Voting Rights: The President of Diebold Tries to Mislead the Public About the Cost of Electronic Voting Machines

by Eric Jaffa, Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Thomas W. Swidarski, president of Diebold

The New York Times published an editorial on March 9 in support of optical-scan (fill-in-the-oval) ballots, accurately noting that they're less expensive than touchscreen machines and inherently provide paper records checked by the voters. The editorial recommended optical scan-ballots for New York State.

The president of Diebold, a company which makes touchscreen voting machines, responded in a letter to the New York Times ("For Voting Machines We Can Trust," Mar. 14, 2005):

…Optical-scan machines are not "far cheaper than touch-screens." Per unit, the cost of optical scanners is about $1,000 more than a typical touch-screen machine.

Thomas W. Swidarski
President, Diebold Election Systems
McKinney, TX

The president of Diebold, a manufacturer of touchscreens, is intentionally trying to mislead the public.

With an optical-scan ballot system, only one optical scanner per precinct is typically needed.

Many people can vote simultaneously by filling in their optical-scan ballots with one scanner in the room.

With an optical-scan voting system, each voter just needs a table to lean against. If there are 16 tables, then 16 people can vote at once, for the cost of one scanner.

With electronic voting machines, multiple machines are needed.

Buying 16 electronic voting machines is much more expensive than buying one optical-scanner.

The president of Diebold knows all this.

However, he's a con man. He wrote that letter for the purpose of deceving the public, to swindle taxpayers out of millions of dollars.

Do we want his company counting our votes?

A company shameless enough to try to mislead the public in an open forum, cannot be trusted to count votes in secret.

The New York Times published a letter on Sunday responding to Thomas W. Swidarski intentionally misleading statement about the relative costs of optical-scanners and touchscreens ("Optical-Scan Voting, March 20, 2005):

The statement by the president of Diebold Election Systems, Thomas W. Swidarski, that the "per unit" cost of optical scanners exceeds that of electronic voting machines is comparing apples and oranges (letter, March 14).

Here in Rhode Island, a single optical scanner serves more than a dozen foldup paper-ballot voting booths at a single polling location.

How about a true accounting of the cost per voter served?

John Duke
Providence, R.I.
March 14, 2005

By the way, this article is about the president of Diebold, who DIDN'T write in 2003 "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

That was the CEO of Diebold, Wally O'Dell.