Reviewed 27.08.2012, 09:40GMT – London 23.08.2012 – The presidential elections in Venezuela are just around the corner. Recently, I’ve had an unusual amount of conversations about the electoral topic with fellow bloggers: Iñaki Gainzarain, Alejandro Tarre, Miguel Octavio, Guillermo Salas, and Eric Eckvall. Naturally, we are all concerned about what another “victory” by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela could mean. So far, I’ve identified two clear currents within the opposition. On one side is the “official” opposition, led by Henrique Capriles Radonsky and the United Democratic Party, or MUD, which includes nearly all professional politicians — and those aspiring to be one. The candidate selection was democratic. However, the choice of representatives to the National Electoral Council (CNE) and the electoral strategies adopted were the result of political deals behind the scenes, where the leaders of various parties decided amongst themselves who would do what and where.
Then we have the non-official, grassroots opposition. This group would vote for anyone, even someone mentally challenged, just to see the end of the damn Chavez regime. This opposition, which is largely apolitical, represents by far the majority of votes that the opposition candidate will receive, whoever that may be. This includes civil society organizations and electoral experts. I would venture to say that the best work exposing the fraudulent nature of Hugo Chavez’s electoral system has been done by individuals from this unofficial opposition. Unfortunately, there’s no consensus between the two factions on electoral matters.
The official stance, based on opinions from individuals with little to no technical expertise, is that the electoral system “has been adequately audited,” which is simply untrue. At the heart of the matter is the Permanent Electoral Register, which hasn’t been properly audited since 2005. The so-called audits have been conducted by the CNE in closed processes where the official opposition has no voice, eyes, or votes regarding methodology. Political party representatives are merely invited occasionally by the CNE to approve audit results they have never witnessed. This is concerning, as no one in the opposition, nor in the universities, political parties, or civil society NGOs, truly knows whether the nearly 19 million voters that the CNE claims exist are real or even where they supposedly live or if they possess the ID cards that identify them. Accepting the REP as announced by the CNE is an act of faith. Nothing more, nothing less. Let those who wish to believe in such things do so.
Furthermore, the voting system has not been audited properly since 2005. During an audit held in Fila de Mariches in November 2005, which was attended by observers from the European Union and the OAS, a technician named Leopoldo Gonzalez ran a program on a computer attached to a Smartmatic machine after a sham voting exercise and began loudly announcing how each participant had voted. Jorge Rodriguez, present at the time, quickly ordered everything to stop. Subsequently, opposition parties decided to withdraw when it was revealed that the secrecy of the vote had been compromised. That was the last time, and the only time, the opposition was allowed to have any hands-on interaction with Hugo Chavez’s voting machines.
Many elections have occurred since then. The common denominator has always been the same: the opposition is not allowed to scrutinize the system, period. Whatever audits occur are of ballots in centers where there are witnesses. The opposition remains at the mercy of the election ministry instead of being treated as an equal participant in the contest. I want to clarify that my intention has never been to walk away from the game and leave the field open for the caudillo and his hordes of resentful criminals. No, we must play. However, in a contest where more than one fighter is necessary, the other must demand equal conditions. This doesn’t mean adopting radical positions. No. It’s about claiming rights; it’s about demanding that the law be upheld. Nothing more. This attitude annoys the official opposition, which in its simplistic thinking, labels it as radical. In other words, for the official opposition, demanding rights equates to radicalism. That’s how disconnected or desperate they are.
In any case, we face an electoral crab ahead. But, as the campaign slogan says, there is a way forward, and that is to ensure that we have witnesses at all centers, especially in those where the opposition has never been present. But also in those where it traditionally has. Let me explain. My mother died on October 15, 1983, in San Sebastián, Spain. That’s almost 29 years ago. Nevertheless, my mother is still registered as a voter in the REP, at a center located in a “liberated” territory: El Cafetal. You may ask why I refer to it as liberated territory? Quite simply, El Cafetal, according to CNE data, is the electoral parish in Venezuela with the least chavista votes. If we are to believe those figures, only 6.6% of 31,439 votes in the 2010 parliamentary elections went to chavismo.
