Minor party preference flows for the federal election have been released, with Labor winning Greens preferences by 88.2–11.8, while the Coalition won One Nation preferences by 74.5–24.5. I also cover a SA state poll that gave Labor a massive 67–33 lead.

The Australian Electoral Commission’s results for the May 3 federal election now show how minor parties’ preferences flowed between Labor and the Coalition. The Greens won 12.2% of the national primary vote, and their preferences favoured Labor over the Coalition by 88.2–11.8. That’s a 2.5% preference flow gain for Labor since the 2022 election.

One Nation had 6.4% of primary votes. Their preferences favoured the Coalition over Labor by 74.5–25.5, a 10.2% preference flow gain for the Coalition. Independents made up 7.3% of primary votes, and their preferences favoured Labor by 67.2–32.8, a 3.4% gain for Labor.

Including Trumpet of Patriots (1.9% of primary votes) with others, others made up 7.7% of primary votes and their preferences favoured the Coalition by 57.3–42.7, a 0.6% gain for the Coalition since 2022 if United Australia Party (4.1% in 2022) is included with others then.

The AEC formally declared the poll by returning the writs on June 12. Results can be legally challenged within 40 days of this declaration, so by July 22.

In Bradfield, Teal Nicolette Boele only won by 26 votes against the Liberals, and this result could be challenged.

As the AEC does not want to disturb the ballot papers until any challenge is resolved by the courts, it is for now using an estimated two-party result in Bradfield (55.0–45.0 to the Liberals against Labor). Analyst Ben Raue believes this estimate is understating Labor in Bradfield by 4.4%.

If Raue is right, the current national two-party vote (55.22–44.78 to Labor) is very slightly understating Labor.

While One Nation’s preference shift helped the Coalition, there were compensatory shifts to Labor from Greens and independent voters. The combined primary vote for One Nation and Trumpet of Patriots was down 0.8% from 2022 to 8.3%, while independents were up 2.0%.

Applying 2022 election flows to primary votes at this election only overstates Labor by 0.1% compared to their actual two-party vote.

In my poll review article on June 5, I said respondent allocated preferences in final polls did not show a large gap in the Coalition’s favour from using 2022 election flows that had occurred in polls earlier in the year.

It’s likely that Labor’s share of preferences from Greens and Teal-type independents rose close to the election. People who voted for these candidates may have been disappointed with Labor’s environmental record, but both Peter Dutton and Donald Trump helped Labor with these people.

In the last term, the Greens were economically left-wing as well as pro-environment. Voters who supported the Greens because of their economic agenda are probably less likely to prefer the Coalition to Labor than environmental voters.

The Poll Bludger has a graph that shows that, in federal elections since 2004, Labor’s share of Greens preferences was at a record high this election, but their share of One Nation preferences was at a record low.

Weak Labor flows to Boele

In Bradfield, Labor preferences favoured Boele by 68.6–31.4 against the Liberals.

There were 16 other seats where Labor preferences were distributed between the Coalition and a non-Coalition candidate. The Labor flow to Boele was the second weakest in such seats. This weak flow almost cost Boele Bradfield.

The only seat that had a weaker Labor preference flow to a non-Coalition candidate was Maranoa, where the non-Coalition candidate was One Nation. Labor preferences in Maranoa split 57.9–42.1 to the Liberal National Party against One Nation. In 13 of the 17 seats, Labor preferences flowed at over 75% rates to the non-Coalition candidate.

In early April, the ABC reported Boele had made a crude sexual remark to a 19-year-old employee at a hair salon after receiving a haircut and was banned from that salon. This may explain the weaker preference flow from Labor voters.

Weak Greens flows to Teals in Teal vs Labor contests

There were three seats where the final two were Labor and a Teal independent: Bean, Franklin and Fremantle. In Bean and Fremantle, the Liberals recommended preferences to the Teal on their how to vote material, but not in Franklin.

Labor held all three seats, but only by 50.3–49.7 in Bean and 50.7–49.3 in Fremantle. Labor won much more easily in Franklin, by 57.8–42.2, where they benefited from Liberal how to vote cards.

