Fact check: What evidence exists of voting machine tampering in the 2024 presidential election?

1. Summary of the results

The evidence regarding voting machine tampering in the 2024 presidential election presents a complex picture with conflicting narratives:

• Specific allegations have emerged in Rockland County, NY, including vote count discrepancies and unusual voting patterns like the Harris vote anomaly and Trump's 750,000 vote surplus compared to other Republican candidates ^[1]
• However, election officials maintain that voting infrastructure has never been more secure, with multiple security layers including paper records and pre-election testing ^[2]
• Security breaches have been documented in multiple states including Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado, involving systems that count over 70% of votes nationwide ^[3]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

• The role of testing laboratories deserves attention - Pro V&V lab conducted undisclosed voting machine updates without proper oversight ^[1]
• Widespread disinformation campaigns about vote-switching have been identified, promoted by election denial groups, the Trump campaign, and Russian propaganda networks ^[4]
• Potential future risks exist because unauthorized access to voting system software could enable bad actors to identify vulnerabilities or fabricate evidence of tampering ^[3]
• Claims specifically about Dominion Voting Systems machines changing votes have been repeatedly debunked by the company ^[5]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The question itself could be considered leading, as it presumes tampering occurred. Several groups benefit from different narratives:

• Political benefits: The Trump campaign benefits from claims of tampering to challenge unfavorable results ^[4]
• Foreign influence: Russian propaganda networks benefit from spreading distrust in the American electoral system ^[4]
• Corporate interests: Voting machine companies like ES&S (which operates in 40% of U.S. counties) and Dominion have financial interests in maintaining public trust in their systems ^{[1] [5]}
• Election security experts benefit professionally from highlighting vulnerabilities, while election officials benefit from maintaining public confidence in the system's security ^{[2] [3]}