The Devil's Excrement

The Coordinadora Democrática just met with Gaviria and Jennifer McCoy. They are asking for a wider audit. The Coordinadora complained that the pre-agreed live audit was never carried out on Sunday. The CD says that the results do not agree with the exit polls, but were advanced to the international press agencies at midnight (three hours before they were reported). They criticized that before the OAS audit was completed, the Brazilian OAS representative wrote a report saying that things were normal and did not mention the problems reported with the machines. The CD reiterated there are more than 1800 cases of the coincidences among machines, therefore they think that this is so improbable that the OAS can not accept the results as they are being reported. They reminded the Carter Center that in the Florida case, Carter himself said that there should be no rush to judgement and that ALL the ballots should be counted. Why, the CD asked, is this case any different?

The CD gave OAS Secretary Cesar Gaviria, copies of each of the Actas with the numerical coincidences, corresponding to each of the machines. This is what I have been asking for all day. On the audit that was supposed to take place last Sunday, the agreement was that it would happen in all states. It was done in only 14. It had been agreed that it would be done in 199 locations, it was done in only 7 states with presence of CD representatives. In these cases, the Si received 63%, the No received 37%.

So, let’s see us people who are trying to understand if there was fraud or not have some sort of delusional illness, because we do not understand some simple concepts such as:

-The CD asks for an audit and the CNE establishes the rules. That’s like Enron telling Andersen, that it will do the audit for them and it will choose what documents it will investigate or not.

-The CNE, who in the case of the signatures for the recall petition requested an absolutely deterministic procedure of everyone having to show up and certify they had signed, now is happy with a sample of 150 out of the 15,000 or so boxes. CNE Director Rodriguez had refused as too small a sample of 3,000 of the so called same calligraphy forms.

-To make it all worse that sample will be determined at random, the CD can not specify which boxes it was counted. If you really want peace, count them all!

-One of the funniest aspects has to be that this audit is supposed to be non-binding! Now, there is an oxymoronic concept a non-binding audit.

-The algorithm to select the boxes at random is chosen by the CNE, as reader Brunilde suggests, if the CNE knows the seed and the algorithm, the random numbers generated become absolutely deterministic!

-The number of the so called coincidences keeps growing. In Aragua state (a traditional pro-Chavez state, out of the 440 machines, 120 have two machines with the same number. At the Escuela Basica Rosa Amelia Flores in Aragua, all 6 machines showed exactly the same number of SI votes: 114.  In Carabobo state it is 22% of all machines, in Zulia 33% of all machines. In Bolivar state, 62 out of 117 machines have pairs of the same number of votes for the SI. The CD has already documented that 10% of the machines have duplicate Si votes, but the process is not completed.

-Meanwhile, the representative of the observers for the OAS makes statements to the press that he has yet to see this coincidences that everyone talks about, that he studied the tables and so nothing anomalous, demonstrating that the guy that is supposed to be watching over for us has a more limited understanding of the problem than 90% of the readers of this blog.

-Schoen and Penn rather than shutting up, suggest that there are more problems with the vote than with their exit poll.

-The Government denies there was a cap to the number of Si votes, suggesting there is no pattern. Why doesn’t the CNE simply publish all of the results at the machine level and dissipate all doubts? Whi is it taht the CD has had to track down all witnesses in order to get a handle on the information. Is this reasonable?

Each of the bullets above should be sufficient to make anyone paranoid. The fact that all of them are occurring simultaneously and nothing is being done about clarifying or changing any of them, makes me feel like this is an episode of the X-files or The Twilight Zone called “Delusional Probabilities (Invented by Delusi?)” and only those in the opposition are practitioners of that field.

A reader points out in the comments that the story is geting out and there is this article in the International Herald Tribune on the fraud that mentions a place in Valle de La Pascua where the votes were counted and did not agree. I have heard of this and two other cases but so far it was hearsay:

“CARACAS 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. …Evidence of foul play has surfaced. In the town of Valle de la Pascua, where papers were counted at the initiative of those manning the voting center, the Yes vote had been cut by more than 75 percent, and the entire voting material was seized by the national guard shortly after the difference was established.

There is a need to clarify concepts at this time. There is a lot of confusion about statistics, CNE results, coincidences, patterns and what it is that the opposition via the Coordinadora Democrática (CD) is claiming as evidence of fraud. So, I thought I would review the basic facts:

Each voting center had “mesas” or tables. Each mesa consists of volunteer “members” and witnesses, all chosen at random from voter rolls. The members handle the logistics, the witnesses are supposed to be checking that things are done properly and correctly. Both sides had witnesses and members in most tables. There were 8,142 mesas or tables in the country, some did not have the Smartmatic electronic voting machines.

Each voting center  had from one to five tables and each table could have up to three Smartmatic machines (1) to vote in. In each Smartmatic machine, people voted. Ther are two buttons with the possible answers “Yes” and “No” (2) and the voter has to select the answer of his/her choice by touching the correct button. To finish the voter confir her/his choice touching the Vote button (3) on the screen. When the voter touches the “Vote” button, the machine prints a physical ballot (paper ballot) allowing the voter to instantly see if his/her selection was recorded properly. The paper ballot must be deposited into the ballot (4)box , so that poll workers can return the ID card to the voter. The poll workers testify and guarantee that the ballot was introduced in the ballot box.

Sebastian from zonageek has actually downloaded all of the preliminary data from the CNE site and placed it in a .dat file here as an Excel file. Here you can read state by state, school by school, how many tables there were, the number of voters and the number of Si and No votes. However, this table by the CNE does not show the details of the machine vote individually.

At the end of the voting day, after polls closed, the people at each table would gather around, put the ballot box in a plastic bag with a precinct that all would sign and proceed to read how many Si and No votes there were in the Smartmatic machine readout. The Smartmatic machine would print a cover sheet (Acta) that all members and witnesses of the table would sign as confirmation that they agreed with their content. They would all take a copy, one Acta per Smartmatic machine as in the following picture, where I show three Actas from a single mesa, i.e. three Smartmatic machines:

This picture shows one of the cases of “coincidences” what is now being called a “pattern” or irregularity. In this particular case, the number of Si votes is exactly the same in all of the machines at a single table or mesa. As I described last night, such a pattern was first found in Bolivar state by J.J. