2024 U.S. ELECTIONS RAPID RESEARCH BLOG

WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN WE’RE ELECTING

This installment of our What to Expect When We’re Electing series is part of an ongoing series of rapid research blog posts and rapid research analysis about the 2024 U.S. elections from the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public. It was crossposted on our election rumor research Substack newsletter.

Key Takeaways 

• Rumors and conspiracy theories about voting machines were a major theme during the last presidential election, but they did not begin to truly “go viral” until five days after Election Day 2020.
• Rumors about voting machines in 2020 took two forms: “rumors of concern” about perceived issues with the machines and more detailed conspiracy theories about the vulnerability of voting machines to intentional manipulation.
• In 2024, we have already seen dozens of reports of both real and perceived issues with voting machines as well as ongoing conspiracy theorizing about their alleged use in election fraud schemes.
• This year, we also may see more restraint from institutional media and online influencers when considering amplifying rumors about voting machines given the defamation suits.

As the majority of voters go to polling sites to cast their votes, Election Day will include an onslaught of rumors related to voting machines and voting technologies. This “What to Expect When We’re Electing” resource goes through some of the different rumoring dynamics we have seen and can expect to see about voting machine rumors in 2020 versus 2024. Additionally, it includes different themes in voting machine rumoring with examples we’ve seen in this election cycle. 

Voting Machine Rumors in 2020 vs. 2024 

Voting machines were a major theme of rumors and conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. Underscoring voting machine rumors’ contribution to the “Big Lie,” the media outlets that platformed these false claims were later sued for defamation, successfully, by both the Dominion and Smartmatic voting machine companies. However, though they featured prominently in the 2020 “rigged election” mythology, rumors about voting machines did not begin to truly “go viral” until five days after the election.

Rumors about voting machines in 2020 took two forms. The first consisted of rumors of concern around ostensibly malfunctioning machines — e.g., claims that machines are “flipping votes” — often recorded by those using them. These were often shared with suspicion but without a clear theory of how these issues reflected fraud. A second type of voting machine rumor highlighted perceived vulnerabilities in voting machines, either due to their ownership (e.g., arguing that their owners might manipulate results for their own benefit) or the potential for external tampering by hackers or other bad actors. Rumors of both types were present during the early voting period but not particularly salient. 

But that changed about five days after the election. On November 8, 2020 rumors about Dominion voting machines began to take off around the misreporting of informal results in Antrim County, Michigan. This miscommunication was caused by a software error and did not impact the final vote count, but it gave election deniers a key piece of “evidence” around which to craft a conspiracy theory that Dominion voting machines, in particular, had been used as part of an election fraud scheme. This set off a series of rumors, making a variety of related allegations, about voting machines being used to perpetrate fraud. 

We do not yet know how voting machine rumors will feature into the story of election 2024. We do know that their salience in 2020 election denial sets the stage for continued rumoring about Dominion voting machines this cycle. This is because the stickiest rumors often combine a novel element with a familiar trope. Voting machines, and especially Dominion voting machines, may work as a familiar trope in this cycle, and in-person voting tends to provide novel “evidence” to spin into new rumors.

In 2024, we have already seen dozens of reports of both real and perceived issues with voting machines, e.g., claims that voting machines are flipping votes or otherwise malfunctioning. In many cases, conspiratorial rumors take shape quickly around these issues, claiming that they reflect an intentional effort to disenfranchise in-person voters. Though it is difficult to make an apples to apples comparison — in part due to vastly different transparency across the big social media platforms — voting machine rumors of this type may be more prominent this cycle than they were at this time in 2020. We have also seen ongoing conspiracy theorizing (since 2020, really) in dedicated “election integrity” communities about the alleged vulnerability of voting machines. The recent news of a password leak in Colorado has provided some steam for these rumors, and we are likely to see that continue because it provides evidence of vulnerabilities that can be used to support later claims of manipulation. 

However, we also may see more restraint from institutional media and online influencers in terms of platforming unsubstantiated claims of voting machine manipulation due to voting machine companies’ defamation suits (most ended in large settlements) after the 2020 election.

