Understanding the 2019 Discussions Between Michigan Secretary of state and Dominion Voting Systems

In 2019, a significant dialogue took place between the Michigan Secretary of State (SoS) and Dominion Voting Systems regarding fractional votes and Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). This conversation is particularly intriguing because, at the time, RCV had not been officially sanctioned for use in Michigan. This summary explores why such discussions occurred and their implications, especially in light of findings from the ASOG report which indicated that RCV was, in fact, active in Antrim county, Michigan.

The Background: Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)

Ranked Choice Voting is an electoral system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than voting for a single candidate. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and votes are redistributed according to the second choices until a candidate achieves a majority. This system is intended to promote more representative outcomes and reduce the impact of vote-splitting among similar candidates.

The Michigan Secretary of State’s Role

The Michigan Secretary of State oversees the administration of elections within the state. Their involvement in discussions regarding voting technology and electoral systems reflects a commitment to ensuring that elections are fair, secure, and efficient. The talks with Dominion Voting Systems regarding fractional votes and RCV suggest a proactive approach to exploring innovative voting methods, even before they were officially approved.

Fractional Votes: What Are They?

Fractional voting refers to a method where votes can be divided among candidates based on voters’ preferences. This concept aligns closely with RCV, where voters can express multiple preferences rather than a single choice. The discussions regarding fractional votes with Dominion could indicate an exploration of how such technologies might be implemented in future elections, even if RCV had not yet received approval.

The Implications of the Discussions

The discussions surrounding RCV and fractional votes raise several important questions:

1. Preparation for Future Adoption: The engagement with Dominion could suggest that Michigan was preparing for an eventual adoption of RCV, exploring the necessary technological frameworks to implement such a system effectively.
2. Transparency and Trust: Given the increasing scrutiny on election processes, these discussions could also reflect efforts to enhance transparency and trust in the electoral system. Engaging with voting technology companies may have been an attempt to ensure that any future voting methods could withstand public scrutiny.
3. Potential Misunderstandings: The ASOG report’s indication that RCV was active in Antrim County raises concerns about the potential for misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the election process. If RCV discussions were ongoing, it is crucial to clarify how these conversations may have influenced the actual voting procedures during the elections.
   

   The ASOG Report and Antrim County
   

   The ASOG report, which highlighted irregularities in the Antrim County elections, brought significant attention to the discussions about RCV and fractional voting. The report’s assertion that RCV was "active" in Antrim County raises questions about the accuracy of reporting and the implications of implementing unapproved voting methods.

4. Investigating the Findings: The findings of the ASOG report necessitate a thorough investigation into how RCV discussions may have influenced election outcomes. Understanding whether any technological implementations were prematurely executed could shed light on discrepancies observed in the county’s voting results.
5. Public Perception: The relationship between the Secretary of State’s office and Dominion Voting Systems, especially regarding unapproved technologies, could impact public perception of electoral integrity. Transparency regarding these discussions is essential to maintain public confidence in the electoral process.
   

   Conclusion
   

   The discussions between the Michigan Secretary of State and Dominion Voting Systems regarding fractional votes and Ranked Choice Voting in 2019 are a critical piece of the puzzle in understanding Michigan’s electoral landscape. Although RCV was not officially approved at the time, the engagement with Dominion suggests a forward-thinking approach to electoral reform.

   As the ASOG report highlighted RCV’s unexpected presence in Antrim County, it underscores the importance of clarity and transparency in election administration. The implications of these discussions are far-reaching, potentially impacting future voting technologies and electoral policies in Michigan.

   Stakeholders must prioritize clear communication and robust oversight to ensure that any future implementations of RCV or similar voting methods are conducted within a transparent framework that upholds the integrity of the electoral process. Ultimately, the discussions of 2019 may serve as a catalyst for a more comprehensive examination of voting systems in Michigan, paving the way for reforms that enhance democratic participation and trust in the electoral framework.

Why is the MI SoS having discussions with Dominion Voting Systems about fractional votes and Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in 2019 when, officially, RCV was not approved for use in Michigan?

It would explain why the ASOG report indicated that RCV was active in Antrim County, MI https://t.co/WeS5Vk60mU

Why is the MI SoS having discussions with Dominion Voting Systems about fractional votes and Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in 2019 when, officially, RCV was not approved for use in Michigan?

In 2019, the Michigan Secretary of State (SoS) found themselves in a rather intriguing position, sparking conversations with Dominion Voting Systems about some complex electoral topics: fractional votes and Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). The catch? RCV wasn’t even officially approved for use in Michigan at that time. So, what’s going on here? Let’s dive into the nuances of this situation and explore why these discussions took place and how they relate to the subsequent findings in the ASOG report regarding Antrim County’s voting processes.

