner system, without fussing with contractor­s."

I don't know if this makes me feel any safer at all that the voting ballots or totals wouldn't be tampered with. Especially the red states. I do not trust them at all.

[GrahamInCanada]

It never fails to amaze me how Americans vote.

In Canada, we mark our paper ballots which are designed in such a way to be very hard to result in anything but a clear vote or a clearly spoiled vote, which are then placed in the ballot box in front of us and the election officials and representatives of the candidates.

At the end of the day, the public election officers open the boxes and count the votes, one by one, in front of representatives of the candidates, who can dispute any particular vote, but rarely do, because it is so hard for it to be unclear how a person voted. They then phone in the results, and deliver the paper ballots to a secure central location, just in case a recount is necessary.

And we still get the results within hours!

Why can't America figure it out?

[Thabit]

They do the same in Oregon as in Canada but why they cant elswhere , thats easy . If they did that it WOULD BE TOO HARD TO CHEAT

[Skepticat]

Not only is Graham In Canada totally correct about voting procedures here but the longest delay in processing a recount anywhere in Canada that I can remember for a federal election in my lifetime was about a day and a half.
In Canada there is an independent "Elections Canada" agency that handles election logistics to make sure that all eligible voters can vote - that campaign funding rules are enforced etc. This also prevents Texas style gerrymandering, caging of voters and other problems that naturally occur when politicians have opportunities to game the system.