Why We Must Investigate the 2024 Election Anomalies

Elections are the bedrock of democracy, and when anomalies are found, their integrity is questioned, and voter confidence plummets. The 2024 election was marred by documented security breaches involving voting software from companies like ES&S and Dominion. Even if these breaches didn’t directly alter outcomes, they demand rigorous risk-limiting audits (RLAs) and hand recounts – not just to verify the vote count but to establish security protocols for future elections.

Numbers don’t lie. Analysis of 2024 voting data has revealed eyebrow-raising trends. For instance, Kamala Harris saw an unusual negative drop-off vote rate in swing states, while Donald Trump overperformed in certain districts. These anomalies suggest potential vote swapping or other forms of manipulation.

And here’s the thing – I’m open to the possibility that this wasn’t large-scale voter manipulation orchestrated by a foreign entity (though that remains my top theory 😉). Even before 2024, non-conspiratorial analyses of voting machines showed that vote swapping was a common issue simply because the machines are old and rarely replaced.

But that’s not all.

Many voting machines run on software that hasn’t been updated in years – sometimes decades. Outdated software lacks modern security patches, making it vulnerable to known exploits. Hackers can manipulate votes or introduce malware through these gaps.

Plus, old hardware often can’t support newer, more secure operating systems or encryption standards. Physical components degrade over time, leading to mechanical failures that could either be misinterpreted as security breaches or exploited for tampering.

Newer technology offers advanced security measures like multi-factor authentication, better encryption, and real-time anomaly monitoring. But it has its own issues – see the PBS News Hour video I posted yesterday for more on that. Meanwhile, older machines lack these protections, making them susceptible to unauthorized access, both physically and digitally.

And it gets worse.

Many machines still rely on outdated communication protocols that are no longer considered secure. Some use unencrypted Wi-Fi or even physical media like USB drives to transmit data – both easily interceptable and manipulable.

When updates are attempted, compatibility issues between old hardware and new software often arise. This leads to reluctance to upgrade due to the high cost and risk of system failure or incompatibility during an election.

Then, there’s the issue of manufacturers discontinuing support for older models. No security patches, no technical repairs, no updates to counter newly discovered threats.

Many older machines also lack transparent, auditable vote records. Modern systems often include paper trails or other verification methods, which are critical for public trust. Without them, discrepancies fuel widespread doubt about election integrity – exactly where we are today.

Replacing these outdated machines with secure technology would be astronomically expensive. As a result, local and state governments – often responsible for election funding – prolong the life of existing equipment, prioritizing budget constraints over security.

Election timing further complicates things. The short window between elections often leads to quick fixes rather than comprehensive security overhauls.

And let’s not forget: malicious actors have had decades to study these machines’ vulnerabilities. Their functionality is well-documented, making them prime targets for exploitation.

All of this has been known for years, yet officials have kicked the can down the road repeatedly. This failure has allowed conspiratorial election theories to become the norm, while lazy reporting on vote anomalies fails to distinguish between baseless fraud claims and credible, data-backed irregularities.

The longevity of outdated voting machines means they still operate under security standards that are woefully inadequate by today’s measures. This doesn’t just jeopardize election outcomes – it undermines public confidence in the entire democratic process. Addressing these vulnerabilities requires regular technological updates, secure system design, and robust cybersecurity practices.

Bottom line: Even if the anomalies in the numbers weren’t caused by a foreign actor, something caused them. Voting machines have known vulnerabilities. We need to figure out if these two things are connected.