Core Themes and Examples of Voting Machine Rumors   

Voting machine rumors tend to revolve around a few core themes: 

• “Glitches” or perceived issues with voting machines
• Accusations of machines “flipping” votes
• Screen or user experience design 
• Security vulnerabilities in machine technology 

These rumors may be “evidenced” by images, videos, or anecdotes about experiences with voting machines, some of which are taken out of context or do not include when remedies are . However rumors of real or perceived problems can evolve into unfounded speculation that the machines are “rigged” in favor of one party or another, or that foreign actors have been able to breach machines to systematically switch votes. While there are documented vulnerabilities in some voting machine technologies, there are no known cases of foreign governments breaching voting machines and switching votes. There are multiple layers of security ensuring the accuracy and integrity of election results recorded through voting machines.

This section goes into some of the core themes and examples we’ve seen this cycle.  

Dominion Voter Assist Terminals (VAT) and the ‘Straight Party’ Error  

In Michigan, a real technical issue regarding Dominion VAT (Voter Assist Terminals) was discovered last week. VAT is an assistive technology provided to help voters with disabilities mark their ballots. Voters using the machine will experience inconveniences if they are utilizing the “straight-ticket” voting option, which allows a voter to select all the candidates from their preferred party with a single mark. To split their ticket after selecting the “straight-ticket” option, voters need to go back and de-select their straight party selection and vote individually for all races. The issue won’t prevent voters from being able to make their preferred selections or change anyone’s votes, but may lead to confusion and frustration for some voters. 

However, this example brought into question the technical robustness of Dominion voting machines in a key swing state and across the nation. Most online posts about this phenomenon lack key context of the situation — namely that this issue is limited only to specific Voter Assist Terminals for people with disabilities.  The issue will not ultimately inhibit or change a voter’s choice.

Voting Machine Screen Design 

The order by which candidates are listed on ballots varies based on state laws. Some states list names alphabetically, while others randomize the order. For example, California is a state that utilizes randomized alphabetization. While these decisions are made by elected state legislators and encoded in law, complaints from both major parties about candidate ordering and other ballot design decisions are common in elections, something we covered in our previous work.

Last week, rumors emerged that Trump was purposefully put “below the fold” (such that users had to hit “More” to see his name) on California voting machine screens (Figure 1). While this may be an inconvenience to voters, this was the result of the state’s randomized ordering process — not a purposeful decision to suppress the Trump vote.

Rumors of Buggy Machines 

A highly trafficked X post with a video claiming to be from a Laurel County, Kentucky voting machine showed an error that prevented the user from selecting Donald Trump. This error was investigated by the Attorney General’s office. The State Board of Elections released a statement addressing the origin of the rumor and explaining that the depicted error occurred if voters accidentally pressed the area between boxes. They assured the public that the voter who recorded the video was able to digitally select the candidates of her choice, print the ballot and cast her ballot. The statement mentioned that only after submitting her ballot did the voter show officials the video she had recorded. Similar rumors have emerged in other states, such as Tennessee and Arkansas.

Many of these incidents can be attributed to user error — and voters can fix mistakes by spoiling an errored ballot and submitting a new one (as is possible in Kentucky). In online conversation about this rumor, some users point out that it is unfair for the voter to have to be the one to catch machine issues. There stands a very fair critique that voting machines and the voting experience could be improved to be a better experience for everyone.  However, misleading and false rumors emerge when instances of machine glitches, such as this one, are conflated as evidence of intentionality or widespread fraud.

Discrepancies Between Voting Machine Print Outs and Voter Intent

Another collection of recent rumors centers discrepancies between paper confirmation slips printed out by some voting machines and how a voter intended to cast their vote. These printed ballots are a remedy for voting machine interface issues like the aforementioned one in Kentucky — the slips allow voters to make sure that the votes they intended to cast were selected and marked correctly on the machine. If voters discover there was an error, they are able to submit a new ballot.

Over the past few weeks of early-voting, rumors emerged from print outs that did not reflect what the voter believed they had selected on the digital interface. In Georgia, an anecdote about a voter who mistakenly selected the wrong candidate and noticed the disparity on the printout led to rumors on social media, amplified by U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene who falsely used this example as “proof” of a larger conspiracy to “flip” Republican votes.  

