How the Georgia GOP Convention Confirmed Every Election Skeptic’s Worst Fears

A Witness Report from the Georgia GOP State Convention

How the Georgia GOP Convention Confirmed Every Election Skeptic’s Worst Fears
By Jeremy McKeown, Editor of CobbProb
June 2025

At the Dalton Convention Center - a grand venue seated at the foothills of North Georgia - Republicans from across the state convened for what was expected to be a fair, spirited, and decisive event. But the spirit of democracy found itself boxed out by technology, drowned by silence, and ultimately buried beneath preloaded results. This article documents, with live audio transcript support, how a lack of transparency and accountability defined the 2025 Georgia GOP State Convention.

Rules Passed Without Debate

Every official GOP convention begins with a crucial step: adopting the rules that will govern how votes are conducted, how motions are handled, and how order is maintained throughout the event. These rules are not trivial - they define whether a convention will be fair, open, and verifiable.

At the 2025 Georgia GOP State Convention, those rules included a controversial provision: replacing more traditional ballots with handheld “clicker” devices for all voting. These small remotes resemble TV remotes and are used to register votes electronically. While some longtime delegates may have seen them at previous conventions, the devices remain unfamiliar and opaque to many - especially first-time delegates. Crucially, they also lack encryption.

But before any of that could be discussed, the convention chair rushed through the rules.

Tim Ryan, a delegate from Coweta County - home to Brant Frost, a former state GOP leader and current county party chair - took the mic at what the chair identified as “Microphone Number 1.”

Ryan made the following statement: “These rules look good, and so I will, in the interest of time, not say anything else and call the question so we can vote on them…” which was met with a roar from the audience.

As delegates responded to the call to vote, Ryan’s microphone was then suddenly turned back on mid-vote, his loud “Aye” booming through the speaker system - amplifying perceived support at a key moment.

The Chair then dismissed concerns with a joke: “I can't tell the difference. I've listened to too much rock music.”

Despite visible lines of delegates standing at microphones prepared to speak against the rules or suggest changes, the Chair called for a standing vote of Ryan’s call to end debate, as the first interaction of that debate, and declared it passed based on the number of people standing.

He then addressed the convention workers: "How far are we on passing out the clickers - have we made progress?"

Delegates were then handed handheld "clicker" devices that would be used for all voting matters. No names. No IDs. No audit trail.

Delegates were now locked into a voting method they hadn’t debated, and as would soon become clear, couldn’t verify.

During a test vote early in the convention, it became immediately apparent that the clickers weren’t functioning consistently. Delegates clicked... and clicked again... but some devices remained unresponsive. Others gave no feedback at all. The crowd became restless. One delegate exclaimed: "They just told us to click, but nothing lit up. We don’t even know if it’s counting."

The first vote results were delayed. When numbers did appear on screen, they raised more questions than answers. As confusion spread, delegates attempted to assert their rights through points of order. They were met with silence. Microphones had been disabled. Delegates who stood up and raised procedural concerns were ignored. In an attempt to get the Chair’s attention, a grassroots delegate pleaded: "Point of Order! Chair! Mic's off again. Chair, please recognize!"

But the Chair didn’t respond.

Paper Ballots Denied and Vulnerable Electronic Voting

As concerns escalated, a motion was made from the floor to shift to paper ballots - a move that had significant vocal support. But the Chair would not recognize the motion. Even after a failed suspension of rules vote, many delegates tried again.

The numbers eventually flashed on a screen. But when delegates asked if their clickers were individually verifiable, they received conflicting answers from two key leaders: Brant Frost and Bill Consiglio, who was responsible for the clickers.

Brant initially reassured: "You can also take this backstage, show them the ID, and ask them how you voted."

He elaborated: "I mean, you can go back there if you voted for one candidate and ask them: ‘Who did this device vote for?’ And they can show you. And if it shows right, you’ll know you voted for the right person."

When a cybersecurity expert raised concerns about possible vote spoofing, Brant initially pushed back - but ultimately conceded: "How would you interfere with it?"

When the delegate explained how it could be spoofed using a software radio device, Brant asked: "What is the equipment you would use for that?"

Upon hearing the answer "HackRF", Brant replied: "I concede that point."

