Talk:Premier Election Solutions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Diebold -> Permier

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)

[edit] Security Issues

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

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

[edit] Article merger

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)

[edit] cleanup

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

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)

[edit] Links to wrong Stephen Heller

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.

[edit] Link to National Election Data Archive

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)

[edit] Princeton

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)

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)
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)

[edit] References section needs help

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)

[edit] Name change

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)


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)

[edit] Diebold tampering with this page

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)


[edit] reference 16

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

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)

[edit] Kathy Dopp could help

[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)