Fact check: What were the results of the 2024 election voting machine audits?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the available analyses, the results of 2024 election voting machine audits present a mixed picture with limited comprehensive data:

Wisconsin Audit Results: The most concrete audit results come from Wisconsin, where a post-election audit found zero errors in voting machine counts ^[1]. Out of 327,230 ballots that were hand-counted, only 5 human errors were detected, resulting in an extraordinarily low error rate of 0.0000009% ^[1]. This audit specifically validated Trump's election win in Wisconsin and strongly supported the integrity of machine vote counting in that state.

Technical Issues Reported: Some technical issues were reported on Election Day across the country, though sources indicate these did not constitute major security breaches ^[2]. The analyses suggest that while vulnerabilities exist in the US election system, including outdated voting infrastructure, there was no evidence of exploitation of these vulnerabilities in the 2024 election infrastructure ^{[2] [3]}.

Ongoing Legal Challenges: A lawsuit has been filed in Rockland County, New York, alleging voting discrepancies and concerns about untested software changes in voting machines ^{[4] [5] [6]}. The plaintiffs are requesting a full, transparent hand recount of the 2024 Presidential and Senate elections, citing statistical anomalies and concerns over voting machine accuracy ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements:

• Limited Geographic Scope: The available audit results primarily focus on Wisconsin, with legal challenges in New York. There is no comprehensive national overview of audit results across all states that conducted post-election audits ^[7].
• Conflicting Narratives: While Wisconsin's audit strongly supports machine accuracy, watchdog groups have expressed concerns over lack of transparency and potential flaws in voting systems elsewhere ^[5]. The lab director involved in the Rockland County case denied any significant changes to voting machines, but concerns persist about the verification process ^[5].
• Broader Security Context: The analyses reveal that election officials and security experts generally maintain confidence in the voting system's integrity, emphasizing that allegations of widespread fraud lack evidence ^[8]. However, cybersecurity experts acknowledge that the election infrastructure faces ongoing vulnerabilities that require attention ^[3].
• Audit Methodology Variations: Different states employ varying audit procedures and standards, which means results may not be directly comparable across jurisdictions ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual, simply asking for information about audit results. However, the context surrounding this topic reveals several potential sources of bias:

• Selective Reporting: Those seeking to undermine confidence in election results might benefit from emphasizing ongoing lawsuits and technical issues while downplaying successful audits like Wisconsin's ^{[8] [6]}.
• Confirmation Bias: The analyses suggest that claims of voter fraud continue to circulate without evidence, and individuals or groups with political motivations may selectively interpret audit results to support predetermined conclusions ^[8].
• Transparency Concerns: Voting machine companies and election officials who might benefit from maintaining public confidence could potentially minimize or underreport technical issues, while advocacy groups might amplify concerns to push for greater transparency and security measures ^[5].
• Incomplete Information: The question assumes comprehensive audit results exist, but the analyses reveal that audit coverage appears limited and inconsistent across different jurisdictions, potentially creating an incomplete picture of national voting machine performance ^[7].