More Troubling Questions Raised About Election System Used in Contested Races In Swing States

AP Photo/Brynn Anderson

As I previously reported, there was a big problem in Antrim County in Michigan when according to a technical “glitch,” 6000 votes that were supposed to go to President Donald Trump were given to Joe Biden in the official totals.

The problem was flagged because it was so obvious that such a red county was not going more than 60% for Biden.

But then people started asking why did this occur and questioning whether the “glitch” might have occurred elsewhere in the state because 47 counties had the same software, as we reported.

The Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, claimed that “the clerk accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results.”

So here’s the question I have with that: how does not “updating” the software result in the transposition of the votes to your opponent? And again, if it did, does that not suggest there is a problem in the function or design of what they have in place if this can occur?

As my colleague Jennifer Van Laar reported this is not only a question for the 47 counties in Michigan, but everywhere this system has been employed which interestingly, seems to be in the contested areas including Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia. She also reported about how there have been prior problems with this system and that there was also a problem in Georgia on Tuesday, also related to an “update” causing a “glitch.”

From Politico:

A technology glitch that halted voting in two Georgia counties on Tuesday morning was caused by a vendor uploading an update to their election machines the night before, a county election supervisor said.

Voters were unable to cast machine ballots for a couple of hours in Morgan and Spalding counties after the electronic devices crashed, state officials said.

The companies β€œuploaded something last night, which is not normal, and it caused a glitch,” said Marcia Ridley, elections supervisor at Spalding County Board of Election.

Notice the similar language in both Michigan and Georgia related to uploading an update, although one crashed when it was uploaded and the other supposedly caused the issue when it wasn’t uploaded.

So how many places had this “update?”

According to Kyle Becker, Texas has rejected the Dominion system because of security issues.

It gets worse.

Oh, great. Internet questions and even China. That will surely inspire trust in the elections. Why was this not addressed when it was brought up? Now, whatever went on in this election, who thinks it’s a good idea to have systems connected to the internet or having any foreign components at all? There are few things more important than protecting the integrity of our elections.

In January, the AP has reported on problems of all three of the top voting system companies’ “lack of transparency and reluctance to open up their proprietary systems to outside testing,” the Associated Press reported in January.
Their executives testified before congress about concerns including the “foreign components” in the election equipment.

According to the Dominion CEO, there are no other options since the U.S. doesn’t make those components so this creates issues of β€œsupply-chain security, the tampering of election equipment during manufacturing,” according to the AP.

The executives acknowledged there is no method of voting that is 100 percent secure. … The three companies also acknowledged that some of their equipment allows for the transmission of election-night vote counts via modem, a vulnerability security experts say hackers could exploit. They said some state and local election offices require this, although some states and jurisdictions prohibit the practice.

So beyond any questions of what went on in this election, it is imperative that there be no internet connection, no ability at all to be hacked and no foreign involvement at all if we are to have confidence in our elections. And these questions and vulnerabilities must be looked into by the DOJ to ensure transparency.

HT: Bizpac Review