Voting machine vendors are their own worst enemies:
The study, conducted by the university under a contract with Bowen’s office, examined machines sold by Diebold Election Systems, Hart InterCivic and Sequoia Voting Systems. It concluded that they were difficult to use for voters with disabilities and that hackers could break into the systems and change vote results. Machines made by a fourth company, Elections Systems & Software, were not included because the company was late in providing information that the secretary of state needed for the review, Bowen said. Sequoia, in a statement read by systems sales executive Steven Bennett, called the UC review “an unrealistic, worst-case-scenario evaluation.”
Right. Because the way to tell if a system is secure is to focus at the best-case scenario.