In Bean, Greens preferences only favoured Teal Jessie Price by 50.6–49.4 over Labor, while Liberal preferences favoured her by 80.0–20.0. In Fremantle, Greens preferences favoured Teal Kate Hulett by 52.9–47.1, while Liberal preferences favoured her by 76.5–23.5. In Franklin, Greens preferences favoured Teal Peter George by 53.8–46.2.

In Bean and Fremantle, had Greens preferences been stronger for the Teal, Labor would have lost to a more pro-environment candidate. Perhaps Labor benefited on Greens preferences owing to the Greens’ more economic left-wing agenda.

And a national Morgan poll, conducted June 2–22 from a sample of 3,957, gave Labor a 58–42 lead, unchanged from the previous Morgan poll in May. Primary votes were 37.5% Labor (up 0.5), 31% Coalition (steady), 12% Greens (up 0.5), 6% One Nation (steady) and 13.5% for all Others (down one).

By 43–41.5, voters thought the country was headed in the right direction, the first time right direction has led since February 2023. The overall net +1.5 rating is +48 with Labor voters, +11.5 with Greens, -43 with Coalition voters, -80.5 with One Nation voters and -17.5 with all Others.

Labor holds massive lead in SA

The next South Australian state election will be held in March 2026. A YouGov poll for The Adelaide Advertiser, conducted May 15–28 from a sample of 903, gave Labor a massive 67–33 lead over the Liberals (54.6–45.4 to Labor at the March 2022 election). Primary votes were 48% Labor, 21% Liberals, 14% Greens, 7% One Nation, 8% independents and 2% others.

If the results at next March’s election reflect this poll, the Liberals would hold just two of the 47 lower house seats on a uniform swing. It would be easily their worst result in SA state history.

In Australian electoral history, there has only been one bigger landslide: when Western Australian Labor defeated the Liberals and Nationals by 69.7–30.3 at the March 2021 state election.

Socialist likely to be next New York City mayor

I covered today’s AEST New York City Democratic mayoral primary election for The Poll Bludger. While preferences won’t be tabulated until next Tuesday, the socialist Zohran Mamdani leads former New York governor Andrew Cuomo by 43.5–36.4 on primary votes, and is virtually certain to win. As the Democratic nominee, Mamdani is likely to win the November general election.

The article also covers Donald Trump’s ratings and polls in Israel.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Security Council Elections 2025

Security Council Elections 2025

On 3 June, the 79th session of the UN General Assembly is scheduled to hold elections for membership of the Security Council. The five seats available for election in 2025, according to the regular distribution among regions, will be as follows:

two seats for the African Group (currently held by Algeria and Sierra Leone);

one seat for the Group of Asia and the Pacific Small Island Developing States (Asia-Pacific Group, currently held by the Republic of Korea);

one seat for the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC, currently held by Guyana); and

one seat for the Eastern European Group (currently held by Slovenia).

The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) is not contesting any seats this year, as its two seats, held by Denmark and Greece through 2026, come up for election every other year. The five new members elected this year will take up their seats on 1 January 2026 and will serve until 31 December 2027.

The 2025 Candidates

Five member states— Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Latvia, and Liberia—are currently running for the five available seats. Apart from Latvia, all other candidates have previously served on the Council: Colombia seven times, DRC twice, and Bahrain and Liberia once.

All the regional groups are running uncontested elections this year, known as a “clean slate.” The table below shows the number of seats available by region in the 2025 election, the declared candidate(s), and their prior term(s) on the Council.

Potential Council Dynamics in 2026

The shifting global landscape and continuing political polarisation among the permanent members are expected to continue to shape Council dynamics in 2026. The priorities raised by the candidates in their campaigns, as well as their long-standing interests, help to provide insights into their potential approach to some of the key issues confronting the Council.

Given the long-standing positions of the permanent members— as well as those of the continuing elected members and the incoming members—several agenda items are likely to remain highly contentious, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, “The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question”, and Ukraine. African issues that may be difficult include the situations in the DRC and Sudan.

Although it is unclear what course the war in Ukraine will take in 2026, the situation is likely to continue to occupy a significant portion of the Council’s agenda in 2026. Among current candidates, Latvia has a significant interest in the situation in Ukraine, given its geographic proximity to the conflict. From the outset of the war, Latvia has consistently provided Ukraine with broad political, military, financial, development, and humanitarian assistance.

