Fact check: Where did kamala receive zero votes

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Kamala Harris received zero votes in several voting precincts in Rockland County, New York, specifically in districts within the town of Ramapo ^{[1] [2]}. The analyses confirm that this occurred in five voting precincts in this area ^[2].

However, the sources present two different explanations for this phenomenon:

• One source suggests this was due to alleged voting machine malfunctions ^[1]
• Other sources indicate this was likely the result of bloc voting patterns within Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish communities, where voters follow their rabbis' endorsements collectively ^{[2] [3]}

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the specific geographic location and demographic factors involved. The zero-vote results were concentrated in Rockland County, New York, an area with a large Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish population ^[3].

Two competing narratives emerge:

• Technical malfunction perspective: Some sources suggest voting machine problems caused the zero-vote tallies ^[1]
• Demographic voting pattern perspective: Other analyses explain this as normal bloc voting behavior, where religious communities vote collectively based on rabbinical guidance rather than individual candidate preference ^{[2] [3]}

The second perspective suggests this is not evidence of election hacking or fraud but rather reflects established voting patterns in these communities ^[3]. This viewpoint would benefit those seeking to maintain confidence in election integrity, while the technical malfunction narrative could benefit those questioning the reliability of voting systems.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question's phrasing "where did kamala receive zero votes" could be misleading by:

• Implying this was a widespread phenomenon when the analyses show it was limited to specific precincts in one county ^{[1] [2] [3]}
• Suggesting something unusual or suspicious occurred without acknowledging that bloc voting in religious communities is a documented and legal voting pattern ^[3]
• Omitting the demographic context that explains why certain communities might vote uniformly for one candidate over another ^{[2] [3]}

The framing could inadvertently promote suspicion about election integrity when the phenomenon may have straightforward explanations rooted in community voting traditions and religious guidance ^[3].