Hi - I think there is a problem with the naming of this -- in your first article you indicated that the problems were with electronic voting machines but not solely Diebolds - yet the title of this article implies it is solely Diebold. Unless there is a compelling argument a more generic title would be more appropriate - --Bob Burton 02:19, 13 Nov 2004 (EST)
- Good point. Linked to electoral fraud via voting machine to deal with exactly this larger issue. Anything about those vulnerabilities in general, i.e. those common to Diebold and ES&S and others - can go there.
- However, in the specific case of this alleged Diebold Election Systems electoral fraud, 2004, there have been only small or minor issues that have been reported with ES&S, and by far the most serious allegations have been w.r.t. Diebold GEMS central tabulator software and the Diebold touchscreen voting machines - if you want to do something really useful, find all the model names and numbers of all those machines! So it's worth it to have a page on JUST the margin arising from the problems blamed so far on Diebold exclusively.
- If there are issues with ES&S then an ES&S margin page can also be created, and if they add up to enough votes but neither those nor the Diebold margin is enough alone, then, both allegations would have to be true before we'd see a shift in the Electoral College.
- So, I think this is the compelling argument to keep Diebold margin as a title.
- Answered on the talk page to the other naming concerns. The way to resolve a provocative/liability-causing name is to use alleged Diebold Election Systems electoral fraud, 2004. Sadly we must include the year since there were also serious allegations of similar fraud in 2000 and 2002! Which will require a page each of their own for sure.