Diebold Sues Massachusetts for "Wrongful Purchase" 422
elBart0 writes "Diebold has decided to sue the commonwealth of Massachusetts for choosing a competitor to provide voting machines for the disabled. Diebold wants to force the state to stop using the machines immediately, despite the upcoming municipal elections in many towns. The commonwealth chose the competitor based on an open process that included disabled groups. Diebold executives appeared confused when encountering election officials who made an intelligent choice."
In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, I cound't stop myself.
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Informative)
Which, of course, is totally ridiculous.
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite the typical Slashdot half-the-facts synopsis, don't read anything in Diebold protesting this contract. Diebold is after two things: to find out HOW the criteria were evaluated and to appeal the contract award. At this point, neither Diebold nor anyone on Slashdot knows how the candidates were evaluated. Therefore speculation about the validity of Diebold's case is idiotic.
No, I don't have any connection whatsoever to Diebold. I have been involved in years worth of contracting. You'd be surprised how many times I investigated after a contract was awarded elsewhere, only to find out that it was someone on the customer side who had their finger on the scale.
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, Diebold wants to see the proprietary scoring format used to judge who should be awarded the contract.
Why does that sound familiar?
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, except going by the article, accessibility for the disabled seem to have been the deciding factor, and that AutoMark was considered better because it only uses one type of ballot rather than different types for disabled voters, and, that they came to this stance after sending machines out to organizations for people with disabilities for e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
C'mon. More was done for less, on the same ground in 1776. To bad you Yanks pissed away freedom and principle, killing the hard-won Republic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Galvin cited as an important factor in favor of AutoMARK its machine's use of one kind of paper ballot for disabled voters and others.
He said that gave extra privacy to disabled voters.
"If you happened to have only one disabled voter in a precinct, that person's ballot is easily identifiable," he said.
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Funny)
That didn't happen to be "a long time ago a in a galaxy far, far away", did it?
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, we know this. That's how Haliburton and Diebold became leaders in their respective fields.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Informative)
Give me a link, give me a summary of the link, and if you have a comment leave it with the rest of them.
Why stop at punctuation? (Score:5, Funny)
Flange Samson ton magnet flipper, lumberyard milquetoast tire iron?
Re:Why stop at punctuation? (Score:5, Funny)
Lumberyard milquetoast tire iron? I roughshod pothole squiggle bass, you insensitive clod!
Re: grammer (Score:4, Insightful)
This is especially true of irony and sarcasm. Every day some slashdotter complains about leaving off the irony tags - as if they didn't exist pre-internet. The problem isn't that sarcasm translates badly to text, the problem is that the poster hasn't learned to properly write sarcastic statements.
We should really be learning how to write better, rather than forcing spoken English into text.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In Soviet JAX (Score:5, Funny)
Good move! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good move! (Score:5, Funny)
Next up: Diebold sues the voters but allows quick settlements of $3000 each.
Call Diebold and tell them what you think (Score:5, Funny)
Corporate Headquarters: [diebold.com] 1-330-490-4000
Here's what I just emailed to their PR department:
Re:Call Diebold and tell them what you think (Score:5, Funny)
Eloquent. I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways.
Re:Good move! (Score:4, Insightful)
So do many of us, and now we have a nice example of corporate conduct to bring up should our local governments want to buy their stuff.
Re:Good move! (Score:4, Interesting)
My FNEOs (love the acronym!) are techno-illiterate, but they don't want to look stupid in public.
Re:Good move! (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, it worked great for SCO! Oh, wait...
Re:Good move! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good move! (Score:5, Funny)
If I was purchasing voting machines for another state I would add: "doesn't sue potential customers when it loses a bid" to my list of qualifications. That would clearly put Diebold out of the running.
