Computer scientists, cybersecurity experts and voting systems experts are concerned following last week’s election. One of them joins us to explain on today’s BradCast. Also, some personal recollections today, for reasons you will learn if you haven’t already, of rightwing conspiracy-monger Alex Jones. [Audio link to full show follows this summary.]
As our friends at the nonpartisan government watchdog Free Speech for People announced on Wednesday, “A group of computer security experts have written to Vice President Kamala Harris to alert her to the fact that voting systems were breached by Trump allies in 2021 and 2022 and to urge her to seek recounts in key states to ensure election verification.” The well-respected experts are hoping she will use her standing as candidate for President to seek hand recounts of paper ballots, or at least smaller so-called Risk Limiting Audits, to assure the results reported from the November 5, 2024 election are accurate as per voter intent. The vast majority of results reported at this time, and prior to certification, are tabulated only by computers — either correctly or incorrectly. It’s impossible to know without a hand examination.
The scientists and security expert concerns, as they explain in their 5-page missive [PDF] to the Veep, spring from the fact that Donald Trump supporters, following the 2020 election, unlawfully breached proprietary voting systems in a number of states, then copied and distributed the software to an unknown number of people.
We have reported here in great detail on a number of those breaches over the past several years, including most intensively in Coffee County, Georgia. There, a number of Trump supporters unlawfully accessed the statewide voting systems beginning on January 7, 2021 — the day after the attempted U.S. Capitol insurrection — and, as one of the participants noted on a recorded phone call, “scanned all the equipment, imaged all the hard drives and scanned every single ballot.” Several members of that effort, including Trump attorney Sidney Powell, were eventually charged with felony crimes as part of Fulton County’s sweeping racketeering case filed against Trump and 18 co-conspirators.
As the security experts explain in their letter to Harris, “Possessing copies of the voting system software enables bad actors to install it on electronic devices and to create their own working replicas of the voting systems, probe them, and develop exploits. Skilled adversaries can decompile the software to get a version of the source code, study it for vulnerabilities, and could even develop malware designed to be installed with minimal physical access to the voting equipment by unskilled accomplices to manipulate the vote counts. Attacks could also be launched by compromising the vendors responsible for programming systems before elections, enabling large-scale distribution of malware.”
Following the discovery of the Coffee County breach in Georgia, the state’s voting system vendor, Dominion, issued security patches, which the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) strongly urged jurisdictions around the nation which use those same systems to apply immediately. GA’s Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger, however, refused to do so before the 2024 election.
“In the light of the breaches we ask that you formally request hand recounts in at least the states of Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,” the security experts request in their letter, while clarifying for those who may try to confuse them with Trump’s “Stop the Stealers” who falsely claimed fraud in the 2020 election: “We have no evidence that the outcomes of the elections in those states were actually compromised as a result of the security breaches, and we are not suggesting that they were. But binding risk-limiting audits (RLAs) or hand recounts should be routine for all elections, especially when the stakes are high and the results are close. We believe that, under the current circumstances when massive software breaches are known and documented, recounts are necessary and appropriate to remove all potential doubt and to set an example for security best practices in all elections.”
They urge Harris to move quickly because, while post-election audits of varying quality are carried out in a number of key states, many will be conducted only after certification and after the window to seek recounts that could affect election results has closed.
We’re joined today by one of the seven letter writers, Professor DUNCAN BUELL Ph.D., NCR Chair Emeritus in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of South Carolina. Buell has been studying and serving as an expert on computerized electronic voting and tabulation systems for decades now.
“It’s crap software,” Buell tells me bluntly about systems made by ES&S, the nation’s largest vendor, whose software he has studied most closely. “We know that most of the ES&S system has been exported to the web and is available to any and all bad actors. We know for sure that the Dominion system has been exported and is available. And we know from studies of both systems that they fail to provide the kinds of security issues that would prevent bad things from happening,” he says.
“Given what we know, that all of this horrible software has gone into the wild, the prudent election director will take absolutely every possible method to verify that the results are, in fact, correct.” But, Buell explains, unless ballots are examined by hand, “we don’t know that the results we are seeing are actually the results.”
He describes the software in question — as Georgia’s Attorney General did prior to the revelation of the Coffee County breach — as “the keys to the kingdom” and argues that it is “absolutely bananas” that the tabulation of ballots and programming of the software is not verified.
We cover much more in our conversation, including a number of large, if still-unexplained tabulation errors (that were luckily discovered during canvassing) in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan; questions about a reportedly, unusually large number of so-called “bullet ballots” featuring just one single vote in last week’s election, but only in battleground states; and several ways to improve the systems in the future to allow more oversight of election results to the public.
ALSO TODAY….
- Rightwing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones‘ Infowars website, archives, equipment, studio and more have been obtained through auction by the beloved satirical website, The Onion. The purchase is part of a judge-ordered liquidation of Jones’ assets following a hard-fought, nearly $1.5 billion judgement against him won by the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, which Jones spent years decrying as a “hoax”. I take the opportunity today to share a few of my own personal recollections of my run-ins with Jones in years past.
