A Deep Dive into the 2024 Election
Critical Questions About the Election
Multiple irregularities in the 2024 election warrant investigation. In order to pursue this—and have confidence in our elections—we need your help.
Prompt, decisive action is required to ensure we can examine election records to either reassure voters that the 2024 election results are accurate—or pinpoint trouble spots. We hope you will join us in doing everything we can to uphold these important safeguards. Trust in our election process has plummeted over the last decade. Even prior to this election, “Only 37% of Americans believe[d] the 2024 elections [would] be both ‘honest and open.’”
A democracy cannot function when voters do not believe the election results year after year. Fortunately, this collapse of confidence has an antidote: public oversight and transparency.
We extend to you a warm welcome, and invite you to join us immediately in this effort. Many in our community have been doing this work for twenty years. It is time to amplify this those concerns to create a transpartisan national movement for election reform and election transparency.
- We'll be starting a substack soon and hope you'll follow along!
There are legitimate anxieties about the 2024 election results. These misgivings center around events and patterns that occurred on or after election day, including:
- Over 100 bomb threats that disrupted voting and may have impacted the chain of custody of ballots.
- Although the bomb threats were not determined to be credible, the disruption to the process merits a full investigation, one that focuses on whether or not election results were impacted in any way.
- Known security breaches of voting machines.
- A hardwired password in all Dominion systems was released to the public. According to security expert Chris Klaus, it would be an easy way to win the swing states, all but North Carolina use Dominion Voting machines in some counties.
- The hardwired password was known to the public and well-publicized, even appearing on t-shirts.
- Much higher drop-off rates on the Republican side than the Democratic side and also higher Republican drop-off rates than in previous election cycles.
- Three separate letters from security experts listing their worries and asking for hand recounts, or investigations. (Read more for these links).
Drop-off in PENNSYLVANIA - 2024 PRES ELECTION
PENNSYLVANIA ANALYSIS
Our data analytics team has spent the last two weeks carefully analyzing the drop-off percentages in multiple states. We will be releasing this data to the public, in a Substack over the next two weeks.
WHAT IS DROP-OFF? Drop-off is not a formal term, as far as we know, but it is how we are referring to the difference between votes for the top race on the ballot (the presidential race) and the next downballot race (usually the Senate). In North Carolina we are using the Attorney General race because there was no Senate race.
Today we are releasing our analysis for Pennsylvania where the difference between the votes for President and the Senate race on the Republican side is 4% and the difference between the President and the Senate race on the Democratic side is 1%. There is concern that these differences in state after state indicate some problem with the accuracy of the election results and we are investigating that issue by looking at the data, making public records requests and asking for hand recounts. Please get involved via the volunteer sign up form.
Please follow our Substack when we launch.
If you share our data, please link to our website and give us the following attribution.
Analysis by SMART Elections Analytics Team
All rights reserved. © 2024 SMART Elections
We are immediately seeking volunteers to request a recount in the following counties in Pennsylvania:
- Cambria
- Lancaster
- Luzerne
- If you live in one of those counties, please immediately fill out this google form. On Monday 12/2, we'll help you file a request for a recount in your precinct. You will need to find two other people in your same precinct. There is a very narrow window for this. Please fill out the form immediately.
Happy Holidays to you.
From the SMART Elections Team
Analysis by SMART Elections Analytics Team
All rights reserved. © 2024 SMART Elections
SMART elections files lawsuit against the nycboe
Read the Lawsuit
Read the Press Release
Read the Press Release
Petitioners, LooEase “Lulu” Friesdat, a voter in the June 2024 New York Democratic Primary, Desmond Cadogan, a voter and candidate in the 70th Assembly District in the June 2024 Democratic Primary in New York County, on behalf of themselves and other voters, SMART
Elections, Inc., and SMART Legislation ... hereby complain as follows against the Respondent New York City Board of Elections (“NYCBOE”.)
Read the Press Release
Read the Press Release
Read the Press Release
Court Challenge Charges Gross Irregularities and Reports of Bribery in Harlem Election
New York, NY – SMART Elections and its Co-founder and Executive Director, Lulu Friesdat, are lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed Thursday, October 17th, against the New York City Board of Elections (NYCBOE).
