Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Post Number: 1007
Best of Black Box?
|Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 1:31 am: |
It's easy to see that letters such as these would be very convincing to election officials. How many of them would have the confidence to refute the technical assertions made so confidently in these letters from Diebold, a Secretary of State, etc.? Not many, if any.
They are incredibly intimidating, and would make it really uncomfortable for someone to take a stand against them.
The writers of these letters seem to be getting into very dangerous water with their smearing of BBV. They seem confident that everyone will roll over and play dead.
Or maybe they just plan on doing enough PR damage via election officials that BBV's name will be mud and therefore nothing from BBV will be taken seriously. Additionally, election officials could show this material to the media, giving the media confidence that the Diebold position is the correct one, and not to pay attention to info coming out of BBV.
Regardless of their inaccuracy the pieces of correspondence are very damaging to BBV, and it seems clear that this was their systematic purpose.
Has BBV gotten many inquiries to question the accuracy of the reassurances and technical information coming from Diebold? Have election officers/boards started to wake up yet to the fact that they have a very big problem on their hands because of the technical deficiencies of the equipment their vendors have falsely assured them is okay?
Do election officials/boards have complete confidence in their being at no personal risk of liability through their inaction and/or false assurances?
And what about Diebold? They must have very deep pockets for their legal team, to allow such kind of blatantly false statements to go out. They must be trusting that their PR damage-limitation exercise will do the trick. And/or they must trust that they can corrupt the legal system enough to avoid any major judgments against them. Or they must assume that their legal resources can use delaying tactics to make others give up or to wait till election reform groups run out of money.