- And finally, Desi Doyen joins us for our latest Green News Report, as New York and New Jersey grapple with record drought and autumn wildfires, as climate advocates from around the globe seek solutions at the latest U.N. Climate Summit in the wake of the election of climate change denier Donald Trump, and his vows to roll back progress from the last four years…
Democratic underground has been talking about this alot, trying to start a campaign asking harris to ask for a hand count. I hope you post this article there as you have info some have missed
Karenfromillinois @ 1,
You wrote to Brad: “you have info some have missed” …
That is an everyday thing in Brad’s realm because ‘out there’ in election land they are overcome by the ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ trance.
But Brad keeps on keeping on and perhaps reality will reach enough people one day and snap them out of that trance.
Stephen Spoonamore is claiming it’s a fact that the election was hacked, and has offered both what he claims is statistical evidence of his beliefs and and a few hypotheses about how this attack may have occurred. Since layfolk like me and others who follow your blog generally don’t have the technical expertise to review Spoonamore’s claims, could you make time to review what he’s said? Stephen Spoonamore has been active on a few online platforms this post-election…Substack, Twitter, Spoutible, and the subreddit SomethingIsWrong2024.
A big argument against the voting machines and tabulators being rigged is that they are not hooked-up to the internet.
But do they contain ANY modem or WIFI capability that can be activated remotely?
If the answer is a definitive “NO”, than I would be somewhat relieved.
Any other answer would be troubling, IMO.
Also, the GOP has been erasing voter roles with increasing efficiency for many years now.
I would bet the “Interstate Crosscheck” computer programs of the mid 2000-teens are obsolete and inefficient by today’s standards.
Maybe the GOP just finally reached full fruition with their ever-intemsifying voter-roll erasing strategy?
That GOPer in Texas practically confessed to stealing the state for Trump in 2020 by erasing voters.
I can’t escape the feeling that something big happened in this election, and the obtuse mainstream is missing it.
DonL @#4,
“But do they contain ANY modem or WIFI capability that can be activated remotely?” or serial port or parallel port or USB stick, or disk drive.
There have to be ways in or else the machine could not count votes.
Hey Brad, Here’s a link to the Spoonamore letter.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-151721941
Karen @1:
I stopped posting at DU many years back, after they started removing my breaking news stories from the Breaking News forum. But PLEASE feel free to post anything you see here over there any time! Thanks!
Jay @3 said:
He may sound like he is claiming it as fact, but the truth is he does not know. He has, as you note, a theory about how it could have been done. And he is citing a high number of what he describes as “Bullet Ballots” as part of his theory.
In fact, those “Bullet Ballots” (featuring one single vote, in this case, for President, and no other votes) are not necessarily Bullet Ballots. We don’t yet have enough data to know if that’s what they are, or are simply drop-offs from a President, but not another vote for the next highest race on the ballot (in this case, usually a Senatorial race.)
So, he is speculating based on what he is assuming are Bullet Ballots, but may or may not be that. And, if they are, it still doesn’t necessarily reveal fraud, as there were, in fact (and always are) many who did vote ONLY for President.
His comparison to neighboring states that had lower “Bullet Ballot” (actually drop-off numbers) could be evidence of something unusual. But it is in no way “proof” of anything. At least not yet.
His calls for hand-counts to answer those questions are the correct solution to the concern, even if they wouldn’t necessarily reveal fraud, in certain cases. But they could! Thus, the scientists and experts in the article, letter and interview cited above calling for exactly that!
Hopefully the above is helpful. I like to gather more evidence — in support or against — before giving too much oxygen to certain claims that are made without the evidence they warrant. Don’t want to either get anyone too excited or too disappointed inappropriately!
For now, the answer is: Get hand-counts. However you can.
DonL said @4:
Generally the voting machines do NOT contain modems (though some do). The tabulators are a separate issue and, yes, some of them do have modems. Whether they can be activated remotely is a slightly separate question. In theory, no they can’t. In practice?…
You probably don’t care for my answer. 🙂
Dredd sedd @5:
Well, that’s not quite right. The way that precinct tabulators count votes is by scanning. Then, with systems that use modems, the results from the precinct can be transmitted to the central tabulator (Election Management System, EMS) via modem.
In theory even those systems that modem over unofficial results, will usually physically drive the results on thumb-drives from the precinct based scanner to be plugged in for official upload to the EMS system at the jurisdiction headquarters later that night.
In theory.
Just watched the Spoonamore interview on Thom Hartmann. He acknowledges that he conflated bullet ballots with another means of adding votes. He does not seem to me to be saying he KNOWS absolutely there was a hack. He notes irregular numbers of bullet ballots like he’s never seen before and only in the 7 swing states. He notes Musk’s capacities through starlink and the million dollar giveaway as a means of collecting voters and their addresses. He himself has made computers do what he worries may have been done here. He says it’s easy enough to prove him wrong with a hand count. As per usual he seems eminently reasonable to me. And I don’t see how we get any kind of definitive answer except by hand recount. Don’t we need to try to bring as much attention to this as possible immediately to try to get Kamala to act before the votes are certified? Can Walz ask for a recount? If there’s any chance at all to avoid this hellscape, don’t we need to jump on it?
