Talk:Dominion Voting Systems

Dominion equipment of interest to 2020 US Election

Reports (whether true or not) of improper behavior of Dominion Voting Systems equipment have started appearing in reference to the 2020 Election in the United States. This may leave the page vulnerable to vandalism. I do not have the privilege to lock the article.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/06/antrim-county-results-election-2020/6185031002/ The article above details information about the use of the software in Antrim county, MI, where a disproportionate amount of votes were incorrect. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-biden-election-results-11-06-20/h_cea5da87d01a2365d79863c9912d5c64 The article above has information on delays attributed to Dominion in Gwinnett county, GA. Both articles confirm that the errors were noticed and corrected and after manual entering the correct numbers were eventually reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somers-all-the-time (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Somers-all-the-time (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

When you post unfactual information it will make you look like an unreliable or bias source. In the United States there are currently nearly 1000 or more documented legal affidavits stating that the software used in these computers was intentionally corrupted to allow cheating or the bumping of votes. Because this is an ongoing investigation which may result in legal action, it would be ill advised to post that the President of the US has spread untruthful information.

The comment above regarding the State of Georgia is just one example. Michigan has also publicly stated these issues occured. More states are currently being audited. While Dominion is the Voting Computer provider, they are not the technical support or the computer program company. PapaTango123 (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say, which is that there is no evidence supporting the claims and that they have been debunked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

May I ask what you consider reliable sources? As there have been numerous affidavits and numerous employees from Dominion who have come forward stating under sworn testimony that these issues occurred and are ongoing. This is fact not assumption and the people who’ve testified could face prosecution for perjury if they lied. Stating the President of the United States is stating misinformation and his claims have been debunked is incorrect. The President stated fact which was disclosed on National news, regarding the machines flipping votes. In the ongoing investigation the tally appears to be a 3% effect of votes flipped from one candidate to another. Until this is completely clarified and resolved, I still suggest not calling the President a liar as it looks very bias in context. PapaTango123 (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, PapaTango123,

Look here for what Wikipedia considers reliable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. This is the consensus after years and years of debate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Thank you Liz~ that was very helpful! I question the use of Snopes as a fact check, and advise that others use multiple sources as they are bias and unreliable. PapaTango123 (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@PapaTango123: We do generally consider Snopes to be reliable (WP:RSP#Snopes), but this article doesn't use Snopes as a source at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry if that was out of context. I was referring to the list of references. PapaTango123 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"Some have made false claims that Dominion had close ties" should probably have the word 'false' removed. "Some have made claims that..." otherwise, it fails Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view @SmithAndTeam (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

NPOV: which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you identify any significant reliable sources giving any credence to the claims? Can you find any saying that they are true? Or even plausible? Is the description of the claims as false demonstrably inaccurate? Koncorde (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing "false" does not make the sentence POV, it makes it misleading. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove the word false. No one knows if these statements are false or not. It's clearly written in a way that is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:7B02:D510:D020:F439:2C6F:B19A (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Verified Voting

Is https://verifiedvoting.org a reliable source? It's being used to support a sentence or two in the lede (the information in which should be replicated in the body, btw, if it isn't already). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: That seems to be the Verified Voting Foundation. My admittedly brief look leads me to believe it's generally reliable. I'm not sure about the WP:DUE level of this edit from 2019 [1] by Special:Contributions/Brent_Turner on that page, partly because I'm not clear on the status of "FastCompany" as a source.

For what it's being used for (verified info on the kinds of machines Dominion makes) it seems like a good source to me. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, Fair enough. A quick glance at the GNews result suggests that they are regarded as something as an authority in the media too. If they/their founder are good enough for the NYT, presumably they're good enough for us too. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliability section

The Reliability section points out the one (possible) failure for certification, Texas. But in 28 other states, DVS passed certification, plus the national standards. This is simply cherry picking. What is the solution to providing better context for the Texas datum? I can cite GA's formal documentation? VerifyVote.org may also have this information. KDIsom (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

On November 17, the BBC website published a piece which explained that the reason Texas rejected use of Dominion, was that Texas has stipulated additional requirements beyond those stipulated by the Federal Government, which the Dominion machines are unable to satisfy, such as that each ballot has a unique number so it can be traced: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54959962 Ekaterina Colclough (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Clinton ties to Dominion

