Talk:Premier Election Solutions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diebold -> Permier[edit]

this sentence sounds like marketing-blabla because i couldn't find any information that more than the name has changed:

In this incarnation, the organization is much more autonomous from the main Diebold company, both financially and regarding decision making.

and the real reasons are obviously named here http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393084/index.htm ;)

--Taintain 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Security Issues[edit]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4066

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.62.247.10 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Article merger[edit]

I've started a thread at Talk:Diebold#Diebold Election Systems about merging this article with the Diebold article. JamesMLane 07:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where does the 80% figure come from? 22:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

cleanup[edit]

This article needs serious cleanup. Anyone want to help? -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created some section titles and moved stuff around, so we can at least see what's going on in this article. Lots more to do though. Kisch 11:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to wrong Stephen Heller[edit]

Page links to the unrelated composer Stephen Heller, not a new stub

I contacted Kathy Dopp of the newly formed National Election Data Archive, who has all the last minute information about Diebold. I hope she will post.

Link to National Election Data Archive[edit]

Here is the link to the National Election Data Archive, headed by Kathy Dopp.

Originally a group of statisticians compared the national 2006 election exit polls to the voting results and determined that mathematically the differences were too great to explain in any legitimate way. However it was not possible to get all the data needed to prove this definitively.

They formed NEDA with the purpose of creating a national database of election results to bring transparency to the election process. With all the numbers available, any statistician could do the math.

As part of this mission, NEDA follows the Diebold situation and lobbies for voter-verified ballots. A record of their activities, with many articles about the Diebold machines, can be found on this website: 

 USA Count Votes   
--Aenb 13:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton[edit]

The Princeton [1] analysis of the Deibold's weakness has been referenced as further reading but not mentioned. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 12:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really should be added... and that section should be cleaned up to be less add-on to more narrative. -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this referance is added, counter point articles to this old article also have to be added so as not to violate NPOV 75.169.254.116 (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References section needs help[edit]

Hi, the references section of this article needs help. Each ref should use one of the WP:CITET templates. -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

As user:Rosicrucian noted,[2] Diebold Election Systems has announced that it's changing its name to "Premier Election Solutions". Their website has already changed over. The company's is governance structure is also being changed significantly. We'll need to move the article and we should add some text on the changes. I'll take care of the move. Though I can think of some good reasons to leave the article name unchanged, those are all overriden by the undeniable fact of the new name. Any other views? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


here is a link from PC World about the name change [[3]] Diebold Can't Sell E-Voting Subsidiary 75.169.253.116 (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diebold tampering with this page[edit]

Recently read this report on BBC: [4] Perhaps this might be included in the main body of the article? User talk:Anonymous(first time posting, hope I did correctly.) 04:06 19 August —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:53:05, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

That article talks about "Diebold", not "Diebold Election Systems". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


reference 16[edit]

is a blog... should be removed71.225.205.124 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that blogs normally aren't used as sources. However that blog was linked because it had a copy of some text from an NYT article. So instead of deleting it I fixed the link so it goes straight to the original article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Dopp could help[edit]

[moved to bottom because of 15 May 2008 edit]

I've alerted Kathy Dopp to the presence of this page. She runs the newly formed National Election Data Archive. Their purpose is to create a database for all election results so discrepancies are easily examined. She knows every last detail of the Diebold story.