View the Exhibits
Read the Press Release
View the Exhibits
Exhibits for the lawsuit illustrate the discrepancies in the number of ballots, evidence of illegal electioneering, missing seals on ballot boxes and reports of poll workers being paid cash under the table.
Lulu Speaks on TEDx Stage About Bipartisan Voting Reform
"We’re doing it wrong. We’ve structured our elections incorrectly — from the beginning — and naturally we’re having some very serious problems.."
Enter a raffle to
Win 5 days in Maui!!
We're raising money for a lawsuit to protect New York elections from voting machines that experts say will increase costs & wait times and decrease security & confidence.
A $100 donation enters you into a raffle ticket for a stay in a luxury eco-retreat in Maui called Hale Akua. DONATIONS OF ANY AMOUNT WELCOME!
stop the expressvote xl
What's Happening with NY Voting?
New York elections are at a dangerous crossroads. New types of voting machines, called “all-in-one” and “universal-use”, are attempting to flood the state. After a four-year battle against it, a new All-in-One voting machine called the ExpressVote XL was approved on 8/2/23 by the NY State Board of Elections.
These systems do not allow you to vote with a pen and paper. They will radically change the way we vote. Experts say they will increase costs, and wait times, especially in communities of color. Experts say: elections conducted on these systems cannot be confirmed by audits
The ExpressVote XL also wraps your vote in a barcode. The barcode is what's counted, not the text you see. There is no way for you to verify who you are voting for. In 2023 in Northampton County, PA the ExpressVote XL printed different candidates on the summary card than the ones that voters selected. But the machine did not count the vote it showed on paper. It scanned a barcode and actually counted the vote for the opposite candidate of what was on the paper.
What does this demonstrate?
- The ExpressVote XL can flip votes.
- The ExpressVote XL can count the vote for a different candidate than what is on the paper summary card.
New Yorkers have been voting with either a pen and paper or a ballot-marking device for over 10 years. That system works. Voters can vote in the way that they prefer.
Yet despite all the warnings about these voting machines Erie, Monroe and Orange Counties are purchasing them.
Please make a tax-deductible donation to help fund a lawsuit to stop the ExpressVote XL in any counties that have purchased it.
We are immensely grateful for your support!
Watch Our Forum on the ExpressVote XL
We give you the full story about this voting machine, the timeline, and what you can do to help stop this trainwreck. Remember that New York Congressional elections helped determine the balance of power in the House in 2022. Join us - and get involved. It's urgent and it matters!
A MESSAGE FROM RENOWNED ELECTION SECURITY EXPERT PROFESSOR J. ALEX HALDERMAN
"...we urge those working to debunk election conspiracy theories to carefully distinguish between claims that the 2020 U.S. election result was hacked—for which there is no evidence—and claims that U.S. elections have real vulnerabilities and face threats from sophisticated attackers—which is the consensus view of the National Academies. Failure to clearly maintain this distinction confuses the public, discredits anti-disinformation efforts, and makes it even more difficult to have important public conversations about vital election security reforms and to implement those reforms. Voters deserve better.
Will these findings make voters less confident?
What should be done to fix the problems?
We’re sorry to be the bearers of bad news when trust in elections is already low, but the public needs accurate information about election security. Whether our findings ultimately strengthen or weaken public trust will depend on how responsible officials respond.
The most effective remedy for the problems we found and others like them is to rely less on BMDs [Ballot-Marking-Device]. The risk of attack is much lower when only a small fraction of voters use BMDs, as in most states, than when all in-person voters are forced to use them, as in Georgia. Where BMDs must be used, the risk of an undetected attack can be reduced by avoiding using barcodes to count votes. Officials can configure the ICX to print traditional-style ballots that do not use QR codes. This has the virtue of forcing an attacker to make changes that are (at least in principle) visible to voters. States should also implement rigorous risk-limiting audits of every major contest, which the National Academies has called on all states to do by 2028.
Our findings in Georgia demonstrate that elections face ongoing security risks that call for continued vigilance from policymakers, technologists, and the public. In light of these risks, the best way for officials to uphold voter confidence is to further improve security, not to deny that problems exist."
SMART is an acronym