Every once in a while you read about executives from a company that are so ridiculously inept that it is funny. Diebold certainly fits that description.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Diebold's position (Score:3, Informative)
To counter the editor's and the submitter's obvious bias against the company, here is their position as reported by a more professional journalist in TFA:
You, me, and any other private-sector entity do not have to explain our whims and caprices when (not) buying something (which may, actually, be un
Re:Diebold's position (Score:5, Insightful)
You, me, and any other private-sector entity do not have to explain our whims and caprices when (not) buying something (which may, actually, be unfortunate) to any one other than, perhaps, family members or stock-holders. The government, however, is legally obliged to pick the best — all of us are the stock-holders...
I bid a lot of government contracts, I get some, I lose some. The ones I've lost have occasionally been to better concepts the ones I've wons have occasionally beaten some better work... in all cases the wins were based on who came in the lowest.
I understand the basis of your remark - The process needs to be open, so we the taxpayers, know that our civil employees are doing their job correctly and spending our money they way we expect them to. Diebold should have the right to see if there was some back room hankey pankey going on, and the bidding process was fair. A lawsuit may be the only way to prove what they think they already know. Or, they could just be sore losers, trying to make the state pay for having the audacity to use a competitor. I guess we'll find out.... unfortunately, the tax payers in Mass. are the ones who will ultimately pay for this......
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Diebold's position (Score:4, Insightful)
If they lose this case (which seems likely) and their reputation is tarnished (are they saying the disabled testers opinions are wrong?) than how is this in their best interests?
Being a jerk, either as an individual or a corporation, isn't only about agressively promoting your self interest. Sometimes it's just being a jerk.
Re:Diebold's position (Score:5, Informative)
You, me, and any other private-sector entity do not have to explain our whims and caprices when (not) buying something (which may, actually, be unfortunate) to any one other than, perhaps, family members or stock-holders. The government, however, is legally obliged to pick the best -- all of us are the stock-holders...
Knowing the policies and the corruption levels of Taxachusetts, Diebold may well be right suspecting something foul...
Way to counter bias. It's clear you did not even read the article, which says:
Weisberg said the company is not alleging any improprieties by the secretary of state's office. Instead, it is saying the office acted in good faith but made a mistake in the selection.
Diebold is alleging that they are clearly the best and therefore must always be picked. They are saying that the judge should award them the contract since the government made a mistake and picked a company other than theirs, which is the best. The government explained that the device they picked was reported as easier to use by disabled people and had some features which the Diebold machine lacks.
This suit was deliberately filed on the day of an election in which the machines would be used. Its very premise is frightening; according to Diebold they must be the only electronic voting machine manufacturer and whenever any other manufacturer is picked by a government entity that entity must be ordered by a judge to go with Diebold instead. It represents an attempt by a corporation to subvert the democratic process, which makes the fact they are a voting machine manufacturer even more frightening. In any case, this kind of thing cannot be allowed. Companies should not be able to sue the government every time they lose a bid for a contract. That will just create chaos and we will get even less accomplished through the government than we already do.
Laches (Score:4, Informative)
Laches
n. the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of "legal ambush." Examples: a) knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title; b) Tommy Traveler learns that his father has died, but waits four years to come forward until the entire estate has been distributed on the belief that Tommy was dead; c) Susan Smart has a legitimate claim against her old firm for sexual harassment, but waits three years to come forward and file a lawsuit, after the employee who caused the problem has died, and the witnesses have all left the company and scattered around the country. The defense of laches is often raised in the list of "affirmative defenses" in answers filed by defendants, but is seldom applied by the courts. Laches is not to be confused with the "statute of limitations," which sets specific periods to file a lawsuit for types of claims (negligence, breach of contract, fraud, etc.).
Re:Diebold's position (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good move! (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, I smell a possible counter brewing. After all, it does create an anti-competitive atmosphere, to say the least. And think about this... State sends out something for bid, state fears risk of legal action from highest-priced competitor, state is forced to purchase based on fear instead of some cost-quality ratio, = you pay more for your public services and gain the risk of poorer quality. What a deal! I can't think of any other examples of this for contract bids involving the state -- but then I'm probably a little naive when it come to the details of contract bids. I'm thinking that, unless there was some pre-existing contractual agreement (although, based on the article, it seemed that the bidding process was carried out legally) Diebold may be on some very thin ice!
