Diebold Admits ATMs Are More Robust Than Voting Machines

An anonymous reader points out a story in the Huffington Post about the status of funding for election voting systems. It contains an interesting section in which Chris Riggall, a spokesman for Premier (formerly Diebold) acknowledged that less money is spent making an electronic voting machine than on a typical ATM. The ironically named Riggall also notes that security could indeed be improved, but at a higher price than most election administrators would care to pay. Also quoted in the article is Ed Felten, who has recently found some inconsistencies in New Jersey voting machines. From the Post: "'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.' Perhaps cost has something to do with the fact that a couple of years ago, every single Diebold AccuVote TS could be opened with a standard key also used for some cabinets and mini-bars and available for purchase over the Internet."

Best Parallel Ever!

[4solarisinfo]

Polotics and money, what a great parallel. We should just combine the two. "Would you like an extra $5 to vote for candidate X?"

Ironically named?

[ciaohound]

Riggall? That's rich. Yeah, mod me offtopic, I just Felten urge to post this.

ATMs as voting machines

[bromoseltzer]

The obvious solution. Banks reload their ATM software for voting on election day. The candidates can buy your votes all the more easily -- cash comes out of the slot.

well of course they are most secure....

[Anonymous Coward]

unsecured ATM = loosing money

unsecured voting machine = gaining money.

OS/2 is BACK BABY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they're more robust--many ATMs run OS/2!!!!111

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Would you like an extra $5 to vote for candidate X?"

On our taxes it asks "Would you like to donate an extra $3 to the candidates?"
I don't know a single person who said yes to that...

Uh... I do. It doesn't cost you anything if you actually read what it says. But this is slashdot, where nobody RTFA, or apparently their own tax form as well.

Re:So?

[dpilot]

> I can't "downgrade" a 747 into a vending machine

Of course you can:
1: Pull 747 up to gate.
2: Allow cockpit crew to leave, keep flight attendants.
3: Cancel engine maintenance contract, keep galley contracts.
4: PROFIT!! (not really, but couldn't resist)

To use:
1: Walk down jetway into 747, take a seat.
2: Push flight attendant button.
3: Flight attendant wheels cart to your seat, prepared to dispense peanuts, mini-pretzels, or soda.
4: Take you peanuts, mini-pretzels, or soda and exit the aircraft.

I didn't say that a downgraded 747 made a very good, convenient, or profitable vending machine, but with a few organic parts, (the flight attendants and ground service for the galley) it can make one. Perhaps a parallel for Diebold voting machines.