[Bluestrike2]

They don't actually have any influence in the purchase decisions, as it's a state matter. Machines are bought by local governments, with varying state regulations on what can be purchased depending on the state in question. Most machines were paid for by local jurisdictions with a mix of federal funding (HAVA), and in some cases, state funds for part of the cost. Some states have uniform systems; others do not.[0] On election day, there isn't just "one" election but thousands taking place.

There's no single procedure for procuring voting machines, well, anywhere.

To make matters worse, each jurisdiction and the states are fiercely protective of their power in this matter. A federally uniform system, or even just something beyond the very basic requirements set by the Help America Vote Act in 2002, is right now very unlikely and would be a massive political and legal mess. Or, more accurately, a series of messes.

0. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-can...

[ams6110]

> There's no single procedure for procuring voting machines, well, anywhere.

And that's probably a good thing. Heterogeneity in this sort of thing is desirable, as it makes large-scale fraud harder to pull off.

[athenot]

Not if all these heterogenous procurement processes end up buying from the same 3 vendors.

[specialist]

Scott Adams (Dilbert) coined a term that applies to the voting machine vendor certification procurement racket: confusopoly.

[amanaplanacanal]

And nobody apparently wants to spend any more money on elections, even though it's actually going to take money to fix the problems.

[specialist]

In addition, there's no uniform certification process. EAC.gov made things a wee bit better, but it's an advisory role.