Are Electronic Voting Machines Made by the Same Companies That Build Slot Machines? Unveiling the Facts

The comparison between electronic voting machines and slot machines is a common point of misunderstanding. In this article, we will address whether these machines are made by the same companies, highlight the differences between them, and explain the reliability and security of electronic voting systems.

Outdated Comparisons and Misinformation

It is often asserted that electronic voting machines and slot machines are made by the same manufacturers, but this is a misconception. Manufacturers of electronic voting systems, such as Diebold Nixdorf, Dominion Voting Systems, and EschaddAll, primarily focus on creating secure and reliable voting solutions for election systems. On the other hand, slot machine manufacturers, like Bally Technologies and International Game Technology (IGT), specialize in providing gaming technology and entertainment systems.

Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Machines

The security and reliability of electronic voting machines have been extensively reviewed and tested. These systems undergo rigorous scrutiny, including audits, cybersecurity assessments, and independent testing by various governmental and non-governmental organizations.

For example, the state of Oregon's use of Pluribus for electronic voting led to a robust debate, but the final report concluded that the system was reliable and secure. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Addressing Concerns About Gamification of Voting

One of the main concerns is the idea that voting machines are akin to slot machines, implying a random or manipulated outcome. This analogy is fundamentally flawed. Unlike slot machines, which rely on random number generation algorithms for entertainment purposes, voting systems are designed to accurately and transparently record and count votes.

Rigorous Oversight and Verification

The reliability of electronic voting systems is also supported by the thorough review and verification processes. For instance, the auditing and certification processes ensure that these systems operate as intended and meet stringent security standards.

Historical Context and Recent Elections

The 2020 US Presidential Election is often cited as evidence of electoral irregularities, with deeply entrenched beliefs surrounding alleged security flaws in electronic voting systems. However, this claim is largely unfounded. Extensive scrutiny and audits by multiple parties, including state-level officials and congressional committees, have consistently found the election to be secure and unanimous in its support.

For instance, the audits in several states, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, were carried out with the participation of political parties, observers, and even federal representatives. These audits not only confirmed the integrity of the voting process but also demonstrated a high level of transparency and accountability.

Conclusion

The comparison between electronic voting machines and slot machines is not only inaccurate but also misleading. Electronic voting systems are rigorously designed, tested, and overseen to ensure the highest levels of security and reliability. Their primary purpose is to accurately count and record votes, not to mimic the random outcomes of gambling devices. With the increasing use of technology in elections, the public should have confidence in their ability to ensure fair and transparent elections.