Why is it only a problem if fraud has already been perpetrated? Isn’t a clearly demonstrated potential for fraud — in and of itself — a major cause for concern?

Read this article:

San Jose Mercury Column

Then tell me where you disagree with it.

I’m waiting.

Well, a “corrupt voting system” needs to be shown to have been corrupted. Incompetence at making a reliable and secure voting system does not make it corrupt unless someone has used its weaknesses.

sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
an electoral system must be demonstrably solid and transparent from the get-go — clearly, any POTENTIAL for corruption should be eliminated before the vote takes place.

what’s more, the system has to be properly auditable, with some sort of paper trail at every level.

it would also help if the company assigned to manage it *wasn’t* a serious contributor to any political party — go to http://opensecrets.org , use “Diebold” as a search phrase, and you’ll see what i mean.

Well, a “corrupt voting system” needs to be shown to have been corrupted. Incompetence at making a reliable and secure voting system does not make it corrupt unless someone has used its weaknesses.

And the “extensive research” published only shows there is unprotected data which can be accessed directly. There are numerous pleas for study of the discovered code — until someone truly does “extensive research” of that code and understands what it does, guessing as to what it does and guessing at the meaning of file names…is just guessing and wishful thinking. (If I could be paid, I could understand it in short order. But I don’t have time to volunteer.)