WP:NOTFORUM

The Clinton Global Initiative supported Dominion Voting System through Delian Project: Democracy through technology. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments/delian-project-democracy-through-technology.Jray2175 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Okay. And...... 331dot (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC) It seems to be some kind of oblique way to cast aspersions about some kind of conspiracy theory, especially given what the Delian Project [2] actually is, and what the Clinton Global Initiative is (not a direct donor, but merely a group connecting individual projects to potential donors or partners). I would prefer to just strike this as WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTFORUM stuff unless they have a specific edit they want to suggest. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC) This is a specific edit. The page states there is no connection to the Clintons and Dominion. This proves there is, stated in black and white! Conspiracy theory? That is just plain goofy. That is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. What do you think your saying when you label something "conspiracy theory"? It is either true or not! Besides the fact that I was not claiming a conspiracy. I am disproving the assertion that there is no connection between the Clintons and Dominion.Jray2175 (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC) The article is referring to claims that "Dominion had close ties to the Clinton family". IHateAccounts has just explained to you why that does not sound like a "close tie"; furthermore, you would need a secondary reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC) "AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Dominion made a one-time philanthropic commitment at a Clinton Global Initiative meeting in 2014, but the Clinton Foundation has no stake or involvement in Dominion’s operations, the nonprofit confirmed to The Associated Press." https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-us-news-media-michigan-43bdaa186e3b8d9d897cae3bd0c6cdc0 - The source in the article addresses and debunks the claim made by Jray2175. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Dominion Voting is listed in a Washington Post table as having donated between $25,001- $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-foundation-donor-list/ It in 2014 donated its election technology throughout the world through the Clinton Global Initiative. Those are close enough ties to me. Now we can debate what warrants "close ties" all day long. The fact that we can debate that, shows that the statement on the page is misleading! If you want to replace it with the Clintons do not have current financial ties to Dominion. I am fine with that. It however is clearly misleading and false to even suggest they have had no ties in the past. Jray2175 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC) No, the article says only "Trump and others also made unsubstantiated claims that Dominion had close ties to the Clinton family or other Democrats." Since the Clinton Foundation was created 23 years ago, it has had untold thousands of contacts with untold thousands of organizations, the vast majority of which have never had any contact with Bill, Hillary or Chelsea because the Foundation employs many professional managers to do all the real work. This is yet another attempt to smear the Clintons with a vague accusation of "connections." soibangla (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC) The Clinton Foundation is obviously run by the Clintons. I find it hilarious that [IHateAccounts] posts AP's ASSESSMENT that states in the article that Clinton and Dominion are tied together once to disprove they have no ties. I digress. Jray2175 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Since you seem to not understand how conferences like this function, I am providing a link. They are large-scale events with multiple panels, breakout sessions, small group discussions, workshops, and meet-and-greet events occurring through each day. There's no evidence that the Clintons even met anyone from Dominion Voting Systems in passing, let alone "are tied together". https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/meetings/annual-meetings/2014 IHateAccounts (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC) There is no evidence they didn't meet either. The point is irrelevant. The Clinton Foundation and all their employees represents the Clinton family. The definition of a tie is to "restrict or limit (someone) to a particular situation, occupation, or place. The sources have proven that the Clinton Foundation and Dominion at least twice have been in the same situation, the same place, and have worked together. Thus they have ties! Thus the statement "there is no evidence for any of these claims" is false and at best misleading. Jray2175 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC) The inference from "close ties" is obviously intended to suggest bias on the part of Dominion, or direct interference / control from the Clintons. The reliable sources have clearly identified neither of those things are true, and now we are being asked to go through 6 Degrees of Separation to argue over what is and isn't the close tie that Trump or any associated group or individuals may be on about. You would struggle to find many companies that haven't donated to philanthropic organisations. It would take an RS stating that the donation established clear links for us to duplicate the claim (or place it in dispute). Koncorde (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC) And it would be false to claim that those "philanthropic organisations" have no ties to the Clinton Foundation.Jray2175 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Jray2175 If you just want to push pro-Trump conspiracy theories, please do so elsewhere. If you want to civilly collaborate with the rest of us, regardless of political viewpoint, please heed what you are being told. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) I already made the point about conspiracy theories. Theories? You thought the links I presented was theory? Pro-Trump? I said not one thing about Trump. We're talking about the Clinton Foundation and Dominion here. Please stay on topic. Your statement says more about your Anti-Trump bias then anything. So your saying I have to abide by your bias to contribute on here? I am not going anywhere. Heed what I am being told? Are you trying to intimidate me? Jray2175 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Just to put some more evidence to back up my claim. The AP source referenced also mentions Nancy Pelosi. It states "Other social media sleuths pointed to Dominion’s hiring of Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi’s former chief of staff, as part of its lobbying team as alleged evidence of a link between the company and Pelosi." Then says that "it’s true that Elshami is part of a lobbying team representing Dominion, according to public disclosures." Your own source reveals their are links to both the Clinton Foundation and Nancy Pelosi. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-us-news-media-michigan-43bdaa186e3b8d9d897cae3bd0c6cdc0Jray2175 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Report on Dominion voting machines of Antrim County, Michigan