A similar issue occurred in Tarrant County, Texas. In a viral video, a few voters shared anecdotes of voting on the digital interface, believing that they had made their selections correctly, and then finding that the paper printout did not reflect what they intended to select. These claims were confirmed to be isolated incidents. 

In these rumors, isolated experiences of a few voters are magnified to establish distrust in voting machines and the remedies and security measures to ensure votes reflect voters’ intents.  Having voting machine printouts in order to confirm that digital choices matched voters’ intent is an extra layer of security. There are remedies in case there is a discrepancy so that the erroneously filled out ballot is destroyed and a new one can be cast. These rumors demonstrate the value of these printouts as a tool for voters to verify that their intentions were correctly recorded on their ballot. 

Security Vulnerabilities 

Last week, social media rumors also accused Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold of intentionally leaking over 600 passwords for voting machines in 63 counties. These rumors gained significant traction on social media, amplified by popular X accounts such as @LibsOfTikTok, and were the subject of formal demands by the Trump campaign. The rumors reflect a real error where a Secretary of State department employee accidentally publicly posted partial voting machine passwords but misleadingly exaggerated its potential impacts to election security and falsely accused Griswold, a Democrat, of doing this intentionally.

According to Colorado Public Radio, the Secretary of State provided reassurances that the so-called password leak does not present “a security threat to Colorado’s elections,” as the passwords posted online were only one component of a layered authentication process required to access the voting machines, which includes multiple passwords and required security clearances for staff.

Nonetheless, the employee’s mistake resonated with existing narratives questioning the security of election technology. Some of these rumors frame “evidence” of the vulnerability of voting machines (real or potential) as “proof” of that vulnerability having been exploited and impacting on elections when no impact or breach has occurred – this is a misleading move of election rumoring. 

Conspiratorial Leaps 

Online “evidence” of voting machine errors, glitches, or vulnerabilities – perceived or actual – may be reframed in a “conspiratorial leap” by political elites and influencers to imply that these are “proof” of conspiracies by domestic or foreign actors to steal or rig the election. The key difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is the presence of evidence, so by promoting reports of perceived “evidence” of voting machine issues, audiences may seek to legitimize theories that previously lacked support. Generated “evidence” is often interpreted to showcase the intentionality and impact of the proposed conspiracy. However, it rarely provides credible references or adequate proof to establish intent or demonstrate the widespread effects of vulnerabilities, errors, and glitches in voting machines as alleged in the conspiracy theory.

Numerous historical examples of conspiracy theorizing surrounding voting machines exist across the political spectrum. For example, claims in 2012 suggested vote-flipping in Mitt Romney’s favor during the Republican presidential primaries. In 2016, Microsoft’s involvement in an app for reporting caucus results led supporters of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to speculate about the role of corporate influence on elections. After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, meta-narratives and rhetoric emerged among liberal communities that the election was “hacked” by Russians, suggesting that foreign adversaries breached voting machines or information integrity. Later investigations showed that Russians did breach voter registration systems, but this did not impact voting results and Russians did conduct election disinformation campaigns. However, the spread of “hacking” narratives – voting machines or the body politic –  did not amount to legally contesting election results. In 2018, unfounded election rumors spread when Ivanka Trump got trademark approvals in China for voting machines (as well as coffins and sausage casings). The 2020 election saw widespread conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines, with claims falsely implicating Hugo Chavez, George Soros, and the Clinton Foundation, despite multiple debunkings.

In the 2024 election cycle, Dominion voting machine conspiracy theories have become part of a shorthand that helps its believers make sense of potential errors, glitches, and vulnerabilities that may arise in the coming days. It is essential for election officials, policymakers, and journalists to acknowledge that such errors and glitches do happen, and vulnerabilities do exist. However, the evidence needed to demonstrate that these issues are part of an actual conspiracy is significantly greater than what has been presented in the ongoing internet discussions we have monitored. 

Addendum November 5, 2024: This post was updated to include Figure 1.

---

Previously 

• Part 1: “What to expect when we’re electing: An election rumoring timeline”
• Part 2: “What to expect when we’re electing: The 5 moves of misleading election rumors”
• Part 3: “What to expect when we’re electing: An object-oriented framework for pre-election rumors”
• Part 4: “What to expect during Election Week: Uncertainty, rumor-gathering, and lawsuits”