August 19, 2004
YES, NO, WHATEVER:
Evidence of an electoral fraud is growing (Enrique ter Horst, August 18, 2004, International Herald Tribune)
The perception that a massive electronic fraud led to President Hugo Chávez's mandate not being cut short in the recall referendum on Sunday is rapidly gaining ground in Venezuela. All exit polls carried out on the day had given the opposition an advantage of between 12 percent and 19 percent. But preliminary results announced by the government-controlled National Electoral Council at 3:30 a.m. gave Chávez 58.2 percent of the vote, against 41.7 percent for the opposition.
Perception? Does anyone who didn't think the Sandinistas were popular actually believe these results?
MORE:
U.S. Poll Firm in Hot Water in Venezuela (The Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004)
A U.S. firm's exit poll that said President Hugo Chavez would lose a recall referendum has landed in the center of a controversy following his resounding victory.Posted by Orrin Judd at August 19, 2004 4:37 PM"Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for Chavez," the survey, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, asserted even as Sunday's voting was still on. But in fact, the opposite was true Chavez ended up trouncing his enemies and capturing 59 percent of the vote.
Any casual observer of the 2000 U.S. presidential elections knows exit polls can at times be unreliable. But the poll has become an issue here because the opposition, which mounted the drive to force the leftist leader from office, insists it shows the results from the vote itself were fraudulent. The opposition also claims electronic voting machines were rigged, but has provided no evidence.
Election officials banned publication or broadcast of any exit polls during the historic vote on whether to oust Chavez, a populist who has sought to help the poor and is reviled by the wealthy, who accuse him of stoking class divisions.
But results of the Penn, Schoen & Berland survey were sent out by fax and e-mail to media outlets and opposition offices more than four hours before polls closed. It predicted just the opposite of what happened, saying 59 percent had voted in favor of recalling Chavez.
No opinion about that, but the idea that Venezuelans today would dislike previous Venezuelan governments is not just believable but practically certain.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 19, 2004 4:46 PMI'd like to know why the people who've been squawking about the ease of committing fraud with electronic voting machines have made no comment about this example of the greatest use of such machines to date.
I guess vote fraud only matters to some people when it might be used to benefit Bushitler and the Evil Republicans™. (Hey, that might make a great band name...)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 19, 2004 5:07 PMWell, as someone who has been squawking about the ease of committing vote fraud in electronic voting, I find this the claim here highly plausible. I just don't think it will make any difference.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at August 19, 2004 5:11 PMDoes not the mere fact that Jimmy "Never Met a Tyrant He Couldn't Find a Way to Appease" Carter validated the results raise an automatic red flag?
Posted by: MB at August 19, 2004 6:38 PMThis is all very bizarre. Jimmy claimed that their exit polling matched the results, right? Is there a source for some definitive numbers backing that up? The fact that the numbers do indeed match a simple switch of "Yes" and "No" seems wildly implausible...
Posted by: brian at August 19, 2004 7:51 PMWhen I saw a newsclip of the voting on Sunday that showed the touchscreens, I knew the opposition had a Republican's chance in Chicago of winning. I just assumed Chavez & co. would be satisfied with 51%. But swapping the results is pure genius, and probably easy to code, too.
Also, it was cooking an election that finally led to Marcos of the Phillipenes being forced out. But in that case, outside observers and the press support of the fraud claims were crucial in to the efforts to remove him. Here those same groups (personified by Jimmy Carter and the New York Times editoral writers) seem to be lining up behind a Marxist-wannabe anti-American thug.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 19, 2004 8:59 PMRaoul:
If it were me, I wouldn't even bother with the code -- simply mislabel the buttons on the touch screen.