Any contribution to this article by Kathy Dopp, or any other activist, would violate the Wikipedia is not a soapbox, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Further more, NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. This article all ready has issues with Neutrality WP:NPOV, Undue weight WP:Undue weight, Fairness of tone, Attributing and substantiating biased statements, and a news blog tone WP:NOT#NEWS. 75.169.254.116 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the link given just above, under "Diebold tampering with this page": "In October 2005, a person using a Diebold computer removed paragraphs about Walden O'Dell, chief executive of the company, which revealed that he had been "a top fund-raiser" for George Bush." I think it's a given that some of the people editing this article will have what Wikipedia considers to be a conflict of interest, and yes that's a problem, and the solution is to make sure that information in this article comes from the best of the available Reliable sources. I agree that there's a problem with tone, but the problem is that, for a variety of electronic voting machines used in the US, no one writing in a reliable source has ever made a case (that wasn't instantly rebutted) that they were tamper-proof. The only case that has been made (successfully) is that they didn't think it was likely that anyone would try. Any new information involving certification of tamper-proof features would be extremely welcome in this article, and would help to even out the tone. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any editing by people with conflicts of interest is not good and will most likely result in the NPOV becoming Biased. Since this is Voting related I think the [[5]] should be used as a reliable source. The EAC certifies the Voting machines and is the location where the most current information about what machines, software, and manufactures are certified for voting. Some States have their own state certification process and might be another place to find reliable sources. I would assume the EAC would have more neutrality then typical writers about voting machines. Where the State Certification reports could be biased by the testing labs and or certification report writers. 75.169.254.116 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, a political body is specifically not neutral about political matters; and on top of that, it's already clear in the article that the software was certified for use in the last election; and on top of that, that's not the question. The software was certified by various government officials as being "good enough" or "better than some alternatives", but no one has even tried to make the case that it is tamper-proof, and this more than any other issue is what contributes to the tone that you don't like in this article. Find a reliable source that supports your position, if that's what you want the article to say. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally agree with your point that "a political body is...(not) neutral about political matters, but in context of use the EAC could be used as a reliable sources. If we include information about what equipment is currently certified (EAC is the only source) as a counter point to some of the Voting related issue that are about outdated software, a more neutral article could be achived. For example, under software The Diebold GEMS central tabulator software, version 1.18.15 is called into question, the most current software according to the EAC [[6]] is 1.20.2 (Florida is rummored to have upgraded to that version, hard to find a reliable source to identify which states have updated) the EAC is also a reliable source to identify which products Premier Election Solutions is offering or has offered. Context can often determine whether a source can be used neutral reliable source. 75.169.253.116 (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to OWN the discussion; I've made my points. Anyone else want to respond to this? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only response is to point out that, fwiw, 75.169.254.116 has made no contributions to wikipedia apart from the 3 posts above and 1 on the actual article--Mongreilf (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admission of errors[edit]

They have now admitted that an error in their software causes votes to be dropped.[7]. Superm401 - Talk 04:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content Errors \ Cleanup[edit]

1. Removed: The following allegations have been unsourced for nearly 2 years:

"The software architecture common to both is a creation of Mr. Urosevich's company I-Mark[citation needed]. Some experts claim that this structure is easily compromised, in part due to its reliance on Microsoft Access databases. Britain J. Williams, responsible for certification of voting machines for the state of Georgia and a consultant to Diebold, has provided an assessment based on his accounting of potential exploits.[citation needed]"

2. Removed: The following allegations have been unsourced for 6 months:

"The Diebold GEMS central tabulator software, version 1.18.15 is at the center of controversy for apparent irregularities versus the 2004 United States presidential election exit polls. The Diebold AccuVote voting machine has also come under scrutiny especially by Ralph Nader's campaign.[citation needed]"

3. Removed: Clearly POV content, with a duplicative wikilink and unnecessary external link. Seems very much link an advertisement for a book:

"DESI claims its systems provide strong immunity to ballot tampering and other vote rigging attempts. These claims have been challenged, notably by Bev Harris on her website, Blackboxvoting.org, and book by the same name. Harris claims there is also evidence that the Diebold systems have been exploited to tamper with American elections — a claim Harris expands in her book Black Box Voting.'"

4. Edited: Language appears unencylopedic and potentially POV. (i.e. "votes disappear...")

'Orginal - "In June 2005, the Tallahassee Democrat reported that when given access to Diebold vote-counting computers, Bev Harris—a critic of Diebold's voting machines—was able to make 65,000 votes disappear simply by changing the memory card that stores voting results for one that had been altered."
'Edit' - "In June 2005, the Tallahassee Democrat reported that when given access to Diebold vote-counting computers, Bev Harris—a critic of Diebold's voting machines—was able to make alter vote totals by replacing the memory card that stores voting results with one that had been tampered with."

