Voting Machine Malfunction Casts Shadow on Recent Election
Table of Contents
An alarming discovery has emerged following a recent election: twenty voting machines from Dominium Voting Systems, used in the general election count, appear to have systematically misrecorded votes on the plebiscite ballot. This revelation, confirmed by Aníbal Vega Borges, an electoral commissioner with the New Progressive Party (PNP), has sent shockwaves through the political landscape.
According to Commissioner Vega Borges, the malfunction specifically affected votes cast for independence or free association with the United States, leaving statehood votes untouched. He stated, “What we have investigated is that, practically, all (the machines) have been consistent in changing those results (of independence and free association). It is indeed not known when this began.”
The issue was uncovered at the State Election Commission (CEE) Operations Center in Hato Rey. The CEE has formally requested a report from Dominium explaining the malfunction, but the company has yet to provide a satisfactory response.Jessika Padilla Rivera, alternate president of the CEE, explained the company’s response: “They have raised it to the engineering team and, as engineering provides a response, they will give us a response.” Padilla Rivera added, “This is what they have explained to us so far.”
The lack of immediate response has fueled concerns. Vega Borges, a former mayor of Toa Baja and former representative, emphasized the urgency of the situation: “It is indeed significant to us that you provide that details. We have asked the president again to insist that Dominium give an clarification and if that explanation can be present, even better.”
While the CEE acknowledges a discrepancy in the plebiscite ballot count, Padilla Rivera stopped short of confirming the extent of the problem beyond that specific ballot. The guarantee that other ballots were accurately counted remains unconfirmed pending Dominium’s inquiry.
- Legislative ballots from the Río Grande Precinct were reportedly missing from their designated briefcases. Read More
- The CEE is reportedly accelerating the process of reviewing election minutes. Read More
Puerto Rico Plebiscite Vote Count Discrepancy Under Scrutiny
A significant discrepancy in the vote count for a recent non-binding plebiscite in puerto Rico has triggered an investigation, casting a shadow over the accuracy of the election results. The issue centers around a reported mismatch between the electronic and manual tallies,prompting officials to demand answers from the election technology vendor,Dominium.
“Officially, I cannot identify what that discrepancy is or talk about inversion of results, becuase Dominium has not yet certified to us what that discrepancy is. Yes, he has certified us, and we have seen it at the counting tables, that this does not affect or we have not seen it in other races, nor in other ballots, only in those of the plebiscite,” stated a high-ranking official involved in the vote count, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Adding to the complexity,the Commission on Elections (CEE) is facing a $1 million invoice from Dominium for maintenance services allegedly provided during the election and subsequent recount. According to Judge Padilla Rivera, these services were “not provided.”
“We are being billed for two services that the Commission received and, evidently in the absence of those two services, We are not going to be paying for maintenance that was not given in the period that had been established,”
The judge explained that the refusal to pay is unrelated to the outstanding report from Dominium. The contract, he continued, specifies a schedule of maintenance services, and those services were not performed as agreed. “The (decision of the) president, and I support that decision, is that she is not going to pay him a million dollars for services, says the president, not provided,” asserted Vega Borges, a member of the new Progressive party, adding, “I support her decision not to pay until this is resolved.”
It’s crucial to note that this plebiscite was non-binding, meaning it doesn’t legally determine Puerto Rico’s status. It served as a gauge of public opinion on statehood, independence, and free association. Preliminary results from election night showed 540,635 votes for statehood, 293,224 for independence, and 116,834 for free association. However, the ongoing recount reveals discrepancies.
The current recount shows 475,567 votes for statehood, 253,996 for independence, and 104,849 for free association. the number of blank and invalid ballots also differs significantly from the initial count. Despite the machine malfunction, a manual recount is not currently being considered.
“no, what we want is for dominium to give us an explanation about this,”
vega Borges emphasized the need for Dominium to provide a clear explanation for the discrepancies.The investigation continues, raising concerns about election integrity and the reliability of electronic voting systems in Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico Plebiscite Vote Count Discrepancy Under Scrutiny
A recent non-binding plebiscite in Puerto Rico regarding its future political status has been plunged into controversy due too a concerning discrepancy in the vote count. This has triggered an official investigation, raising serious questions about the accuracy adn reliability of the election results.
Addressing the Vote Discrepancy
Senior Editor: Welcome to our special segment addressing the troubling vote count discrepancy in Puerto Rico’s recent plebiscite. Joining us today is Dr. Isabella Ramos, a political scientist specializing in Caribbean politics and election integrity. Dr. Ramos, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Isabella Ramos: It’s a pleasure to be here. This situation in puerto Rico is deeply concerning and demands our attention.
Senior Editor: Could you shed light on the nature of the discrepancy that’s causing such alarm?
Dr. Ramos: The main concern revolves around a mismatch between the electronic and manual tallies specifically for the plebiscite portion of the ballot.while the exact nature of the discrepancy is still being investigated, it appears that some votes for independence and free association may have been misrecorded as votes for statehood.
Senior editor: Has there been any official description for this discrepancy from the election technology provider, Dominium?
Dr. Ramos: Unfortunately, Dominium has yet to provide a satisfactory explanation. They have acknowledged the inconsistencies but haven’t identified the root cause of the error. This lack of transparency is fueling public mistrust and anxiety.
The role of Dominium and the Commission on Elections
Senior Editor: This situation raises questions about the role of Dominium and the Commission on Elections (CEE) in ensuring accurate vote counting.
Dr.Ramos: This situation highlights the critical duty that both Dominium and the CEE bear in safeguarding the integrity of elections. Dominium’s technology should be robust and reliable, and they must be held accountable for any malfunctions. Simultaneously, the CEE has the duty to oversee the electoral process meticulously and to demand transparent explanations from Dominium about this discrepancy
Senior Editor: Adding to the complexities, there’s also a reported $1 million invoice from Dominium for maintenance services that the CEE claims where not provided.
Dr. Ramos: yes, that adds another layer of concern. This alleged financial impropriety further erodes public confidence and necessitates a thorough investigation.
Senior Editor: Despite the controversy, the CEE has stated that there’s no indication yet that other ballot races were affected.
Dr. Ramos: That’s encouraging news, but it highlights the importance of a comprehensive audit to ensure the integrity of the entire election. Transparency is essential to restoring public trust.