Positions on Ukraine of some of the other incoming members have evolved over time. Shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the General Assembly adopted a resolution on 2 March 2022 titled “Aggression against Ukraine,” receiving support from 141 member states. All current candidates for Council membership in 2026-2027 voted in favour of that resolution. However, more recent votes in the General Assembly have revealed growing divisions among the wider UN membership on this issue. On 24 February 2025, the Ukrainian-EU resolution titled “Advancing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine” secured just 93 votes in favour, significantly less support than the 2 March 2022 resolution.

Among current candidates, Latvia and Liberia voted in favour of the 2025 resolution, while Bahrain and Colombia abstained, and the DRC did not vote. In 2022, all candidate countries were in broad agreement that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine constituted an act of aggression, as reflected by voting records in the General Assembly. Latvia and Liberia have since maintained a clear stance on this issue, supporting Ukraine’s position. In contrast, the positions of Bahrain, Colombia, and the DRC have seen slight shifts in line with a growing reluctance among Global South countries to take sides in the conflict.

The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and is likely to continue to feature prominently in the Council’s work in 2026. Security Council divisions are not expected to change dramatically over the Israel-Hamas war and its impact on other issues in the Middle East. While many members have condemned Hamas’ 7 October 2023 attack, several have strongly criticised Israel for its alleged violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. The US has been strongly supportive of Israel throughout the war.

Voting patterns in the General Assembly show that the current candidates have exhibited a range of views with regard to the war in Gaza. While Liberia has traditionally tended to align with the US and Israel on this issue, there appears to have been a slight shift in its position since December 2023. For example, it voted in favour of the 16 December 2024 General Assembly resolution (ES-10/26) demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, as did other incoming members. The DRC has tended to be supportive of resolutions on the humanitarian situation in Gaza and on Palestinian rights. Latvia has also supported humanitarian measures related to the war in Gaza in the General Assembly. In May 2024, Colombia severed ties with Israel over its actions in Gaza. It has been critical of Israel’s actions and supportive of humanitarian and diplomatic efforts to end the conflict. Although Bahrain normalised its relations with Israel after signing the Abraham Accords, it is expected to maintain its strong criticism of Israel’s operation in Gaza in line with the position of the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Next year, with Somalia in the second year of its 2025-2026 tenure, there will be three non-permanent members serving in the Council that are also on its agenda.

The DRC has had a peacekeeping operation in the country since the early sixties, and a sanctions committee established pursuant to resolution 1533 (2004). The UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) is the largest and longest-running UN peacekeeping mission in Africa. In recent years it has faced significant pressure from both the government and local communities due to its perceived failure to effectively address the security situation in eastern DRC. As part of a disengagement plan for a phased and gradual drawdown of MONUSCO, the mission has withdrawn its forces from South Kivu, one of the eastern provinces. However, the security situation deteriorated sharply in early 2025, with the Mouvement du 23 Mars (M23) expanding its territorial control in the eastern regions of the country.

The DRC has a contentious relationship with Rwanda, which it accuses of supporting the M23, while Rwanda blames the DRC for supporting the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (FDLR), an ethnic Hutu armed group active in eastern DRC that was implicated in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda. The Group of Experts assisting the 1533 DRC Sanctions Committee has corroborated these assertions in its past reports. In this context, the DRC has been advocating for punitive measures against Rwanda and the M23.

If elected, the DRC is likely to use its membership on the Security Council—alongside its concurrent seat on the African Union Peace and Security Council—to draw greater international attention to the situation in eastern DRC and the broader Great Lakes region.

Colombia has been on the agenda since 2016 following the signing of the 2016 Final Agreement for Ending the Conflict and Building a Stable and Lasting Peace between the government of Colombia and the former rebel group Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP).

From the outset, Colombia’s relationship with the Council has been positive. It requested to be added to the Council’s agenda in 2016, which resulted in the establishment of the UN Mission in Colombia. This mission was succeeded by the UN Verification Mission in Colombia, which is tasked with verifying several aspects related to implementation of the 2016 agreement and is regularly discussed in the Council. Colombia also remains a rare file on the Council’s agenda that enjoys consensus and has largely remained insulated from the difficult dynamics among Council members on other files. Colombia may be able to share its positive experience of hosting a UN mission in discussions on UN peace operations.