5. Removed: Entirely unsourced and clearly POV content:

"In early 2006 the Diebold Election Systems subsidiary came under considerable fire from alternate media sources for creating voting systems without reasonable auditing, no paper trail, security holes, and software bugs. The attention negatively affected Diebold stock (though elections are only a small part of their business) and triggered investigations in several states after insiders revealed irregular practices in Diebold's election division. Diebold was the first major vendor to experience a serious backlash from poor quality, service and preparation in the election industry, and condemnation of Diebold helped to focus attention on other vendors (ES&S)."

6. Edited: Content duplicative of previous paragraph. Prof Rubin already introduced along with school.

'Orginal - "According to Avi Rubin, the Johns Hopkins University computer science professor who first identified flaws in the technology in 2003"
'Edit' -"According to Professor Rubin"

71.178.193.134 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • * * * *

Notes on Sept 2009 edits

1. The usage of "Bev Harris" (an individual) in place of Black Box Voting (a 501c(3) nonprofit group) is inaccurate. There is no book for sale, by the way, and hasn't been for five years, so stop with the "advertising for a book" nonsense. "Bev Harris" did not execute the Tallahassee hack; this was a project conducted by and funded by Black Box Voting, the nonprofit, and to do this we hired Harri Hursti, who actually conducted the hack as the lead researcher for a Black Box Voting project. Bev Harris founded Black Box Voting, but isn't synonymous with the organization. Corrected attributions accordingly.

2. The characterization of the electronic voting controversy as one of open source vs. closed source is inaccurate. The issue is concealed counting vs. publicly observable counting (or alternatively, publicly observable input vs output); that's a longer discussion. This is now well articulated in a constitutional court case, have made the nature of the argument more precise in the section leading into security and concealment issues.

3. The 2005 hack reported in the Tallahassee Democrat was of the optical scan; it was conducted by Black Box Voting (not "Bev Harris") and was executed by Harri Hursti and Dr. Herbert Thompson. The 2006 hack which caused such consternation in Pennsylvania was of the TSx DRE machine; like the 2005 hack, it was conducted by Black Box Voting and executed by Harri Hursti, with on-site corroboration by Dr. Herbert Thompson. Corrected the attribution for this test.

4. The state of Florida and Diebold offered rebuttals to the 2005 hack, which was the hack shown in Hacking Democracy. However, the state of California report makes it explicitly clear that the Black Box Voting/Harri Hursti memory card attack performed in the 2005 study is real, accurate, and debunks the Diebold and Florida excuses. Therefore, it is important to include the study for California by the University of California scientists; added it.

5. The lawsuit in California was filed by Bev Harris and Jim March (filed before Black Box Voting existed, so in this case use of individual names is appropriate). The lawsuit was then "joined" by the state of California. In other words, lawsuit by Harris and March joined by California, resulting in the $2.6 million settlement.

6. The Stephen Spoonamore material is not particularly credible. I can find no evidence that he was a "long time Republican operative" so I deleted that sentence. I also see no evidence that he found anything "new" and in fact, some of his first report mixed up the program for the GEMS central tabulator run on a Windows NT machine with the Windows CE program run on the precinct touchscreens. Therefore, I find his studies to be factually weak. But more than that, I examined the campaign finance reports for Republican Party and John McCain and found no expenditures indicating he had ever been hired, nor for any of his companies. When I questioned reporters of this story about this, they said he said he may have been a volunteer for McCain. At any rate, I dug up an old (also non-credible) press release from Spoonamore from 2006 where he was claiming that the Republicans rigged the election. It seems unlikely that a John McCain operative (2007) would have written that piece back in 2006 if he was really a Republican operative. I would delete that whole paragraph if I felt bolder.

7. The Diebold memos were published on Black Box Voting .org and only AFTER the Diebold cease and desist order, issued Sept. 23 2003, shuts us down did any other sites post the memos. In fact about 32 sites published them. After defeating the cease and desist (which happened due to Kucinich's actions) Black Box Voting reposted the memos. I added the correct timeline on this and a link to the memos themselves. Realize that I should probably find a citation for that, would have to poke around, not sure how germane it is. But it is accurate to at least include Black Box Voting among the web sites that got shut down, since we were the first to publish and the first to get shut down, and we were shut down the longest.

