>One line of this story is still unclear to me - back in 2000 the Diebold machines were proven to be easily hackable, and there's a track record that they were hacked. In many places they would show fewer votes on one candidate than they showed an hour before, while the other candidate would show an increase larger than the number of ballots cast meanwhile. Written in Access (!)... And yet there was a serious push to install these machines in as many places as possible, probably by Diebold's sales force and their (secretly?) paid representatives. And then this part of the story vanished. Not that I really tried to know what happened with this later, but it's a bit surprising that there were four elections after this and I haven't heard of Diebold. > >1. Do you have any evidence to back up this fairy tale? Sheesh. Talk about conspiracy theories.... >2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold
