Global Communications?
You have some misinformation in your 12/10 column, “Was the 2004 Election Stolen.” In the column, you stated that “In Ohio, more than 35 counties used Diebold machines...” in the 11/2 election. For your information, Ohio decided earlier in the year that there was not adequate time to implement new voting systems prior to the election on November 2. If you read our announcement in which I believe you’re referring (which is nearly a year old) closely , it clearly states that “Half of the 71 Ohio counties eligible to select an electronic voting system provider have preliminarily chosen Diebold Election Systems.” To date, these systems have not been installed. In the interest of accuracy in reporting, we would appreciate a clarification in your publication.
Also, Diebold had systems in only 2 counties in Ohio on election day—Lucas (which went to Sen. Kerry by a wide margin) and Hardin (a very small jurisdiction in NW Ohio). Both used paper-based optical scan systems. Elsewhere in the country, our touchscreen systems were used predominantly, and with very positive feedback, in Georgia, Maryland, California (Alameda County), Texas and Kansas. None of which were swing states in the presidential election.
Also, as of June 2, 2004, Diebold’s Board of Directors authorized a change to the company’s corporate ethics policy to address the importance of the issue of political bias. In recognition of the necessity for strict neutrality concerning political candidates and issues, the chief executive officer, president, and chief financial officer of Diebold, Incorporated and those Diebold, Incorporated executives identified by the Company as responsible for the oversight of its election systems companies, as well as all employees of those companies, may not make contributions to, directly or indirectly, any political candidate, party, election issue or cause, or participate in any political activities, except for voting.
To view the Diebold, Incorporated business ethics policy, visit:
http://nocache.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?tic cker=DBD&script=2250#top
Also, FYI, there has been another statistical study that refutes the findings of the earlier Cal-Berkeley study, re: electronic voting in Florida. You can read about this at
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65896,00.html. You may need to clarify this as well.
Mike Jacobsen
Director, Global Communications
Diebold, Incorporated