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.
I hadn’t, but it’s only about the bullet-ballots, which are a small part of it.
There are signs beyond just raw stats and it’s not only about bullet ballots.
How? The point isn’t fake voters. The claim is that the system changed how some real votes were counted, flipping votes above a certain limit for certain people. In Rockland County, NY, you have sworn affidavits from real voters saying their votes were missing or miscounted. This isn’t just “I forgot to vote” - these are people whose totals don’t match what the machines reported. That’s why a judge agreed it deserves discovery.
If the manipulation changed a big enough chunk of votes in a single county, then yes, you would probably see a clear mismatch between the exit poll and the final count. But what people are saying is that the alleged flips were small and spread out - for example, switching just enough votes here and there to stay under the radar.
Exit polls have a margin of error. If the flip is just two or three percent in key spots, it might not stand out because normal voter shifts, turnout differences, or shy-voter effects can explain small gaps. Plus, not every place has a solid local exit poll; some counties don’t even do them at all.
So yes, you could catch a huge flip that way, but if the flips were subtle and spread across many precincts, an exit poll alone probably wouldn’t prove it. The real test is still comparing the paper ballots directly to what the machines reported.
That is exactly what the Clark County, NV, ballot-level data shows. The machine results can’t be explained by the physical ballots alone. This is why people keep asking for full hand counts in specific high-risk counties instead of broad audits that skip over the suspicious spots.
No one is saying “Trump definitely lost.” The point is that the pattern is suspicious enough that it should be fully checked, with paper, logs, and software all verified properly. That is just basic accountability, not wishful thinking.