A spokesperson for Dominion Voting Systems on Sunday addressed conspiracy theories about the company on Fox News, saying it is “not physically possible” for its machines to change voter selections.
“This is a nonpartisan American company. It is not physically possible for our machines to switch votes from one candidate to the other,” Michael Steel said on Fox News’s “America’s News HQ.”
“Let’s be very clear, our election system is run by local elected officials and nonpartisan poll watchers. We simply provide a tool to count the ballots and to print and count ballots,” he added. “There is no way such a massive fraud could have taken place and there are no connections between our company and Venezuela, Germany, Barcelona, Kathmandu, whatever the latest conspiracy theory is.”
Attorneys working for the Trump campaign laid baseless claims of voter fraud during a press conference last week that included allegations that Dominion had ties to Venezuela.
Pressed by Fox News’s Eric Shawn as to how he could be sure the voting machines were secure, Steel responded “When a voter votes on a Dominion machine, they fill out their ballot on the touchscreen, they are given a printed copy which they then give to a local election official for safekeeping.”
“If any electronic interference had taken place, the tally reported electronically would not match the printed ballots,” he added. “And in every case where we’ve looked at in Georgia, all across the country, the printed ballots, the gold standard in election security, has matched the electronic tally.”
President Trump has repeatedly shared conspiracy theories about the company without evidence, including claiming its systems switched votes from him to Biden.
Christopher Krebs, whom Trump fired as top U.S. cybersecurity official last week, has pushed back against the claims, tweeting last week, “On allegations that election systems were manipulated, 59 election security experts all agree, ‘in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.’ ”