“The Most Serious Voting-Machine Flaws Ever Documented”

Critics say Diebold has developed the most insecure elections system possible with their electronic voting machines. What does Diebold Election Systems spokesperson David Bear have to say about his company’s indiscretions?

“[Our critics are] throwing out a ‘what if’ that’s premised on a basis of an evil, nefarious person breaking the law,” says Bear.

And I thought it was just the bleeding-heart liberals that were laboring under a naive belief that all people are good, and there is no evil in the world. You know, peace, love, harmony… all that shit.

Power seekers are often evil, nefarious people who don’t mind breaking a law or two when it suits them. I’m thinking the Constitution says something about that. Which is what security is all about.

Those who keep a gun for protection don’t necessarily expect evil, nefarious people to break into their home; but, they don’t leave the gun loaded on the front steps with the door open, either.

The Diebold security gap is only the most vivid example of the reality that no electronic voting system can be 100 percent safe or reliable.

Which is why we need a human verifiable paper record of each vote. Which the cockasses in DC haven’t legislated yet; therefore…

…it’s unlikely that every voter using an electronic voting device in 2006 will know for sure that his or her vote will be reflected in the actual totals.

That’s a remarkable statement that deserves to be dwelled upon for a moment.

This will be four elections with results reasonably questionable to a segment of the population in a row! That’s special!

Psssst, our democracy is broken.

Newsweek: Will Your Vote Count in 2006?