Understanding the Context of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)

First off, let’s clarify what Ranked Choice Voting is. RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than just selecting one. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and those votes are redistributed to the remaining candidates based on the voters’ next preferences. This method can lead to a more representative outcome, especially in elections with multiple candidates.

However, as of 2019, Michigan had not officially adopted RCV. This absence of formal approval raises questions about why the Michigan SoS was engaging with Dominion Voting Systems, a prominent software and hardware provider for election systems, about a voting method not yet in use. It’s like having a deep discussion about a new recipe while still trying to figure out how to make the basic dish!

The Role of Dominion Voting Systems

Dominion Voting Systems has been a central player in the election technology space. They provide various voting solutions, including electronic voting machines and software. Their involvement raises eyebrows when discussions revolve around innovative voting methods like fractional votes and RCV, especially when Michigan hadn’t greenlit RCV yet. So, why were these discussions happening?

One possibility is that these conversations were part of a proactive approach to explore future voting methods. The SoS might have been assessing the feasibility of RCV and fractional voting systems in anticipation of potential legislative changes. Engaging with Dominion could have been a way to gather insights on the technology that could support these methods before they were formally approved.

The ASOG Report and Antrim County

Fast forward to the aftermath of the 2020 elections, and we find the ASOG (the Allied Security Operations Group) report indicating that RCV was active in Antrim County, Michigan. This revelation is significant, especially considering the discussions from 2019. How could RCV be in use when it hadn’t been sanctioned? This discrepancy necessitates a closer look at the implications of those early discussions and how they may have influenced election practices.

The ASOG report pointed out several irregularities during the election count in Antrim County, leading to widespread scrutiny and claims of election fraud. The mention of RCV in this context raises concerns about the integrity of the voting process and whether the technology used complied with state regulations. Could the conversations with Dominion have led to the implementation of RCV, even if unofficially, or were there other factors at play?

The Implications of Fractional Votes

Now, let’s talk about fractional votes. This concept is somewhat controversial and can be confusing. In simple terms, fractional voting allows a voter’s ballot to carry a weight that can be divided among several candidates based on preference. It’s an intriguing idea in theory, but it complicates the counting process and can lead to misunderstandings among voters regarding how their votes are being counted.

If the Michigan SoS was discussing fractional votes with Dominion, it could indicate a desire to innovate the voting process—making it more inclusive or fair. However, without the official adoption of RCV or fractional voting, the application of these methods in actual elections raises red flags. It leads to questions about transparency, voter education, and the overall legitimacy of the voting process in Michigan.

The Importance of Transparency in Elections

One of the cornerstones of a democratic society is the trust that citizens place in their electoral processes. When discussions about new voting methods happen behind closed doors, especially when the methods aren’t officially approved, it can create a perception of secrecy or impropriety. Transparency is vital, especially when the integrity of elections is under scrutiny.

The conversations between the Michigan SoS and Dominion about fractional votes and RCV should have been public to ensure that voters were aware of potential changes to their voting system. The lack of transparency can lead to misinformation and a decline in public confidence in the electoral process, which is something every state should strive to avoid.

Public Response and Concerns

The public response to these discussions has been a mix of curiosity and concern. As citizens learned about the ASOG report and the alleged use of RCV in Antrim County, many began to question the validity of the electoral process in Michigan. They wanted to know how decisions were made and who was involved in those discussions.

Social media platforms and community forums became hotbeds for debate as Michiganders sought answers. Were their votes truly counted fairly? Was the state prepared to move toward RCV without their knowledge? These questions highlight the need for ongoing dialogue between election officials and the public to foster trust and accountability.

The Future of Voting in Michigan

Looking ahead, Michigan’s voting landscape is likely to continue evolving. With ongoing discussions about election integrity, ballot access, and voting technology, it’s essential for state officials to keep the public informed about any changes. The conversations held in 2019 about fractional votes and RCV may have been a step towards modernization, but they must be accompanied by clear communication and legal frameworks to ensure that voters feel secure in the electoral process.

As more states consider adopting RCV and other innovative voting methods, Michigan’s experience could serve as both a cautionary tale and a model for best practices. The balance between innovation and transparency will be crucial in shaping the future of voting in the state.

Wrapping Up the Discussion

The discussions between the MI SoS and Dominion Voting Systems about fractional votes and RCV in 2019, despite the lack of official approval for RCV, raise significant questions about the integrity and transparency of the electoral process in Michigan. It illustrates the complexities involved in modernizing voting methods while ensuring public trust and compliance with state laws. As we continue to navigate this evolving landscape, the focus must remain on transparency, accountability, and a voter-centric approach to election administration.

“`