The fact here is that Ciber Inc. was not certifed for further voting machine testing because of deficiencies found in their quality control system -- without much more detail. The rest of the article is speculation by many different speculators.

Viewpoints represented fairly, but historical context is lacking. It seems like a serious omission not to mention Black Box Voting, which found this problem three years ago, and aired the problems with Ciber Labs in the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy". Does not make clear what news event triggered this article. Not enough evidence to cover all statements. Not well organized.

The critical nature of the topic deserved much more rigorous backgrounding and competent analysis, including: error rate comparisons between technologies, problem histories with attributions, and all aspects of manufacture, testing and implementation that deserve special scrutiny.

Slightly incoherent piece, but full of troubling information about the failure to insure that electronic voting machines do what they are designed to do.

This article doesn't really describe the issues - what are the challenges of testing voting machines? What are the areas of potential errors? What is required to establish the level of trust that the public (and the law) demands? How can the public be assured that this technology is better than what we have now?