Re:Good move! (Score:4, Funny)
I would also encourage any other large company who so chooses to sue someone for not taking their calls, and sue vendors for not giving them services for free. If we get those two squared away I think we could all be much more successful.
Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Funny)
I think that says it all
Feh (Score:3, Funny)
DG
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
In all honesty though, a bit of editorialising is warranted here. What if Coke sued you because you bought a Pepsi? What if AMD sued you because you bought an Intel chip?
Diebold's premise is moronic and it invites speculation as to how closely related the parents of their board members are, and which particular brand of crack their counsel are smoking.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Last thing I want to see is Sony getting a precident to sue people for not buying their stuff...
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not quite the right analogy. It's more like if you were deciding between Coke and Pepsi, and told both companies that you'd be selecting on the basis of taste. Suppose now that Pepsi's research shows that people strongly prefer Pepsi over Coke -- but you choose Coke anyway. That's sort of what's going on here.
That said, as I noted in my other post, I don't understand where the actual legal issue is in all this.
Re:Biased Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Funny)
I can only imagine it went something like this:
Diebold exec: ... so we want to sue them because they went with our competitors, and, uhm, that's not fair. Because we always win. And, like, why should someone else get to win? It's not fair.
... ... ... we'll get right on it.
Diebold lawyer: *stifling laughter* That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Diebold exec: We're paying you how much?
Diebold lawyer:
Try buying heating oil in CT... (Score:5, Interesting)
Step 2: Call them and ask the price of oil next time you need some.
Step 3: Get a load of oil from Oil Company B, who happens to have a better prioce that week.
Step 4: Get your credit account cancelled by Oil Company A because they know how often you should need oil and you didn't order form them.
No, it's not a lawsuit, but they're denying you credit for simply buying from their competition.
This is all perfectly legal in the State of Connecticut. It's like driving by a Mobil station to get cheaper gas at Shell, then Mobil cuts up your Mobil card.
Business today seems to run on the notion that if it's not specifically prohibited, we should try and do it, no matter how bad it looks. I get better ethics and learning curves from my third graders.
Re:Try buying heating oil in CT... (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect you are misrepresenting this for greater outrage.
Here, in New York, I can sign up for an oil account at a fixed price. If oil rates go up I am protected because I keep paying the rate at the time I signed up (with all kinds of possible modifiers from different oil companies, like the price is reset each year, etc).
I am also locked in to that rate if oil prices go down.
If oil prices go down, many people try to 'cheat' on their accounts by buying oil from a cheaper oil company at the current rate. Note that it is not necessarily that my oil company is more expensive, it is that I have signed up for a fixed rate account with protection against oil price variations.
If the oil company sees that I have ordered significantly less than my house should use they will cancel my account because I have broken my deal with them. I can't enjoy the protection of a fixed price when the rates go up, but not buy from them when the rates go down. That's not the deal they are offering.
That is like getting a fixed rate mortgage on a house. As long as the current rates are higher than my mortgage I pay my mortgage. If current rates go down I stop paying my mortgage and start paying a variable rate instead. You can't do that. You would have to break your contract, cancel your account, and refinance with someone else.
But then, of course, you are no longer protected in case rates go up again.
Your suspicions are incorrect. (Score:4, Interesting)
This was on a will-call, no-lock, open account for credit.
I specifically did not lock in this year, for as predicted, prices went down, and I made out better than if I'd locked in.
Not only that, but I've had different people call the same company on the same afternoon as existing no-lock, prospective customer, (and against the current lock-in) and gotten two (three) different prices.
I've been up and down this with the heating oil division of the state consumer protection agency, and they allow that it looks anti-competitive, but there's no law against it, they can't say everyone does it, but they're pretty sure the big ones do.
I lucked out with two smaller dealers, one of which was willing to level with me on the outlook and believed their honest approach would be the better route. They got my business.
That Behavior Actively Encouraged in B. School (Score:4, Interesting)
My friend was as flabbergasted as I was.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Business today seems to run on the notion that if it's not specifically prohibited, we should try and do it, no matter how bad it looks. I get better ethics and learning curves from my third graders.