As a West African country, Liberia is expected to pay particular attention to West Africa and the Sahel and may choose to focus on the deteriorating security situation in this region. It could replace Sierra Leone as a co-penholder on the UN Office for West Africa and the Sahel (UNOWAS) next year, joining Denmark, the other current co-penholder. In the same vein, the DRC could be the co-penholder on the UN Office for Central Africa (UNOCA), which in recent years has had a Central African country co-pen with the UK.

Both the DRC and Liberia are expected to advance common African positions in line with the decisions of the AU and its Peace and Security Council. In this regard, during their election campaigns, both countries expressed support for “Silencing the Guns in Africa”, the AU’s flagship initiative aimed at ending all wars and conflicts on the continent by 2030. Curbing the proliferation of small arms and light weapons—one of the initiative’s key objectives—has been emphasised by both countries and could feature as a theme during their Council tenures.

Some candidates have emphasised the importance of addressing terrorism and violent extremism. Bahrain has highlighted this issue as one of its priorities, stressing its role in combating the challenges in its region. Colombia may be interested in focusing on a broader set of issues related to transnational crime.

Several of the candidates have indicated that peacekeeping will be one of their priorities. Colombia, the DRC, and Liberia have extensive experience hosting UN peace operations, while Bahrain and Latvia have emphasised the importance of peacekeeping in their candidacies. These members will enter during a period of transition for peacekeeping in light of potential cuts to the peacekeeping budget and the ongoing review of peace operations. They may therefore have an opportunity to share their experiences and express their views on the drawdown, reconfiguration, and termination of UN peace operations during their term.

Additionally, all candidates have expressed interest in supporting peacebuilding efforts. The ongoing peacebuilding architecture review, which is expected to culminate with twin resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly at the end of 2025, may provide new opportunities for involvement.

Maritime security may receive significant attention from the Council in 2026. Given that this is one of its core priorities, Bahrain is expected to advance discussions in the Council on this issue. As a country with one of the world’s largest ship registries, Liberia has a particular stake in this issue as well. These members could work closely with the continuing elected members—Denmark, Greece, Pakistan, Panama, and Somalia—who also have a strong interest in promoting maritime security issues.

All candidate countries have expressed an interest in advancing Women, Peace and Security (WPS)-related issues. Several, if not all, may sign on to the Shared Commitments on WPS initiative, which started in late 2021. Permanent members France and the UK, the penholder on WPS, can be expected to remain proponents of the agenda. There have been changes to the US position on this agenda since the start of President Donald Trump’s term in January 2025. The US, which signed on to the Shared Commitments on WPS in 2023, has so far not participated in any of the joint stakeouts that the Council members who signed on to this initiative have held to deliver joint statements. The US has also sought to modify some references to the WPS agenda during negotiations in early 2025, with a particular focus on eliminating gender-related language. Russia will probably continue to argue that gender equality is not directly linked to international peace and security and is therefore not within the Council’s purview. China is likely to continue to maintain that the development gap is the most important barrier to women’s empowerment.

There will be a vacancy for one of the co-chair positions of the Informal Expert Group (IEG) on WPS in 2026: current co-chair Sierra Leone will conclude its Council term this December, paving the way for another member to join Denmark as co-chair.

Climate, peace and security ranks high on the priority list for many candidates this year, with most candidate countries emphasising the importance of addressing the nexus between environmental issues and international peace and security. In particular, the DRC, Latvia, and Liberia have expressed strong interest in addressing issues related to natural resource management and its linkages to conflict. While the majority of Council members support Council engagement on this issue, China and Russia continue to express concerns about the climate, peace and security file. The current US administration has reservations about this issue as well.

One member of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) Group—Slovenia—will leave the Security Council at the end of 2025. Among the current candidates, only Latvia is a member of the group. Another ACT Group member, Denmark, will continue on the Council in 2026. These two members are likely to take the lead in pushing for improved Security Council working methods, including proposals advocated by the ACT Group.

