[Macross8299]

I suppose it's more politically expedient to blame the companies trying to rationally minimize cost rather than risk reprimanding and alienating state and local officials who sign contracts for voting machines without any sort of serious security, auditing or compliance provisions.

This sure does seem like grandstanding from these senators. Probably not unrelated to fallout from the Mueller report.

[munificent]

> reprimanding and alienating state and local officials who sign contracts for voting machines without any sort of serious security, auditing or compliance provisions.

What other options do these officials have?

The companies have the choice to improve their security of their hardware at the possible expense of lowering their profit margins.

Whenever you're deciding who to point the finger at, one simple rule is "Can this person actually effect change?" If the answer is "no", then blaming them isn't helpful.

[Macross8299]

>What other options do these officials have?

Paper voting, for one. If no system is offered that is secure enough, then the default should be no electronic voting system at all and just paper voting. It's scaled fine for hundreds of years and has clear processes in place for custody of ballots.

>The companies have the choice to improve their security of their hardware at the possible expense of lowering their profit margins.

You can't expect companies to just "make a choice" to lower profit margins without some sort of (dis)incentive or external pressure like regulation. It's unrealistic. Companies exist to make their principals money. It's the government's job to check that and make sure that the companies are acting in public interest while they pursue profit.

Local and state officials definitely can effect change on this level since they are often the ones in charge of the procurement process.

[munificent]

> Paper voting, for one.

The election official's budget may simply not be able to afford that.