this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
63 points (87.1% liked)

Politics

10579 readers
223 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This would be a lot more tinfoilesque were a court case on the matter not already underway in New York.

The missing votes uncovered in Smart Elections’ legal case in Rockland County, New York, are just the tip of the iceberg—an iceberg that extends across the swing states and into Texas.

On Monday, an investigator’s story finally hit the news cycle: Pro V&V, one of only two federally accredited testing labs, approved sweeping last-minute updates to ES&S voting machines in the months leading up to the 2024 election—without independent testing, public disclosure, or full certification review.

These changes were labeled “de minimis”—a term meant for trivial tweaks. But they touched ballot scanners, altered reporting software, and modified audit files—yet were all rubber-stamped with no oversight.

That revelation is a shock to the public.

But for those who’ve been digging into the bizarre election data since November, this isn’t the headline—it’s the final piece to the puzzle. While Pro V&V was quietly updating equipment in plain sight, a parallel operation was unfolding behind the curtain—between tech giants and Donald Trump.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chaos@beehaw.org 16 points 2 days ago (20 children)

There is basically zero actual evidence here. The argument basically goes "this could've happened, then this other thing could've happened, then a third thing could've happened, someone said something vaguely ominous in a group chat, and then something we all know is impossible happened: Donald Trump was elected President despite being obviously bad. There's only one conclusion: the election was stolen and now we just need to track it down." Read the article again and try to pick out the things that are shown to have actually happened and weren't just suspicions or possibilities.

It doesn't hold up for the same reasons the 2020 doubts didn't hold up. Did they do this in every state? Because the results were pretty uniform across the country, it was a big swing right. It'd be the biggest and most successful conspiracy in history, getting away with rigging a wide variety of completely separate voting systems, many of which are heavily or entirely paper-based, many of which are run by blue states or weren't even competitive, with no leaks and no discrepancies in any of the public records.

Or, maybe, just maybe, Biden was incredibly unpopular and Kamala didn't run a good campaign, while Donald "I'll fix everything and everyone will be rich" Trump promised to take action and not just continue the same policies for another four years, so people gave him another shot. "Oh, but he had felonies! Surely the electorate would never!" Yeah, they would. We elect terrible people all the time. He won. This isn't productive.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 32 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The fact that more people signed sworn affidavits that they voted for Harris than tallied votes was enough for a judge to move to discovery makes this tonally different from the 2020 challenges that all failed. I don't think Harris was a particularly great candidate, but that's miles away from votes being miscounted.

You're conflating and making false equivalencies between separate events.

[–] remington@beehaw.org 11 points 2 days ago

The fact that more people signed sworn affidavits that they voted for Harris than tallied votes was enough for a judge to move to discovery makes this tonally different from the 2020 challenges that all failed.

I agree and I will be following the court case(s).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)