"We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail." "https://www.9and10news.com/content/uploads/2020/12/Antrim_Michigan_Forensics_Report_121320_v2_REDACTED.pdf -Topcat777 (talk) 18:32, 14 Dec 2020 (UTC)

Michigan and Dominion say the report is full of shit. Which, looking at it, makes neither head nor tail so not surprising. Koncorde (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, of course Dominion themselves would reject any criticism of its products, that's not a surprise. And the fact that a single MI politician, MI Elections Director Jonathan Brater, says it's false is irrelevant too. He doesn't know how the machines work. He's an expert on voting law and policy, not cybersecurity or data forensics or any of the sort. Neither DVS nor that politician are presenting any evidence to back up their claims. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The report should definitely be included in the article, maybe something along the lines of:

An independent forensics report concluded that "the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail.", while Dominion Voting Systems in response claimed to be "the subject of a continuing malicious and widespread disinformation campaign intended to undermine confidence in the Nov. 3 election".

Seems fair enough to both sides. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources that consider the report credible to give it any credibility ourselves. This is particularly important when the person responsible is someone already discredited. Koncorde (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

There are reliable sources saying so. Here's one by a reliable independent journalist. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

BitChute is a far-right website with no known editorial standards that hosts conspiracy theories. This material is not reliable at all. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You may wish to review the reliable sources policy, which will both help you identify reliable sources. It will also help explain why, although work by a journalist (in this case, Tim Pool) may become a reliable source when it is published by a reputable publication with a reputation for fact-checking, we do not identify certain individuals as "reliable sources" and take every word they say to be fact. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that respect for human rights is a far-right principle? That's a very interesting opinion...

Bitchute itself is neither Left nor Right, like other platforms such as Youtube or Facebook it doesn't stand for the views expressed in individual videos or posts. And contrary to your statement, it does have very clear community guidelines just as all platforms do. That's something you could have easily verified before falsely claiming otherwise.

It baffles me how some people prefer to believe in evidently false statements by so-called authority figures and reject all evidence to the contrary. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect AleatoryPonderings was referring to the fact that BitChute is known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material. Regardless of where the video was posted (BitChute, YouTube, Vimeo, wherever), it's not a reliable source because of WP:SPS.

If you would like to publish your own research and opinions on what is or is not true, I would recommend starting a blog. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Bitchute also accomodates far-left views and conspiracies, that's what it means to stand for free speech. Are they therefore both far-right as well as far-left? The reason that not many far-left creators are on Bitchute is that, unlike the Right, they were never forced off of Youtube and are still there. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to establish the reliability of this BitChute-hosted video, you are invited to visit WP:RSN to establish a consensus in favour of using the material. However, I predict that the community will find that the guidelines you linked do not constitute an editorial policy, since they appear geared towards facilitating user-generated content. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite but I have no wish to take part in these manipulative games. Of course they don't have editorial guidelines, they're not a publisher. They're a platform. You must know the difference between the two. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do know the difference. Platforms, because they typically do not have editorial standards, do not confer reliability on the content they host. Media that do have editorial standards, by contrast, may well confer reliability on the content they host. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliability is not a title conferred by fiat by any authority, publisher or otherwise. Reliability is gained over time by an entity making accurate statements about reality and/or predictions about the future which are independently verified to be so. But I understand very well that's not how so-called "reliability" works here on WP. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I think there are larger issues here[3], aside from just the proposer's trying to get insertion of a "report" that all WP:RS indicate has factual problems. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what LGBT has to do with the current topic. Do you happen to have an answer or additional info on the question I posed "over there"? If so, you could just post there, I don't think here's the place for it. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

At this point, we are talking neither about Dominion or your ill-advised comment at LGBT. WP:NOTFORUM now applies, as there are no outstanding content issues to address. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

To the IP user: It is not acceptable to continue protesting Wikipedia policies in talk page when other users have already explained it is impossible to comply with your editorial demand. To be fair, I do not endorse IHateAccounts' digression. Further abuse of Wikipedia talk page in such manner will be met with instant closure or removal of your topic. -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Do as you please, it's your Wiki. I merely tried to bring a bit of common sense into the conversation. If you're going to disappear this thread, at the very least I think OP should be informed in advance.

Good day. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)