All incoming members have signed the ACT Group’s Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, which calls on all Council members to not vote against any credible draft resolution intended to prevent or halt mass atrocities. In line with ACT’s position on the selection process for the next UN Secretary-General, ACT members on the Council are expected to be supportive of greater transparency and openness in this process.

In 2026, elected members may continue to seek active roles in the Council as penholders or co-penholders, the informal designation of those that take the lead in drafting outcomes and convening meetings or negotiations on particular agenda items, a responsibility most often assumed by one of the P3 (France, the UK, and the US). In recent years, a growing number of elected members have served as co-penholders with a permanent member on various files. Among current elected members, this includes Slovenia with the US on Ukraine political issues, Panama with France on Ukraine humanitarian issues, and Panama with the US on Haiti. Elected members usually hold the pen on the Syria humanitarian file, and some candidate countries may be interested in this role when Denmark (current penholder) leaves the Council at the end of 2026. Several current members are still vying to be penholders on Afghanistan in 2025; next year, depending on how this issue is resolved, there may be an opportunity for one or more of the elected members to serve as a penholder or co-penholder on Afghanistan.

Mail-in voting rates dropped but early in-person voting is a hit, federal report shows

toggle caption Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

Fewer Americans cast their ballots by mail during last year’s election, while more voters embraced casting their ballots in-person before Election Day.

New data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission found that the 2020 presidential election remains a high-water mark for vote by mail usage in a nationwide election.

According to a national survey of local and state election officials that the agency conducts after every major election, “mail voting comprised 30.3% of the turnout for the 2024 election,” which is a decrease compared to the 2020 election when mail ballots comprised 43% of turnout.

The commission, however, noted that the share of mail voting last year is still “larger than the percentage of the electorate that voted by mail in pre-pandemic elections.” Turnout has also stayed above pre-pandemic levels. During the 2024 election, nearly 65% of the citizen voting age population participated in the general election, which is the second highest turnout in the last five presidential elections.

toggle caption Megan Varner/Getty Images

Mail voting popularity drop-off

The EAC found that in-person voting started to see “a resurgence” in 2022, while mail voting saw a corresponding decrease that year.

Sponsor Message

“For the 2024 general election, more than two thirds of voters cast their ballots in person either before or on Election Day,” the report found. “Approximately three in 10 voters cast their ballots by mail.”

Commissioner Donald Palmer told NPR that voters often “have their own preferences” when it comes to methods of casting a ballot, but that can change over time if other methods become available to them.

“And so election officials, what we take away from that is that we need to be prepared and be ready to facilitate different forms of voting,” he said.

There are several reasons experts expected that vote by mail was unlikely to be as popular as it was during the pandemic. For one, many states expanded vote by mail for health and safety reasons during the 2020 election, but some reverted back to more limited programs ahead of the 2024 election.

Also, in the wake of the 2020 election, President Trump and Republican lawmakers across the country also spread misinformation aimed at discrediting voting by mail, which eventually led to a slew of laws being passed in recent years that create new limits on this method of voting.

Republicans did embrace mail-in ballots in the 2024 election, encouraging voters to “Bank Your Vote” by getting it in early, in contrast to previous elections.

Sponsor Message

Despite efforts to limit voting by mail in some states, overall access to the ballot for most Americans has expanded since 2020.

More voters opted to vote early in-person

One of the methods of voting that has become more popular in recent years is in-person early voting. During the last presidential election, more than 158 million ballots were cast and counted and the majority of those ballots were cast in-person — 35.2% of those votes were cast before Election Day and 37.4% on Election Day.

According to the EAC, “for the first time, all states reported offering some form of in-person voting before Election Day.”

Palmer said he thinks early in-person voting is one of the most convenient voting options for many Americans.

“It really is convenient to take one of those days in the lead up to Election Day and vote early, particularly if you have to travel or if you’ve got to be away or you’re working,” he said. “So I actually think it’s just time to take advantage of the convenient voting.”

Palmer said there were a lot of bright spots in the report — particularly on the security side of voting. At this point, about 98% of voting jurisdictions have a paper trail for their voting systems. Also, the nationwide rejection rate of mail ballots was only 1.2%, which has remained consistently low in recent years.