In my experience, limited as it is, both you and Spoonamore seem pretty careful and precise with your language. So not sure what to make of him saying there appears to be an extraordinary number of bullet ballots only in the swing states and you saying bullet ballots are pretty common. Doesn’t seem like both can be true.
https://youtu.be/RJR5uQpweko?si=wj9tP11YLxx8nFQi
Brad @ 10,
My comment to DonL who wrote “A big argument against the voting machines and tabulators being rigged is that they are not hooked-up to the internet.”
He mentioned “voting machines” not just tabulators.
“A voting machine is a machine used to record votes in an election without paper.” – Wikipedia
Voting machines still have vulnerabilities:
(The nation’s best hackers found vulnerabilities in voting machines “” but no time to fix them).
David Lasagna @11 and @12:
First: Great to see from you, amigo! It’s been too long, and I hope you are well!
Second: As to your comments…
That is largely correct. It’s just one of the reasons for the episode of BradCast cited in the original post above…and why I’ve been calling for such hand-counts, particularly in elections with results that concern many, such as this Presidential election (and the 2020 election! And the 2016 election! Etc. etc. etc!)
Though, I will note that even a hand-count doesn’t give a “definitive answer”. Elections can be gamed in a way that fraud can be eluded even with a hand-count. But it’s a great start!
Yes, feel free to bring attention! It’s the reason why I produced the above program! (And, no, I don’t believe Walz can ask for a recount without Kamala. But the rules may be different in each state. Even she may not be eligible to seek a count unless the final results are within a certain margin.) And, yes, feel free to jump as you see fit!
I’m just reporting what is verifiable. If others wish to speculate (as Spoonamore acknowledges he is doing), that’s fine. It’s not necessarily what I do, but nothing stops you or others!
To clarify, what I have said on “Bullet Ballots”, essentially, is two things. 1) What Spoonamore is referring to are not necessarily Bullet Ballots (just one vote on a ballot), since we don’t have enough data to determine that yet. What he is likely referring to here is ballots with a vote for President, but not for the next highest race on the ballot. There MAY be other votes on that ballot in other races. and 2) Yes, people DO cast Bullet Ballots (as well as drop off ballots, as described, with a vote for Prez, but not the race below, and then votes for other races). It happens. And there is reason to believe their could have been more of them in a race that includes Donald Trump.
But, again, the only way to know if the computer-reported results are accurate is to hand-count the ballots. Both Spoon and myself (and the scientists cited above!) agree on those points — even if hand-counts aren’t 100% dispositive.
Dredd @14:
I don’t think we are actually disagreeing here. But, there’s a lot going on in this comment thread. So, to try and clarify…
That definition from Wikipedia isn’t fully true. Voting machines in Georgia (for example) and elsewhere are Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs), which have largely replaced Director Recording Electronic devices. Both are touchscreen voting machines.
The difference is that BMDs print out a paper ballot that supposedly reflects the voters choices made on the touchscreen, and that paper ballot is then scanned by a separate device.
DREs actually tabulate the vote within the same computer and may or may not produce a piece of paper that supposedly reflects the choices made by the voter on the touchscreen.
In most jurisdictions in 2024, where touchscreens are used, BMDs have replaced DREs.
Yes they do! That is true whether BMD or DRE! My comments to DonL, however, and to you, were meant to distinguish between a touchscreen voting machine (BMD or DRE) and a precinct-based tabulator, which scans paper ballots (marked either by hand or by BMD).
In general, tabulating scanners may have modems in them to transmit scanned results to central headquarters, where as touchscreens generally do not. (Though some do!)
Hoping that clarifies!
And, as to the article you cite at Politico, regarding Harri’s annual “Voting Village” in Vegas, Politico ALSO unhelpfully conflates both tabulators and touchscreens (and even e-pollbooks!) as “voting machines”. For example:
Have I clarified? Hoping so!
Part of the damage wrought by the “Stop the Steal” canard during the last Presidential election cycle and the success of the Dominion defamation lawsuit is that, while Democrats rightly observed that the stolen election claims were baseless, they lost sight of the objective reality that all e-voting systems are vulnerable — a vulnerability that was enhanced in the aftermath of the Coffee County breach.
In addition to polling, there are a multitude of variables that call into question the validity of the 2024 election results, e.g., crowd sizes, effective vs. ineffective campaigning, etc. Yet, in the aftermath of 1/6, Democrats have become so vested in defending election results that they fail to see the difference between falsely screaming “fraud” in the absence of supporting evidence and simply requesting a hand-count to test the validity of the e-voting tallies.
Sadly, while Kamala Harris made a compelling case for defending democracy during the campaign, I seriously doubt she will take the step necessary to ensure that the current result is, in fact, what We the People voted for.
Brad @15,
You asked “Have I clarified?”
Yes, however, in the “what is a voting machine and what is not” realm there is no clear nomenclature:
Maybe Ernie can give an example of the word usage in criminal cases where a conviction took place because of the criminal use of a “voting machine” …
I can report that nomenclature is a matter of life and death in some very famous ‘cases’ (Good Nomenclature: A Matter of Life and Death).