Diebold Voting Machines in California

Why is it that the most controversial decisions in government just happen to come out on Fridays? And why is that Republicans are in love with Diebold voting machines? Steve Soto of The Left Coaster has the latest on Diebold machines in California:

In one of those moves that make you wonder how much Diebold has contributed to his campaign for election this fall, California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, who was appointed to the job by Arnold Schwarzenegger as a good government Republican after Democrat Kevin Shelley made enough ethical mistakes to warrant his departure, waited until late Friday to announce that he was letting Diebold back into the state for this year’s elections. This came after McPherson had earlier bounced Diebold equipment because of security lapses in other states, and after he had sent the issue to the federal government for Diebold to demonstrate its compliance with the security provisions of the Help America Vote Act.

I've worked on election boards with honest Republicans. It simply is not difficult to count ballots and to do it right and agree on results. Back in the days when we did hand counts, generally only about one or two ballots out of a hundred would be rejected, usually for a double vote. Optical scanning is not free of potential abuse but if people are committed to honest elections, it's very simple to verify that the electronic scanning of card ballots is accurate by doing random hand counts of those ballots. I have no faith in Diebold computer voting whatsoever. The entire computer and electronic sector is having security problems and I have seen nothing that makes me believe the Diebold machines come close to passing security issues.

The issue for 2006 is basic and simple: a return to a government that is reasonably transparent and honest.