Government seems to be going the same way. Alberto Gonzales actually made that argument before Congress when he claimed that the right to habeas corpus was not specifically granted in the Constitution. He then went on to explain other violations of our rights by saying that those exercises of power were not s
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
What if some large entity produced a long list of selection criteria and then asked suppliers to submit bids and supporting documentation, no doubt costing real man hours of the companies submitting bids? At that point, the large entity chose one supplier without any feedback to either the chosen supplier or those suppliers not chosen.
That's more what's going on here. I doubt Diebold has any reasonable expectation that the purchasing decision will be overturned. What they really want is access to the state's documents explaining why the state chose their competitor so they can address their weaknesses before they're asked for bids on other contracts. Given the effort that goes into the bidding process for these kinds of Government contracts, what they're asking for isn't all that unreasonable. But thanks to the screwiness of the US legal system, they can't just ask for something reasonable and expect to get it. They must ask for something entirely unreasonable and then demand the reasonable request as a means of supporting the unreasonable request. My guess is that Diebold's discovery motion will either be granted or denied at which point the suit will be dropped.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That type of information should be available through the Freedom of Information Act, or the Massachusetts Public Records Law. In fact, even TFA says it's probably because Diebold machines spit out a different paper ballot for disabled people than for ordinary voters, which in a precinct that only has one or two disable
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it is. Why should government have to bear the expense of giving feedback to bidders? The costs of the bidding process are a business risk that is taken care of if they get the bid. Failure to get the bid does not mean that they are absolved of the risk they took.
Good guess.
Re:Biased Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you reading the same slashdot as I am? Since when has slashdot been about "objective news reporting"?
objective news reporting (Score:5, Funny)
Uhhmm...when reporting on Objective-C?
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
First, there is no such thing as objective reporting. Everything is biased. Period.
Second, Slashdot is not about journalism. It's the offspring of a news aggregator (why the hell is "aggregator" not in the Firefox 2 US English dictionary?) and a forum. Slashdot doesn't report the news, Slashdot reports that someone else has reported the news.
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, they asked a judge to prevent MA from using AutoMARK machines already in the state's posession. Diebold admitted they had not developed a case yet. This sounds like confusion to me about both government bidding, and civil law.
Insane. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm speechless.
Diebold's real complaint is ... (Score:5, Funny)
The problem with the Diebold machines (Score:5, Funny)
It's about time. (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly the best product for any situation is the one that the biggest company is pushing. It's not like companies get to be big in the first place by overcharging for their products and using the courts to keep competition down.
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Words fail.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that it matters much. Diebold's claim is bullshit. Sour grapes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then I read TFA, and found that they're not suggesting anything improper happened in the purchasing process, just that they'd have liked to have won and would like the court to say that they did. Their case really does appear to be as eye-rollingly, barking-at-the-moon insane as the summary makes it sound.
Maybe, to save time... (Score:3)
Wow..... just wow.... (Score:4, Interesting)
In other news, a Toyota dealer is suing a man who bought a Honda, because "based on the criteria set out by the purchaser, we had a fair degree of confidence we'd come out on top, and nothing we heard during the process dissuaded us of that confidence." Actually, Toyoto is a decent manufacturer, make it a Yugo dealer.
Catch 22 (Score:5, Funny)
It's easy to see how things got mixed up from there...
Reasons? We don't need no stinking reasons. (Score:5, Informative)
There isn't one. To save others the trouble, here's the closest thing to a reason they give:
I'm a little surprised they think they can sue just based on a gut feeling and expect to get away with it, but then again, it is Diebold. They seem to get away with just about anything.
Seems reasonable to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong actor, right technique. Based on security issues alone, we know Diebold is always the wrong choice. Just by a knee jerk methodology, we could keep the machines out of people's hands for another few months each time. It would generate some press, if nothing else.
