One company controls the whole system
When a single company supplies the machines, the software, and the support — and nothing requires the system to work with anyone else — that one company becomes a single point of failure, and a single point of pressure, over the whole election.
Explainer video coming soon
A 60-second, plain-language walkthrough of this gap.
What actually happened
In the U.S., three companies — Dominion, ES&S, and Hart InterCivic — run roughly 90% of voting, and all three are privately held and keep their source code closed. That concentration means a problem, a pressure campaign, or a compromise at one vendor reaches an enormous share of the vote at once.
Where it stands today
This is the current market, not a historical one (MIT Technology Review, 2024). The figure above measures whether today's rules require systems that aren't locked to a single vendor.
All your eggs, one basket, one company
When one company supplies the machines, the software, and the support — and nothing requires the system to interoperate with anyone else — that company becomes a single point of failure and a single point of pressure over the election. If it has a bug, a breach, or simply gets leaned on, the blast radius is enormous.
Why it matters
In the U.S., three vendors — Dominion, ES&S, and Hart — run roughly 90% of voting, and all three are privately held with closed source. That's not a hypothetical concentration; it means one vendor's problem can touch a huge share of the national vote at once, with no ready alternative.
How TrustVoting closes it
TrustVoting is open and standards-based — open-source code, open formats, open verifier tools — so jurisdictions aren't captive to one company, and no single vendor sits as a chokepoint over the count.
How TrustVoting closes it
TrustVoting's open, standards-based, open-source design means jurisdictions aren't captive to one vendor — the system, formats, and verifier tools are open, so no single company is a chokepoint over the count.