Diebold admits ATMs more robust than voting machines
Interesting article on the costs of voting machines. A spokesman for Premier Election Systems (formerly Diebold Election Systems) is quoted saying:
“An ATM is significantly a more expensive device than a voting terminal…” said Riggall. “Were you to develop something that was as robust as an ATM, both in terms of the physical engineering of it and all aspects, clearly that would be something that the average jurisdiction cannot afford.”
Glass Box Voting was founded on the premise that that statement is not true.
The article also reminds us of the fun fact that Diebold Accuvote-TS machines can be opened with a standard minibar key.
I do not agree with the premise of the headline that money for improving voting machines has all gone to Iraq - our government has the resources to fund multiple priorities, and the integrity of the voting process seems to me to be an important priority. I agree with Ed Felten:
“It all depends what you compare it to,” said Felten. “If you compare the amount of money we spend actually administering the election versus the amount that’s spent trying to convince people to vote this way or that way, it looks pretty small. It you compare it against the importance of getting the outcome right, it also looks relatively small. So, to me, it’s an investment that we should be willing to make.”
Hat tip to infodiva and slashdot. Also want to remind new readers of an old post: The difference between an ATM and a voting machine. Edit - oops, meant to link to Voting as a security problem.