Diebold says e-voting sales have failed

According to an AP article released today, Diebold, one of the prominent makers of the recently embattled electronic voting machines, says that the company has failed to make its e-voting business profitable. If you'll recall, Diebold machines have repeatedly been the target of various hacks, many of which have proven the machine to be susceptible to intrusion from outside elements and thus unreliable from a security standpoint. The company has reduced its revenue outlook by $120 million, and has plans to allow its e-voting unit to operate more independently, giving the team its own board of directors and possibly a new management structure. To complete the overhaul of the ailing division, the company will also change the name of the branch from "Diebold Election Systems" to the starkly different "Premier Election Systems." Diebold blames the "rapidly evolving political uncertainties and controversies surrounding state and jurisdiction purchases of electronic voting systems," for much of its problems... as opposed to the fact that they currently produce faulty, unprotected, and unreliable machines.

[Xzavier @ Aug 17th 2007 8:41AM]

Well I don't know if their e-voting business is profitable, however I do think that Diebold accomplish a few things between the years 2000 to current. Anybody see the HBO special Hacking Democracy?

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/index.html
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

[oshean @ Aug 17th 2007 8:44AM]

What Diebold is REALLY saying is that they are now open to bribes.

[Andir3.0 @ Aug 17th 2007 8:57AM]

Maybe if they put out a machine that was secure and accurate, the governments would actually buy it.

[Alex @ Aug 17th 2007 9:40AM]

No, government tends not to be that logical.
;)

[Sam @ Aug 17th 2007 9:34AM]

FAIL

[Aaronson @ Aug 17th 2007 10:06AM]

My vote is for Dr. Evil / Mini Me.

[Gordy @ Aug 17th 2007 9:52AM]

It was bound to fail. No way the powers that be could have a fair election. The way I see it, the [remote] potential for hacking far outweighs paper ballots submitted by people who have been dead for five years--not to mention the efficiency gains.

[Gordy @ Aug 17th 2007 9:54AM]

It was bound to fail. No way the powers that be could have a fair election. The way I see it, the [remote] potential for hacking far outweighs paper ballots submitted by people who have been dead for five years--not to mention the efficiency gains.

Chads, anyone?

[Gaz @ Aug 17th 2007 9:57AM]

Yeah! I'd vote for Superman/Batman

[rossum @ Aug 17th 2007 10:02AM]

"rapidly evolving political uncertainties" = Republican loss of stranglehold on government.

[Argot @ Aug 17th 2007 10:30AM]

Hmm, according to the data I have from my Diebold suvery machines they are a smashing and complete success...

[J @ Aug 24th 2007 2:53PM]

These guys are borderline criminal in their 'negligence', and with any luck they'll be out of business before the next election.

[BigD145 @ Aug 17th 2007 11:46AM]

The fact that these things will change your vote all on their own is a huge problem. This is one of many places where tech has no place. Paper ballots! Have each state grow their own grove of trees specifically for elections and label them all as national treasures.

[Rihahn @ Aug 17th 2007 12:04PM]

Translation: "The heat is on, and the upper managment of Diebold would rather not be associated with all of the legal issues that are coming this year."

[Todd @ Aug 17th 2007 12:17PM]

The thing that always gets me is the lack of a paper trail. Hell, when I was a waiter, I needed a paper trail for all my sales; did they really think they could skip out on a paper trail for voting machines?