LBJ wanted his opponent accused of having sex with barnyard animals. It wasn't that he thought the charge would stick -- he wanted people to hear the candidate deny it. In this case, the response will be "well, your software is a joke -- completely insecure." We'll get to hear Diebold deny the charge. Any suit brought to force reopening analysis before purchase of Diebold's stuff would mean that, once again, they'd have to say "No, our software isn't laughably insecure. No the fact the our code showed up on the Internet isn't a problem. No, our keys are not from a hotel minibar and orderable over the Internet, and no, they're not all the same. No, we didn't miscount this race in this way or that race in that way." If they deny it enough, everyone will know that it's true. Oddly, though, in this case it actually WILL be true.
So I think we should also allege that they have sex with barnyard animals.
It's a few days early... (Score:3)
...for April Fools, isn't it? I mean, this isn't serious, is it? It's a joke, right?
Business as usual in government purchasing (Score:4, Informative)
Vote counting (Score:3, Funny)
How much will this suit cost Diebold? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's especially surprising is that this move comes after a recent Diebold SEC filing suggested that Diebold is considering leaving the voting machine business [arstechnica.com] because the bad PR the company has received is starting to affect its much more important ATM business. Banks don't want to put a machine in front of its customers whose manufacturer gets accused of building shoddy voting equipment every time an election is held.
Just got my lawsuit from GM! (Score:3, Funny)
Think of the case law... (Score:4, Interesting)
I suppose *that* particular situation is taken care of by the fact you get a machine with Windows whether you want to or not, for the most part, but if this were actually allowed, and actually went for Diebold (God forbid), then this litigenous society will have been taken to a whole new level:
"You made the wrong choice flying SouthWest. Buy a ticket on United now or we'll sue."
"You purchased Fords for your fleet vehicles when Chevy is the obviously better choice. Switch or we'll sue."
etc.
Now that I think about it, consider the NEW Pepsi challenge:
"I like the taste of cup A."
"You've made the wrong choice. Say you like what's in cup B or we'll sue."
"Um...I like the taste of cup B?"
"Great! Tell us why!"
Well obviously.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some Selection Criteria is Not Quantifiable. (Score:4, Informative)
SOP Public Agency Contracting (Score:3, Interesting)
When the 600 lb. gorilla doesn't get the contract these are some of the tricks:
1. Back-room negotiating with the agency. (re: Microsoft/ODF in MA)
2. Negotiate with the contract winner to have _the contract winner_ become a sub-contractor to the 600 lb. gorilla "or else." Very common.
3. Arrange some campaign donations and kick the issue upstairs to have the contract awarded to the 600 lb. gorilla. (re: Microsoft/ODF in MA)
When those steps don't work, then the litigation flies.
Just because diebold the
Manufacturers. Grrr. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of the size of the contract award the thing went out for open bid - and I was contacted by another printer manufacturer. I won't tell you their name, but their initials are L-e-x-m-a-r-k.
Strongarm tactics ensue. First the local contracting office asked me to define printing and scanning requirements as the Other Printer Company believes they can meet my requirements at a lower cost - but we won't mention the fact that all the supplies I have in stock are from the Printer Company I Wanted To Use and adding another hardware vendor would be a logistical nightmare.
So - starting with the network scanners I start looking at hardware specs. The Other Printer Company says they can meet my requirements, but since a digital sender is an input device as opposed to an output device, I would have to get the new hardware certifiied by the network spies and I don't have time to do that, so for that part of the procurement I got the hardware I requested.
The printers were another matter. Once you've specified dpi, print speed and networking capabilities you've pretty much got to go with whoever brings the lowest bid - so the Other Printer Company won that.
During the acquisition process I felt like I was being strongarmed by the Other Printer Company and since I couldn't give a good reason not to use their hardware I have to use it. If I'd have had a week instead of a day to process the procurement I probably could have.
I have learned that I need to fine-tune my hardware requirements to keep it from happening again - but manufacturers can and will sue the government for buying from somebody else.
This is not uncommon (Score:4, Interesting)
Government acquisition contracts are supposed to go to the best product. Determining "best" is supposed to be based on an objective vendor selection process where certain aspects of each product are given a score, and the aggregate makes the decision. These vendor selection processes are sometimes not written well, often by people who don't really understand what it is they are comparing.
