> the problem isn't technical but rather social, organizational, and political I would disagree with you here. The problem isn't social, or political. The prob

> the problem isn't technical but rather social, organizational, and political I would disagree with you here. The problem isn't social, or political. The problem is one of economics. It simply isn't in the interests of those manufacturing the voting machines to make them secure. They go unpunished for flaws, and it isn't legal, most of the time, for anyone to try and peak beneath the covers and see if there are flaws present. They have no incentive to make things secure, and can simply attack anyone who tries to look at their security, with a high degree of success. In a simple cost/benefit analysis, it is cheaper to ignore security. They will continue to get the government contracts, regardless of whether or not they are deemed to be more or less secure than their competition. Why would they bother?