Poll worker recruitment

toggle caption Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images

One area where there is still work to be done, Palmer said, is in recruiting “the next generation of poll workers.” The aging workforce of poll workers has been an ongoing issue in elections. According to the EAC, the primary demographic working at polling sites are between the ages of 61 and 70.

Because of the pandemic, younger demographics helped out during the 2020 election. But this reverted a bit, Palmer said, during the last election.

“It’s going to be a challenge for us as a community to continue to recruit those individuals that really are the backbone of the election,” he said. “So we really need the new generation. I guess Gen X needs to step up and start to fill some of these roles as the more elderly population retire or turn over the keys to the folks in the office.”

ATLANTA – Casting mailed ballots remained popular among voters in last year’s presidential election, even as President Donald Trump has tried to undercut the process through a wide-ranging executive order.

A report released Monday by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission also found a surge in early in-person voting and robust use of ballot drop boxes, which have been a target of conspiracy theorists since the 2020 election.

Recommended Videos

The findings, based on data collected at the local level and submitted by states, illustrate the sustained popularity of alternate voting methods even as they have come under attack in recent years from Republicans.

“Notwithstanding the rhetoric from some, our election process continues to reflect the expectations voters have about where, when and how to vote,” said David Levine, a former county election official in Idaho who is now a senior fellow at the University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement. “Once voters try voting before Election Day, they often continue to do so for future elections.”

Overall, more than 158 million ballots were counted for the November 2024 presidential election, according to the report. Turnout was 3 percentage points lower than in 2020 but nearly 4 percentage points higher than during the 2016 presidential election.

Mail voting is popular despite rhetoric

Roughly 30% of voters last fall used a mail ballot, a decline from the 43% who did so during the pandemic election in 2020 but higher than pre-pandemic elections, when mail ballots typically accounted for about 25% of votes cast.

The report noted that four states – Democratic-leaning Washington and Republican-leaning Indiana, South Dakota and Utah — saw higher percentages of mail voting in 2024 than four years earlier.

Trump has long complained, without providing evidence, that mail voting opens a pathway to fraud. The election executive order he signed in March, which is facing several lawsuits, targets mail voting by saying all ballots must be received by Election Day. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date.

Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail, filed their own lawsuit against the order fearing that tens of thousands of their voters could be disenfranchised if it is allowed to stand. During a news conference announcing the lawsuit, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said more than 300,000 ballots in his state arrived after Election Day in 2024.

Popularity of early in-person voting surges

The report found the 2024 presidential election saw a drop in Election Day voting and a corresponding increase in early, in-person voting. Election Day voting declined from 49% in 2022 to roughly 37% in 2024, when 35% took advantage of voting early.

Republican-dominated South Carolina and Democratic-leaning Delaware had the largest increases in early, in-person voting compared to four years ago.

Republicans last year mounted a campaign to reverse years of conservative criticism of early voting methods and persuade their voters to cast ballots before Election Day, a strategy that helped Trump win a second term.

Ballot drop boxes used heavily where they are allowed

Since Trump’s loss in 2020, conservative activists and conspiracy theorists have zeroed in on ballot drop boxes as a potential source of fraud despite no evidence of that occurring in that year’s elections. Some Republican-led states have since blocked their use or reduced their availability.

But they remain popular in other parts of the country. The report found drop boxes were in use in 35 states plus the District of Columbia in 2024. Of those, 21 states reported a total of nearly 15 million mail ballots returned with the use of a drop box, accounting for about 45% of all mail ballots returned by voters.

Of the states that reported data on ballot drop boxes for 2022 and 2024, four states reported double-digit increases in the percentage of mail ballots returned at drop boxes: the Democratic stronghold of California, Republican-leaning Kansas and Utah, and swing state Nevada.

Kamala Harris election tampering story raises new questions about the 2024 U.S. presidential election outcome. A quiet but major change to voting machines by Pro V&V—used in over 40% of U.S. counties—was never publicly reviewed or disclosed. Watchdog group SMART Elections flagged suspicious updates, missing votes, and statistical anomalies suggesting potential vote tampering. Now, a lawsuit is moving forward, challenging whether Kamala Harris may have actually won.

Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads

What changes were made to voting machines before the 2024 election?

