Initial report undersold e-vote snafus
Touch-screen failures in July test could open door for Diebold competitors
Aug 4, '05.
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
Diebold's latest electronic voting machine, desired by dozens of counties nationwide, fared worse in the nation's first mass testing than previously disclosed, with almost 20 percent of the touch-screen machines crashing.
... the delay could put at risk tens of millions of dollars in sales and throw open the door to Diebold competitors.
In Alameda County, Diebold's first large customer onthe West Coast, local officials are looking at other manufacturers' products and mass-mailing county voters to promote the virtues of absentee voting -- no need to come to the polling place and use an expensive voting machine.
"We're looking at all of our options," said Acting County Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold. "That means looking at every single voting system" that California might approve for voters.
For years, the county was considered Diebold territory. ... But Keith Carson, president of the county Board of Supervisors, suspects those days "have to be more at an end than not."
California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson ordered the testing in the form of a massive mock election after paper jams plagued Diebold's TSx in earlier tests. The machine is mated to a printer so voters and elections officials can verify electronic votes.
Software problems occurred in those earlier tests, but state voting-systems analysts were more focused in the mock election on paper jams. Yet when Diebold representatives trucked in 96 brand-new TSx machines, and local elections officials voted on them July 20 in a San Joaquin County warehouse, nearly twice as many machines froze or crashed as had paper jams.
Last week, McPherson rejected use of the TSx, saying the machine's lack of reliability "isn't good enough for voters in California, and it isn't good enough for me."
On the strength of the paper jams alone, two-dozen critics of electronic voting rallied in front of the Alameda County administrative offices Tuesday and demanded that county supervisors withdraw from negotiations to buy the machines. ...
In all, 19 machines had 21 screen freezes or system crashes, producing a blue screen and messages about an "illegal operation" or a "fatal exception error." A Diebold technician had to restart the machine for voting to resume. Ten machines had a total of 11 printer jams. Almost a third of all machines in the mock election had one problem or another.
Diebold officials say they plan to fix the problems and bring the machines back for a new mass test late this month.
Douglas Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa and an expert on computerized voting systems, isn't surprised.
Diebold's touch-screen machines run software written by Microsoft, Diebold and at least three other companies that make parts such as printers, memory cards and the touch-sensitive screen itself.
Contact Ian Hoffman at