It's not about them seeing the "commercial advantage" in free market terms; it's about mandating a particular approach (in this case, open hardware and software from top to bottom) because it's the only way to insure that the basic infrastructure used in elections works. This is not a case where the whims of the market should decide the approach taken.
If no one gets rich on the design and implementation of electronic voting systems, that's fine. I'd rather see it run by well-intentioned, poorly-paid academics within a strict peer-review model than by unknown private entities.
If no one gets rich on the design and implementation of electronic voting systems, that's fine. I'd rather see it run by well-intentioned, poorly-paid academics within a strict peer-review model than by unknown private entities.