A human error caused a batch of votes in a school board election to beentered twice in the totals. A recent software "upgrade" broke thecode that was supposed to warn if anyone made such a mistake.The error was detected later and corrected, but more important thanthat one election is what this tells us about all elections that usethose machines: the manufacturer could rig an election by installing abent "upgrade".I see no reason to think the manufacturer tried intentionally to doanything wrong in this instance. The bug had an effect this time onlybecause of a human error, and the human had no reason to try such anerror intentionally since it was probably going to be detected.However, another manufacturer (or some employee) could intentionally"upgrade" the software wrong, some other time.The article doesn't say which jobs those machines actually do. Howsignificant this potential vulnerability is depends on that question.