Fact check: Tampering of voting machines in 2024 election

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a complex and contentious situation regarding alleged voting machine tampering in the 2024 election. Multiple sources claim that significant changes were made to voting machines used in over 40% of U.S. counties before the election ^[1]. These changes allegedly involved a private lab making sweeping modifications without proper public review or verification ^[1].

However, contradictory evidence emerges from official sources. The director of Pro V&V, a federally accredited testing lab, directly disputed these claims, stating that changes approved by the lab to voting systems were not significant ^[2]. This creates a stark contrast between allegations of tampering and official denials.

Concrete legal action has been taken in response to these concerns. A lawsuit filed by SMART Legislation, a nonpartisan watchdog group, is seeking a full hand recount in Rockland County due to voting discrepancies ^[2]. Additionally, a Supreme Court judge has ordered a full hand recount of presidential and state Senate ballots in Rockland County, New York, citing claims of major voting irregularities and statistically implausible results ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement lacks crucial context about pre-existing vulnerabilities in election systems. Voting experts had warned of serious threats for the 2024 election due to election equipment software breaches as early as December 2023, noting these could enable individuals to practice election meddling and identify vulnerabilities ^[4].

Academic research supports concerns about voting system vulnerabilities. Researchers demonstrated that machine learning classifiers in U.S. election tabulators pose security risks, showing that even a 5% attack success rate can flip election outcomes ^[5]. This provides scientific backing for concerns about digital manipulation possibilities.

Multiple beneficiaries emerge from different narratives:

• Tech giants and billionaires are alleged to benefit from a complex scheme involving voting machine manipulation ^[6]
• Election security companies like Pro V&V benefit from maintaining public confidence in their certification processes
• Political figures including Kamala Harris are mentioned as potential beneficiaries if tampering claims prove true ^[1]

The analyses reveal a systematic digital occupation theory, suggesting the election was "rewired" rather than simply having machines changed ^[6]. This presents a more comprehensive view of alleged manipulation beyond simple tampering.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement presents tampering as established fact rather than contested allegations. While some sources support tampering claims ^{[1] [6]}, others provide contradictory evidence from official sources ^[2].

The statement lacks specificity about the nature and scope of alleged tampering. Some analyses suggest exaggerated claims lacking concrete evidence ^[7], while others detail complex schemes involving multiple actors and systematic manipulation ^[6].

Timing bias is evident in the original statement, as it fails to acknowledge that changes to voting machines were approved by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission according to some sources ^[7]. This omits important regulatory context that could legitimize certain modifications.

The statement also fails to distinguish between verified security vulnerabilities (which experts documented before the election) and actual tampering incidents (which remain disputed). This conflation could mislead readers about the difference between potential risks and confirmed malicious activity.

Expert consensus appears divided, with computer scientists and election security experts urging federal investigation of breaches ^[4] while certification authorities maintain that approved changes were not significant ^[2]. The original statement doesn't capture this nuanced disagreement among professionals.