Now let’s look at the opposite, namely where chavismo obtains the highest number of votes: Delta Amacuro. One would think they would maintain some decorum; however, chavistas do not understand that. Thus, we see places like the parish of Francisco Aniceto Lugo, where Chavez receives 99.8% of the votes (see addendum II). No kidding! Just like Fidel! Even in 1998, when the benefit of the doubt could be granted to the military coup leader, he did not achieve such results. Of course, he receives 99.8% of the votes because the opposition lacks, and likely has never had, witnesses in that parish. But back to the earlier point: how would my mother vote? How can the opposition know that her vote wasn’t for chavismo? Moreover, how can they verify if that voter—whose vote would appear recorded in that electoral center—actually exists? The fingerprint scanners would not prevent someone from using my mother’s details to vote. The only way to prevent that would have been to audit the REP, right?
There, the official opposition has claimed that the CNE has been cleaning up the REP, that the deceased have been removed, etc. We don’t know how many there are, and maybe it isn’t many. However, in elections where one vote can define the future of Venezuela, we must absolutely eliminate all possibilities of fraud. In centers where chavismo wins with impossible percentages, say over 75%, there are 613,462 voters. If we break it down by percentages:
286,249 voters in centers where Chavez obtains between 75% and 80%
270,015 voters in centers where Chavez obtains between 80% and 90%
57,198 voters in centers where Chavez obtains between 90% and 100%
Why do I call these percentages impossible? Because there has never been an election in Venezuela with zero abstention. Therefore, if we add more than 75% of chavista votes to those from the opposition—there must be some—and to the abstention rate, it’s logical to conclude these results are fraudulent. We are talking about fraud in a population of 613,462 votes.
To conclude, the Venezuela Command claims to be more prepared than ever. Those who believe in wild fantasies say it’s all “secured” (let’s hope not like the RR 2004…). Regarding an article on Miguel’s blog, I left a comment this morning.
Note the number of centers where the opposition won on the left side: 1,002 (urban Venezuela). Compare that with the number of centers where chavismo won, on the right side: 3,811 (rural Venezuela). The ratio is almost 1 to 4, meaning for every center where the opposition wins, there are 4 centers where fraud is virtually guaranteed due to the absence of witnesses. In other words, of nearly 5,000 centers, the opposition knows for certain that the results in 1,002 of them, or 20%, genuinely reflect the will of the voters.
Another thing that caught my attention from the chart is the levels of abstention. If in the 3,811 most chavista centers the abstention was 36%, how can chavismo obtain more than 75% of the votes? If we look at the electoral map (2010 parliamentary elections), we can see, as I indicated before, that there are 613,462 voters in centers where chavismo receives more than 75% of the votes (see addendum II). The chart indicates there are 2,500,000 voters in each group. How does that add up?
I hope the official opposition knows what it’s doing. I hope they manage to prevent fraud. And I hope that their submissive attitude toward the election ministry translates into an electoral victory.
Addendum: To clarify some doubts on whether it’s possible for chavismo to receive over 75% of the votes in certain centers, I must say the following:
In centers where abstention is 36%, it is impossible for Chavez to obtain more than 75% of the total registered voters* at that center.
In other words: if a center has 100 voters, and abstention is 36%, there are 64 votes left. Of those, Chavez could well obtain more than 75% of the votes (from 64, that would be 48 votes).
However, it is not possible for Chavez to obtain more than 75% of all the registered voters (more than 100, not more than 64), which is the case in the centers I’ve referred to, like Francisco Aniceto Lugo. It is impossible for Chavez to get 75, 80, or 99 votes in an election where 64 people participated. And since it makes no sense, I started adding up all the voters in centers where chavismo received the referenced percentages and found that they obtain those percentages from the total registered*, not from the total participants in the election! We are indeed looking at a universe of 613,462 voters.
*CNE data via ESDATA, via electoral map from D. Kronick, C. Font, J. Rodriguez Rivas.
**Chart by Roberto Picón, from the Venezuela Command.
Addendum II, 24.08.2012, 08:41 GMT: I just realized that the data from the electoral map of D. Kronick, C. Font, J. Rodriguez Rivas, varies somewhat from what was published by ESDATA. Taking Francisco Aniceto Lugo parish as an example, the electoral map by Kronick, Font, and Rodriguez Rivas states there are 1,395 registered voters in that parish, but ESDATA indicates the number of voters there is 1,705.
*The percentages indicated in the electoral map of D. Kronick, C. Font, J. Rodriguez Rivas are not of the total registered in the REP, as previously mentioned, but of the total votes counted.
Addendum III, 27.08.2012, 09:40GMT: D. Kronick informs us that the new version of the electoral map can be checked here: http://stanford.edu/~dkronick/vz-elections2011/#