Let me give you an example from one vendor selection I worked on, for Ethernet switches. One of the criteria was "Supported VLANs." The product with the most supported VLANs was given a 1, and anyone less was given a fraction thereof equivilant to how many it supported. In this case, vendor A supported 4096 VLANs, while Vendor B supported 1024 VLANs. In this one criteria, vendor A was four times better than Vendor B, even though we only needed support for, at most, a dozen VLANs, which both devices could easily support.
In this instance, our complaints were heard and the problems were corrected.
However, often, this doesn't happen, and bogus criteria is used to make a decision.
On rare occasions, though, you'll even see vendor selection criteria written by people who've made a decision on which vendor they want to purchase, and the criteria is skewed to ensure that a certain product is purchased. This is rarely corruption, usually it's someone who already "knows" that a given product is better, and is simply trying to "make sure the right decision is made." For example, a Linux zealot writing vendor selction criteria for deciding on whether to go with Linux or Microsoft servers.
The exact vendor selection criteria, often being secret, leaves vendors that had reasonable belief that they should have won completely baffled as to why they lost. Unlike commercial transactions, where there is no recourse, they can bring the case to court to see if there was any improper behavior in the vendor selection process.
This actually benefits the taxpayer, as it gives oversight to procurment which is paid for by your tax dollars.
Just because in this case it's a company nobody likes, everyone is crying foul. But, in reality, it's a Good Thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe one of the criteria was "Cannot be unlocked with a hotel wet bar key."
W T F ? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well, let's see here, Diebold... you have no permanent record, you have a litany of hacks, your top management has a strong candidate bias on record, you act like assholes and sue everybody you don't like. Case dismissed with prejudice, get out of my court and stay out of my state. Diebold to pay all legal bills, back to the founding fathers."
No surprise given the systems. (Score:4, Informative)
For those unfamiliar with the dispute AutoMARK is a ballot marking system that allows voters with disabilities to use a touchscreen, keypad, or "binary switch" (sip and puff or gell-pad for people with no hands or little control over said hands say due to parkinson's or stroke) to fill out a printed ballot. The voter's choices are marked on the ballot using an ink that makes them suitable for scanning by any standard optical scanner (including the Diebold and ES&S scanners used in Massachusetts. The advantage of this system is that it enables voters with disabilities to cast the same type of ballot as everyone else thus avoiding the second-class-voter problem.
Diebold has no such device. In juristictions that use Diebold systems for accessibility, voters with disabilities cast their vote on a Diebold AccuVote-TS or TSX, a touchscreen Direct-Recording-Electronic system. Such votes are saved to the machine's internal flash disk and tallied at the end of the night separately from the votes cast on the optical scanners by every other person.
This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, this means deploying two parallel voting systems on election day and tallying them separately. In effect this creates two classes of voters and subjects disabled voters to using a second-tier system. Similarly Diebold has yet to deploy the same range of accessibility features as are available on the AutoMark. For example they have yet to produce a usable "binary-switch" system.
For that reason I find it unlikely that Diebold will win this case because they are selling, quite simply, an inferior product.
I give it 4 out of 5 black flies in my Chardonnay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense (no, really!) (Score:5, Informative)
If it were as you say, it would almost make sense.
Re:Makes sense (no, really!) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I have no faith in logic or reason at any level of government or the courts, anymore. I have seen them agree to too many things that simply boggle the mind.
The basis for their suit is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine the rational goes something like this:
"The secretary of state's office set their requirments for a voting machine contract, and invited bids. We have looked at the bid they accepted, and looked at ours. We believe our bid meets the criteria far more closely than the bid that was accepted, and we think any objective observer would agree. We don't think anything improper went on, but we do believe that the state has not selected a vendor in line with the rules they laid out. There for, the process has not treated us fairly"
In a nutshell, they're saying the state did not fairly apply their own rules. If they had, Diebold believe they would have won.