Fact check: How do post-election audits detect potential voting machine malfunctions or tampering?

1. Summary of the results

Post-election audits employ multiple sophisticated mechanisms to detect voting machine issues:

• Manual verification of voter-verified paper ballots against machine counts ^[1]
• Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) that use statistical sampling based on contest margins ^[1]
• Systematic reviews and investigation of reported anomalies ^[2]
• Pre-election machine testing and post-election reviews, supported by paper trails for 98% of ballots ^[3]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements were missing from the original question:

• Human Error vs. Machine Error: Most reported anomalies are actually due to voter error rather than machine malfunction, as demonstrated by Georgia election official Gabriel Sterling's findings ^[2]
• Multiple Verification Layers: The system includes pre-election testing, during-election monitoring, and post-election reviews, not just post-election audits ^[3]
• Statistical Validation: The American Statistical Association has endorsed these audit procedures as effective for ensuring election integrity ^[1]
• Paper Trail Importance: The fact that 98% of ballots now have a paper trail provides a crucial physical backup for verification ^[3]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question oversimplifies the audit process by:

• Focusing solely on machine malfunctions/tampering while ignoring the broader scope of election security
• Not acknowledging that computer security experts recommend additional safeguards beyond current audit procedures ^[3]
• Failing to mention that most investigated anomalies turn out to be voter error rather than machine issues, as demonstrated in cases like Georgia's Whitfield County ^[2]

This oversimplification could benefit groups pushing for either increased or decreased election security measures, depending on their political agenda. Computer security companies and election technology providers also have financial interests in how the public perceives election security needs.