New ballot scanners

Printer reconfigurations

Firmware upgrades

A new Electionware reporting system

Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads

“This wasn’t just a glitch in some sleepy county. It was a stress test of our entire system.”

Were votes miscounted or ignored in key counties?

In one district, 9 voters claimed they voted for Sare, but only 5 votes were recorded.

In another, 5 voters swore they supported her, but only 3 votes appeared.

“That’s not split-ticket voting. That’s a mathematical anomaly.”

Who is behind Pro V&V, and why is there no oversight?

Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads

Could Kamala Harris have actually won the election?

“Kamala Harris may have won.”

“Anything can be hacked.”

Later, Musk stated:

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election.”

“He [Musk] knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.”

Could future elections be altered without oversight?

Should the EAC change how it certifies and monitors voting labs?

Is the public being kept in the dark about the technology behind their vote?

“If one underfunded watchdog group can dig up this much from a quiet New York suburb, what else is rotting in the shadows of this country’s ballots?”

A new report is stirring fresh debate about the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, claiming that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were even cast. The bombshell allegation raises a serious question: Did Kamala Harris actually win the 2024 election?According to the investigative piece from Daily Boulder, a private lab quietly implemented sweeping changes to voting machines used in over 40% of U.S. counties ahead of the 2024 race. Those changes, the report claims, were made with no public notice, no formal testing, and no third-party oversight.The report centers around Pro V&V, a federally accredited lab responsible for certifying voting machines in key states like Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, and California. In early 2024, the lab reportedly approved updates to ES&S voting systems, which included:Instead of labeling these as major changes, Pro V&V classified them as “de minimis,” a term typically reserved for insignificant tweaks. This classification allowed them to bypass public scrutiny and avoid triggering full-scale testing or certification processes.But watchdog group SMART Elections wasn’t convinced. In their words:Soon after the machines went live, complaints began to surface.In Rockland County, New York, several voters testified under oath that their ballots didn’t match the official results. Senate candidate Diane Sare reportedly lost votes in precinct after precinct:It wasn’t just third-party candidates who saw odd results.In multiple Democratic-leaning areas, Kamala Harris’s name was reportedly missing from the top of the ballot entirely. Voters said they couldn’t even find her name to select. These same areas had high support for Democrats like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, yet Harris received zero votes—a statistical anomaly that defies traditional voting patterns.Even more shocking: Donald Trump received 750,000 more votes than Republican Senate candidates in these districts. As reported by Dissent in Bloom, a political Substack,At the center of the controversy is Jack Cobb, the director of Pro V&V. While he doesn’t appear in the headlines, his lab certifies the machines that millions of Americans use to vote. According to the report, once the controversy began to gain traction, Pro V&V’s website went dark, leaving only a phone number and a generic email address. No public logs. No documentation. No comment.Pro V&V is certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). However, once accredited, labs like Pro V&V face no real public oversight. There is no hotline, no review board, and no formal process for the public to challenge or remove them.The EAC itself has four commissioners, two of whom—Benjamin Hovland and Donald Palmer—were appointed by Donald Trump during his first presidency. Even if wrongdoing were discovered, the process to revoke a lab’s accreditation is slow, murky, and entirely internal. There are no public hearings and no outside investigations.As of June 2025, Pro V&V remains fully accredited and uninvestigated.The question is no longer whispered in political corners—it’s being asked outright. In May 2025, Judge Rachel Tanguay ruled that allegations raised by SMART Elections were credible enough to move forward. The case, SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections, is scheduled for hearing this fall.While the lawsuit won’t change the outcome of the election—Congress already certified Trump’s victory—it could set off wider probes, from state investigations to federal criminal inquiries.Political writer John Pavlovitz openly questioned the result, writing:During the campaign, Harris reportedly drew massive crowds, high early voting numbers, and strong poll performances in swing states. Her debate showing against Trump was widely viewed as dominant—Trump even skipped the second debate.And yet, despite that momentum, Trump won.Adding fuel to the fire, Elon Musk, who vocally supported Trump, posted cryptic tweets during the 2024 cycle, including:Trump himself added to the speculation, telling supporters:The upcoming court case could become a pivotal moment in election security history. The lawsuit claims that a private company quietly changed voting machines in over 40% of U.S. counties—and no one knew until after the votes were counted.