8. The ES&S acquisition, because of the size (market share-wise), still needs review by the DoJ and FTC. It's not a done deal. I added that caveat to the end of the article. It could use a link to the Clayton Act.

Bev Harris (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Bev Harris[reply]

Ethical questions about Diebold personnel[edit]

This whole section is of dubious value to this article. The wired magazine that is the primary source for this section says that the employees named here left the company when PES acquired GES. If so, what is the relevance to an article about Premier? Bonewah (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashed again?[edit]

Have the Wikipedia articles on Diebold/Premier Elections Solutions been whitewashed again? For example, there is no longer any mention that that some of the people responsible for Global Election Systems's software (i.e. Jeff Dean) had previously been convicted for embezzlement and electronic fraud. --96.255.132.51 (talk)

Were there reliable sources for this? Without knowing the details, I believe it isn't unheard of for companies to hire security consultants with a history of crime - no one knows how to hack better than a hacker.   Will Beback  talk  03:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is probably talking about the edits I made and explained above. Here is the wired article I mentioned above, [8], what do you think? Was I right to remove it, or should it be in here? Bonewah (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand, GES became DES which became PES. So it's a direct corporate lineage. We do report on the CEO, but not lower level personnel. The Wired/AP article doesn't mention any actual harm caused. If this matter became more notable than a single article then it might be worth mentioning, but even then we probably wouldn't name the employees. I think leaving it out is appropriate unless there's more to it.   Will Beback  talk  17:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing deeper to my knowledge. Perhaps the reader would be well served if we put the salon article in the external link section. Im going to boldly do it, revert, discuss here if need be. Bonewah (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in terms of whitewashing I wonder why there is no reference to the "Rob Georgia" file involved in allegedly a 12% vote flip in the Max Cleland vs. Saxby Chambliss race in Georgia? Citing sources, e.g.: 1. Published on Thursday, March 10, 2005 by CommonDreams.org Teresa Heinz Kerry - Hacking the "Mother Machine"? by Thom Hartmann 

Democratic concern about electronic voting machines has floated around for several years, particularly since voting rights activist Bev Harris (of www.blackboxvoting.org) reported that she was Googling around the internet and stumbled across an FTP backdoor on Diebold's website that, just after the 2002 election, contained a folder titled "Rob Georgia." (Cleland's 2002 loss in Georgia helped hand control of the Senate back to the Republicans, who had lost it when Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the party to become an independent.)

In Georgia and Florida, where paper had been totally replaced by touch-screen machines in many to most precincts during 2001 and 2002, the 2002 election produced some of the nation's most startling precursors to the alarming shift from an "exit poll win" for Kerry to the "voting-machine win" for Bush in 2004.

2. In blackboxvoting.org, Harris: “What was rob-georgia?” Rob: “I believe what that file was for, I did a — well, there were a ton of holes with the programs on those machines. When they all came into the warehouse, I did a quality check; this was something I did on a Saturday. I found that 25 percent of the machines on the floor would fail KSU testing —” Dr. Clown Shoes (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update for Dominion sale[edit]

It might be good to update this article to reflect the recent sale of Premier assets from ES&S to Dominion voting. --Joebeone (Talk) 12:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Premier Election Solutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Premier Election Solutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Premier Election Solutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Premier Election Solutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Premier Election Solutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unburying history[edit]

I'm making a bunch of the content from here appear in the Dominion_Voting_Systems, which is lacking any of the history at the moment; without the change, you read the Dominion article and you have no idea the company has an uber-sordid history, which is absurd... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominion_Voting_Systems&diff=1004350951&oldid=1004213009 this is my first stab at it; using code like this: {{Excerpt}}. After discussing the problem on the talk page. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The history was reburied.:(--50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Raimundo57br and Luizpuodzius:[edit]

Se quiserem traduzir é só dar um toque. att 2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:4465:DE7A:A35B:FB33 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Premier_Election_Solutions&oldid=1198092844"