Fact check: Were voting machines given software 'upgrades' that allowed outside group to alter results

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a complex and contradictory picture regarding voting machine software modifications. Several sources confirm that voting systems experienced security breaches, with Trump allies accessing voting system software in multiple states during 2021 and 2022 ^{[1] [2]}. Computer scientists have documented these breaches and called for recounts to ensure election verification ^[2].

However, the evidence for intentional "upgrades" designed to alter results is mixed and disputed. One source reports that Pro V&V, a federally accredited testing lab, approved changes to voting systems ahead of the 2024 election, though the lab's director claimed these changes were not significant ^[3]. A more controversial claim suggests that voting machines were secretly altered before the 2024 election, with a watchdog group flagging suspicious updates and statistical anomalies ^[4].

Security experts have identified vulnerabilities in voting systems, particularly in Dominion ballot marking devices, though state officials maintain they are prepared to address security threats ^{[5] [6]}. The systems do have multiple security safeguards including physical security, certification processes, and air-gapped networks ^[7].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context:

• Timeline specificity: The documented breaches occurred primarily in 2021-2022 by Trump allies seeking to challenge the 2020 election results, not necessarily as ongoing "upgrades" ^{[1] [2]}
• Security measures: Voting systems employ paper records and election security safeguards that make tampering detectable, and many reported "vote switching" incidents are attributed to human error rather than machine manipulation ^[8]
• Expert perspectives: J. Alex Halderman and other security researchers have worked to strengthen election integrity by identifying and patching vulnerabilities, generating paper voting records, and securing voter privacy ^[6]
• Regulatory oversight: Changes to voting systems must go through federally accredited testing labs like Pro V&V, which provides a layer of oversight ^[3]

Political motivations also shape this narrative - those seeking to challenge election results would benefit from promoting concerns about machine tampering, while election officials and security experts emphasize the robustness of current safeguards.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains several potentially misleading elements:

• Assumes intentionality: The phrasing "allowed outside group to alter results" presupposes malicious intent, while documented vulnerabilities may have been security research or unintentional weaknesses rather than deliberate backdoors ^[6]
• Lacks specificity: The question doesn't distinguish between legitimate security updates, unauthorized access by researchers or bad actors, and actual vote manipulation - these are fundamentally different scenarios with different implications
• Omits safeguards: The question ignores the multiple layers of election security, including paper trails and post-election audits that would detect result alterations ^{[7] [8]}
• Conflates access with manipulation: While sources confirm unauthorized access to voting system software occurred ^{[1] [2]}, this doesn't necessarily mean results were actually altered, as errors are typically attributed to human mistakes rather than machine tampering ^[8]

The most concerning aspect is that one source makes the extraordinary claim that "Kamala Harris won the U.S elections" based on alleged vote tampering ^[4], which directly contradicts established historical facts about the 2024 election outcome and suggests potential misinformation.