The Free & Equal Elections Foundation’s initiative to host the first 2024 Independent Presidential Debate on February 29, 2024, has brought forward an innovative approach to select participants. Using a blockchain voting application, the foundation opened the floor to the public, allowing voters to choose their preferred candidates through ranked-choice voting.
Initially, the poll results declared on February 2 had positioned Claudia de la Cruz of the Party for Socialism as the leading vote-getter, with candidates Cornel West, Jill Stein, Chase Oliver, Jasmine Sherman, and Lars Mapstead following suit. These results were meant to highlight a diverse range of political voices, setting the stage for a debate encompassing a broad spectrum of political ideologies.
However, the legitimacy of these results came under scrutiny following an audit conducted by the foundation. The analysis revealed a startling number of suspicious votes, casting a shadow over the initial outcomes.
According to Free & Equal’s announcement on their X account, a detailed analysis uncovered a large number of illegitimate votes. Claudia de la Cruz’s tally was most affected, with a majority of her votes flagged as “illegal” by Free & Equal. Other candidates, including Peter Sonski, Jasmine Sherman, and Chase Oliver, were also found to have benefitted from questionable voting activities.
Among the findings, Claudia de la Cruz from the Party for Socialism initially garnered 108,735 votes, but a shocking 73,122 of these were flagged as illegal. Chase Oliver, representing the Libertarian Party, had 20,443 votes, with 1,254 found to be illegal. Jasmine Sherman from the Unicorn Party received 18,596 votes, out of which 1,818 were deemed illegal. Furthermore, Peter Sonski of the American Solidarity Party, who failed to qualify for the debate, had 6,990 of his 17,638 votes declared illegal.
The audit made no mention of illegal votes for other poll winners, Independent candidate Cornel West, Jill Stein of the Green Party, Lars Mapstead of the Libertarian Party, or any other candidate included in the poll.
According to statements from Free & Equal, the audit specifically targeted clear cases of manipulation, such as bot or click farm activities, where votes were cast multiple times per second—a deviation from normal voting patterns. However, the original list of debate invitees so far remains unchanged.
Despite the scrutiny applied by the debate organizers, further concerns regarding the poll’s legitimacy have emerged. Some observers have pointed out that the audit failed to address more sophisticated forms of cheating, including the repeated use of VoIP numbers and the employment of bots and click farms that use random voting intervals—both tactics commonly used to circumvent the safeguards of digital polling systems.
Others question the logic of labeling votes as illegal simply because they were rapidly submitted, with some suggesting that accusations may be rooted in discomfort with the candidates in question rather than genuine concerns of polling integrity. Additionally, some supporters believe that the candidates’ strong following on platforms like TikTok, and a subsequent surge in voting following campaign posts, naturally resulted in a high volume of votes within a short timeframe, explaining the patterns observed in the audit. They argue that this was a manifestation of significant enthusiasm and support, not cheating.
Moreover, it’s important to consider the role that overzealous or unscrupulous supporters may play in the dynamics of digital polling. There exists a possibility that such individuals could have orchestrated efforts to vote multiple times or employed sophisticated methods to artificially inflate vote counts, all without the direct knowledge or consent of the candidates themselves. This scenario underscores the challenges inherent in digital polling processes, where the actions of a few can potentially cast shadows over the integrity of the entire system. It serves as a reminder of the intricate balance between encouraging enthusiastic supporter engagement and maintaining strict adherence to electoral fairness. Candidates, while advocating for robust participation, often find themselves at the mercy of their most fervent followers, whose actions, albeit well-intentioned or otherwise, can inadvertently complicate the process.
In light of these findings, LibertyTwist reached out to each of the named candidates with a set of questions to gather their perspectives and responses to the audit’s conclusions:
- Were you aware of any efforts to artificially influence the poll results in your favor?
- How do you respond to the audit findings that a significant number of votes for you were deemed illegal?
- What measures, if any, did your campaign take to ensure the integrity of the voting process?
- How do you plan to address your supporters and the public in light of these findings?
Claudia De La Cruz
The Claudia De La Cruz campaign did not respond to the request for comment. Additionally, no public statements concerning the poll or audit have been found on their social media platforms or campaign website.
