While it's the same company isn't it a bit of a stretch? It's like saying Microsoft is awful because they make an awful search engine Bing.
Full disclosure: I am a former employee (I worked on the product mentioned in this article), but I joined the company much after the voting machines were in the news, so what I know is pretty much what was in the media at the time.
Either way, you have a point. If anything, the efforts of hackers have upped the requirements of anyone who still has the guts to produce voting machines (and created awareness of the increased costs with their customers) and this is a good thing.
Nedap voting machines were proven to be insecure, and Nedap tried everything to keep that quiet, including legal threats against those who disclosed those vulnerabilities. The way Nedap tried to manipulate political opinion with half truths and misdirection was also rather dubious.
And yes, it was very specifically Nedap's machines that were the subject of discussion in the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany.
Of course Nedap's machines were the ones in the news, as they were the only machines that were used. I was simply saying that my impression at the time (as a normal person watching TV) was that the discussion was more about how voting machines should not be used for elections unless they can be proven to be secure and have guaranteed integrity (something the Nedap machines failed by public opinion). I am sure that if The Netherlands, Ireland and Germany had used machines with similar issues from another manufacturer, the same discussion would have taken place. This is a good thing™, shit like this scares the living daylights out of me: http://www.truth-out.org/new-court-filing-reveals-how-2004-o...
I cannot speak for the company's conduct at the time, because I simply don't know enough about it :)
The big reason: regulation. The banking industry, as with the health care industry, is highly regulated. The election industry is not, because no one's really been making them until recently.