Fact check: How did the 2024 election voting machine audits affect election results?

1. Summary of the results

The 2024 election voting machine audits produced largely reassuring results regarding election integrity. Wisconsin conducted a comprehensive audit that found zero voting machine errors, hacking, or tampering ^{[1] [2]}. This audit involved hand-counting nearly 10% of all Wisconsin ballots cast in the 2024 election and discovered only five human errors, resulting in an extraordinarily low error rate of 0.0000009% ^[1].

Election technology and cybersecurity experts have debunked claims of widespread fraud or voting machine hacking, finding such theories to be "technically incoherent or based on misinformation" ^[3]. The audits confirmed that voting machines functioned accurately and supported the integrity of the election results ^[1].

Various states have established post-election audit procedures with different types, scopes, timing, and actions for addressing discrepancies ^[4]. These systematic checks and safeguards are designed to maintain electoral integrity ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question omits several important contextual factors that emerged from the analyses:

• Concerns about pre-election voting system changes: There were questions raised about modifications to voting systems approved by Pro V&V, a federally accredited testing lab, ahead of the 2024 election ^[6]. While Pro V&V's director stated these changes were "not significant," this created some uncertainty.
• Audit quality varies significantly by state: A critical report found that post-election audits in swing states were "inadequate" and lacking "transparency" ^[7]. This suggests that while some states like Wisconsin conducted thorough audits, others may not have provided the same level of verification.
• Legal challenges and ongoing disputes: There were lawsuits questioning election accuracy, indicating that not all parties accepted the audit results as definitive ^[6].
• Technical infrastructure concerns: Issues with the maintenance and security practices of Pro V&V's website raised questions about trust in the voting machine certification process ^[6].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual, simply asking about the impact of audits on election results. However, the framing could potentially:

• Imply that audits significantly altered results: The question's phrasing might suggest that audits had a substantial impact on election outcomes, when in fact the Wisconsin audit confirmed the accuracy of the original machine counts with minimal discrepancies ^[1].
• Overlook the variation in audit quality: By asking generally about "audits," the question doesn't acknowledge that audit effectiveness varied significantly between states, with some being deemed inadequate ^[7].
• Miss the broader context of misinformation: The question doesn't address that many claims about voting machine problems were found to be "technically incoherent" by experts ^[3], suggesting that some concerns about audits may have been driven by unfounded conspiracy theories rather than legitimate technical issues.