Secondly, the major parties probably want to keep things as they are because they both think they can steal the next election. Like a defeated ball team, they think "We'll get 'em next year!" and they go back to business as usual as the opposition (which may not be that opposed to anything the winners want to do anyway, except for those on the fringes).
What will change this?
1. Big campaign donors demanding that the system be fixed. This is no different than any other issue nowadays. You have to pay to play. I hope I'm wrong of course, but it seems to work.
2. Lawsuits could work but the right ones aren't being filed and when they are, the courts are not yet educated about the risks of computerized vote counting, so they punt to election officials and legislators i.e., "It's not my yob man!" Some cases drag on for years and when there's a favorable decision, nothing happens and it's appealed. A long-term effort to educate lawyers and judges is needed.
3. The movement is still hopelessly divided. Torches and pitchforks don't get the respect of academics and scientists. Most lawyers are clueless! More collaboration is needed.
4. Finally, this is a really hard problem to solve! Audits are complicated, but they're the only way to know who won other than full hand counts. No one wants to do the math or the work. So entrepreneurs selling more automation may get the business by lobbying officials who don't want to count by hand. Less auditable forms of voting are also being popularized such as National Popular Vote, Instant Runoff, etc., etc. Again, no collaboration among advocates for this stuff. If there were, we could have hand-counted Presidential elections based on the Popular Vote.
And then there's Internet voting....
= new reply since forum marked as read