Chapter 11A What’s the Difference Between a Logic and Accuracy Test & Emissions Test? Not Much! Understanding the Role of Logic and Accuracy Testing in Electoral Process: What It Is—and What It Is Not
11A. Most election departments claim their elections are accurate because they conduct pre- and post-election Logic and Accuracy (L&A) tests. So, what's the problem? 07/05/25 V1.2
March 27, 2025
What’s the Difference Between a Logic and Accuracy Test and an Emissions Test? Not Much—And That’s the Problem.
When I ask election officials how they know their election results are accurate, the most common response is, “We ran a Logic and Accuracy test.”
That’s where the conversation usually get interesting. (with groupthink mentality) they ask, are you a conspiracy theorist?
I usually smile and respond, “I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy factualist. I prefer to deal in facts.” And the facts show that systems can be programmed to cheat—just ask Volkswagen.
Let’s go back to the now-infamous VW emissions scandal. From 2006 to 2015, Volkswagen marketed its so-called “Clean Diesel” vehicles in the U.S. as environmental game-changers—cars that combined performance, fuel efficiency, and ultra-clean emissions. The company’s PR campaign included glossy ads and even Super Bowl commercials.
Over 580,000 vehicles were sold in the U.S. under the VW, Audi, and Porsche brands.
However, it was a complete fraud!
How VW cheated on emissions tests
VW secretly installed software that could detect when a car was undergoing an emissions test.
During testing, the software would activate the pollution controls, allowing the cars to “pass.” But once the vehicle left the testing station, those controls were disabled, and the cars emitted nitrogen oxides at up to 80 times the legal limit.
This wasn’t just cheating—it was deadly.
In Europe alone, it’s estimated that 72,000 people die prematurely each year due to NOx emissions. Cause asthma and respiratory problems.
This story holds a vital lesson for elections.
A Logic and Accuracy (L&A) test is similar to an emissions test.
It’s a controlled, pre-election (and sometimes post-election) procedure where test ballots are run through voting machines to confirm they are counting correctly.
The idea is to assure the public that the election system is functioning properly.
But, like the emissions test, the L&A test can be easily gamed.
Warnings from a Security Expert
Mickey Duniho—an expert witness and retired NSA master programmer—who retired after 37 years, has long warned about these limitations.
“A logic and accuracy test only tells you that someone programmed the database so that it has the correct races and candidates on a particular day. Unfortunately, the computer is a black box. It doesn’t tell you anything about what happens minute to minute on Election Day. It is entirely possible to program the database so it behaves one way during the test—and another way during the election itself.”
As to being called a conspiracy theorist which is a weaponized word developed a long time ago but elevated by the CIA.
“In 1967, the CIA circulated Memo #1035-960, instructing agents to label critics of the Warren Commission as ‘conspiracy theorists’—a tactic meant to marginalize dissent and promote compliance with the official story.
This wasn’t about truth—it was about control. By stigmatizing critical inquiry, the term 'conspiracy theorist' became a psychological weapon.
It's a textbook case of Groupthink: a powerful system rejecting uncomfortable facts to preserve the illusion of consensus.
When critical thinking is shamed and conformity is rewarded, democracy itself is in danger.
“I typically smile, respond, and state that I’m a conspiracy factualist, since I deal with facts and we know how the systems could be programmed to cheat, and I try to explain how Volkswagen did it, and why random audits are essential!”
While these L &A test procedures are important, they are not audits. L&A tests only confirm that the system functions correctly at the time of testing—they do not ensure the overall integrity of the election.
The Volkswagen Emissions Scandal: A Warning
The Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal illustrates how easily systems can be programmed to cheat during testing.
Volkswagen (VW) designed software intended to cheat emissions tests, misleading 11 million vehicle owners worldwide about the environmental impact of their diesel engines. As reported by the BBC, the scandal cost VW over $33.3 billion in fines and settlements in the United States alone. You can learn more about the incident on Wikipedia.
The lesson is clear: for elections to be trusted, they must be transparent trackable and publicly verified.
An L&A test confirms that machines work at that moment—not that the election will remain secure, or that machines haven’t been preprogrammed to cheat later.
► Arizona – Verifying Vote by Mail
The next video offers one of the clearest explanations of the vulnerabilities in voting systems.
It’s short, accurate, and a must-watch. ► 8-minute video: 2.51 million views
“Why Electronic Voting is a Bad Idea”
Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea
New video: Five years later - 6.53 million views.
Another Threat That Keeps Me Up at Night: Vote by Mail (VBM)
In Arizona, around 85% of votes in the general election are cast by mail. But there's a major issue: VBM ballots are not sorted by precinct—except inside the central, hackable tabulator.
A bad actor could preprogram the system to selectively alter vote batches—avoiding detection in random post-election audits. This is why the VW scandal is so instructive: VW software recognized when it was being tested and behaved differently.
As cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier wrote for CNN:
“Computers allow people to cheat in ways that are new… because the cheating is encapsulated in software, the malicious actions can happen far removed from the testing itself… and can be subtler and harder to detect.”
— Bruce Schneier, “VW scandal could just be the beginning,” CNN
Schneier also said:
“That’s why we must have software verification with two essential elements: transparency and oversight.”
But in Arizona, we currently have neither.
Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Please share with others
11B. Insider Threats and Industry Shortcomings
According to longtime election attorney and friend Bill Risner:
“Every study of the security of computer voting systems has identified insiders—such as company employees, vendors, and election department staff—as the primary security threats. Shockingly, when vendors submit software for certification, they often instruct test labs not to examine it for security flaws.”
► Watch Bill Risner in court (6 minutes):
The Solution: Transparent Digital Ballot Verification
Pima County uses the ES&S DS850 central scanner, which captures high-resolution images of both sides of every ballot. These images are barcoded and tagged with precinct data, allowing them to be sorted, audited, and independently verified.
👉 New Brochure On ABE-Auditing Software
So why can't we crowdsource the truth?
Several companies already have software that can read and sort these digital images. The gold standard remains hand-marked paper ballots counted by hand—but until then, here’s what we recommend:
Release digital ballot images by precinct
Release the cast vote record (CVR) database by precinct
Perform a statistically assured random audit, comparing selected paper ballots to their corresponding digital images
Require that audit batches be selected only after election results are publicly reported—not before (as is currently done)
👉 New brochure On ABE-Auditing Software: https://bit.ly/3DUIg6k
📺 Watch how Dane County, Wisconsin, uses the DS850 and DS200, releasing all ballot images and CVRs after their elections.
Why This Matters
Historical evidence shows that elections lacking public accountability are merely performative. A government computer could secretly tally votes, declare an alternate winner, and falsely present it as democracy.
This message is simple:
Based on my experience working with Bill Risner spanning over two decades, elections in this country can be manipulated without consequence, often going undetected in many states.
The reason and how we caught this? Attorney Bill Risner.
“We the People” must demand elections that are 100% transparent, fully verifiable, and backed by a documented chain of custody and mandatory audits. Anything less is unacceptable.
Our mission at AUDIT-USA is to remove that impunity—by exercising our right to transparency and oversight.
It’s easier to prevent a stolen election than to prove one afterward.
No government should ever be the sole verifier of its own secret elections.
Hope, Peace and democracy
John R. Brakey
Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency – Arizona
Thanks for reading John’s Substack!
Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Please share with others
AUDIT USA is a 501(c)(3) organization. Your donations are tax-deductible!
Send donation checks to:
AUDIT USA P.O. Box 26361
Tucson, AZ85726
Or Donate online using the button below.
We appreciate donations of any size.