He also added: "If the convention was smaller, like 500 people, I would wanted to have a roll call vote."

Conflicting Claims, Unverifiable Votes

Then came the critical moment: one delegate followed Brant’s instruction and went to the backstage area.

There, he was directed to Bill Consiglio, seated to the left of the stage. The delegate approached and explained what Brant had said that his vote could be verified based on the ID of his clicker and wanted to see if that were true.

Bill took the delegate’s clicker and went backstage. After returning, he responded:

"Found out technically you were right, but the program we're running today doesn't have that option." "There's no way to know right now." "They said they can do it, but they have to do it ahead of time..."

This sudden reversal prompted a formal Point of Order from the delegate at the microphone:

"Since delegate ID tracking is not enabled, this vote cannot be verified or audited. It cannot be claimed to represent the will of credentialed delegates."

Still, no clarification was offered.

In a third and final contradiction, Brant was engaged by the delegate. The delegate stated, "You just told me they can verify my ID, my vote - and they can't." To which Brant responded: "Well, I worked for...I worked on the state committee...for state committee vote and we were able to verify afterward."

Delegate: "You have to configure it each event, it's not configured for this event - is what he told me."

Brant: "I'm pretty sure it is. I'm pretty sure it is. I'll go back and talk to him."

Three different answers. One voting system. No transparency.

Notably, Tim Ryan - the Coweta County delegate who called the question on the rules before debate - shares a local party base with Brant Frost, the current Chairman of the Coweta County Republican Party and a former 2nd Vice Chair of the Georgia GOP. Both played key roles in pivotal moments of the convention. While Ryan’s motion cut off discussion on rules, Frost made conflicting claims about vote traceability and later took the mic to nominate David Cross.

The Awkward Nomination

In a curious moment that revealed more about insider dynamics than public procedure, Brant Frost - who had privately opposed David Cross - took the mic to nominate him for Chairman. However, several delegates quickly approached him, urging that they had the nomination “covered” and implying that Brant’s interjection wasn’t helpful.

After they walked away, one observer remained and Brant turned to explain himself: "Six years ago, a guy who really hated my guts - so in the interest of time..."

When interrupted with a question of “who?”, Brant clarified: "Six years ago when I first came, he nominated me and everyone else, just to get it over with - so I'm extending that same... I'm passing it on... the guy who hated my guts when I first ran."

When asked, “You hate David Cross’ guts?” Brant quickly responded: "No, no, no. No, no no. A guy who hated me... I'm extending the same... of nominating people even if you're not voting for them... because... to save the time."

The moment offered a rare glimpse into the internal rationale of a party leader - one that raised questions about sincerity, strategy, and the symbolism of public support in a convention marred by confusion.

Final Reflections

In both instances - vote counting and candidate nominating - we see a pattern of contradiction. Assurances are given only to be quietly walked back. Systems are praised as trustworthy, then acknowledged as opaque. Public acts are framed as procedural, but revealed to be political theater.

This is not simply a matter of technical hiccups or unfortunate logistics. It is the visible erosion of trust - a process where convenience becomes more important than truth, and order is preserved only at the cost of justice.

In their pursuit to control every lever of party power, Republican leaders at this convention have unwittingly validated the worst accusations leveled by their political opponents. They didn’t just sideline dissent - they showcased a process indistinguishable from the very political machines they claim to oppose. The tragedy isn’t that this mirrors the Democrats. It’s that there’s no meaningful distinction left. And in that vacuum, the people are rising - not to join the other side, but to rebuild something honest from the ruins both sides left behind.

Delegates did not leave defeated. They left determined. They are organizing, documenting, and preparing - not just to participate next time, but to lead. This moment will not be buried under slogans or stagecraft. It will be remembered.

Because the trust of the people is not a resource to be spent - it is the foundation of legitimacy. And legitimacy is not inherited. It must be earned. And earned again.

Disclaimer:
This article represents the firsthand observations and documented interactions of the author during the 2025 Georgia GOP State Convention. All quotations are transcribed from live audio recordings and direct participant accounts. While every effort has been made to ensure factual accuracy and fair context, this report reflects the perspective of one delegate in attendance. Readers are encouraged to seek out additional sources, recordings, and official records to form a fully informed view of the events described.