Peter Sonski
The Peter Sonski campaign did not respond to the request for comment.
- Public Statement:
Chase Oliver
- Response to LibertyTwist:
Q: Were you aware of any efforts to artificially influence the poll results in your favor?
A: We were not. We consistently said that the poll only allowed people to vote once and were surprised when a candidate (or her supporters) apparently found a work around. We brought our concerns about this to the attention of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation. We also reminded people that the poll used block chain security and thus could be audited.
Q: How do you respond to the audit findings that a significant number of votes for you were deemed illegal?
A: Our analysis indicates that there were not "a significant number of illegal votes". In the analysis conducted by our analytics team, we demonstrate that all surges in votes for Chase directly line up with promotional efforts undertaken by the campaign. This is evident to anyone examining the data. We have also offered to allow the Foundation to directly examine all of the underlying data that was used to prepare our report.
Q: What measures, if any, did your campaign take to ensure the integrity of the voting process?
A: The integrity of the voting process was primarily the responsibility of those conducting the vote. We supported this by asking people to vote and encourage others to vote. At no time did anyone on Chase's campaign team take any actions to encourage anyone to vote more than once, not to suggest that they could. When it appeared that someone had figured out a way to vote multiple times, we brought our concerns to the attention of the foundation and shared tracking data we had been collecting throughout the voting.
Q: How do you plan to address your supporters and the public in light of these findings?
A: We prepared a detailed analysis showing that Chase's voting surges were directly related to get out the vote promotional efforts undertaken by the campaign. The report was given to the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, and was shared with you and our volunteers. A summary of key findings was published publicly. We eagerly await the foundation's response and are offering them full access to directly examine our data and records for themselves.
- Public Statement:
Jasmine Sherman
- Response to LibertyTwist:
Q: Were you aware of any efforts to artificially influence the poll results in your favor?
A: Our campaign has always been committed to fairness and transparency. We have not initiated nor been aware of any efforts to artificially influence the poll results in our favor. Our approach has centered on authentic engagement with our supporters through a variety of channels.
Q: How do you respond to the audit findings that a significant number of votes for you were deemed illegal?
A: Upon learning about the allegations from the audit, our campaign's approach was rooted in transparency and immediate action. We openly communicated with our supporters about the situation through social media, encouraging them to validate their votes with the Free & Equal Elections Foundation, a step many have taken. This action reflects our confidence in the legitimacy of our campaign and the integrity of our supporters. It is important to emphasize that at no point did our team engage in or endorse any form of manipulation or wrongdoing. The very notion of cheating, especially for a campaign that is not leading in the polls, contradicts our values and the goals we set out to achieve. Being added to the poll later and focusing on genuine engagement and mobilization, the concept of cheating for last place is not only impractical but against everything we stand for. Our ongoing participation in the event, despite these allegations, highlights our commitment to transparency and the integrity of the voting process, demonstrating our belief in the validity of our support base.
Q: What measures, if any, did your campaign take to ensure the integrity of the voting process?
A: It's important to clarify that our campaign was added to the poll at a later stage, which significantly influenced our strategic focus. Given the short timeframe and our late inclusion, our primary objective shifted towards ensuring our message reached as many potential supporters as possible and securing a spot on the debate stage. Consequently, our resources and energy were dedicated to mobilization and outreach, rather than the preemptive monitoring of voting integrity. This approach was not due to a lack of concern for the voting process's integrity but rather a strategic decision based on the unique circumstances we faced. We trusted in the fairness of our supporters and the overall system, focusing our efforts on engaging with the electorate and sharing our platform as widely and effectively as we could.
Q: How do you plan to address your supporters and the public in light of these findings?
A: Our supporters are always in the loop with real-time updates from our campaign. They are already well-informed about the accusations and the steps we've taken towards resolution. Our campaign is built on the foundation of transparency and honesty, distancing ourselves from the stereotypical image of dishonest politicians. We are not here to manipulate or deceive. We are a group of Americans, deeply frustrated with the current state of our political system, seeking change through genuine engagement and integrity. Our commitment to this cause is unwavering, and our communication reflects this dedication to truth and progress.
- Public Statement:
