With electronic machine voting also comes the higher possibilities of fraudulent vote counting and vote tallies. It starts with the public not being allowed to access the software that controls the voting machines or to do a pre-election stress test of the veracity of a voting system. Although companies say they designed their software to ensure against fraud, due to the proprietary nature of their software and a lack of transparency into the workings of the machines, the public has no idea of how the voting software works or if it is really secure against malicious attacks or internal manipulation of votes or vote totals. Under these conditions, it would be simple for the company to configure their software to produce fraudulent results. And as we are finding out, there is no guarantee that vendors are supplying machines with the best interest of the voters’ or that deliver accurate election results.
And that leaves us with numerous red flags concerning vote and vote totals manipulation. Electronic voting can and has changed votes en mass. If implemented correctly, these changes could be undetected. The software can be programmed to only flip, alter or add a few hundred or few thousand votes at the precinct level. But taken to the extreme over an entire State, changes might be in the hundreds of thousands of votes, as we saw in the 2020 Election, that negatively effected the outcome.
So, when a complete forensic audit is conducted some major red flags are expected to become evident which indicate electronic voter fraud. These red flags are high ballot error rates, terminals connected to an outside public network, unscheduled software updates to terminals, weighted or fractional (decimal) voting, decrements in voting totals and flip totals, ghost or phantom voting, deletion of voting records or server logs, large unusual increases in aged voting (usually seniors), and margins of victories identical over multiple precincts. These are outlined in more detail below.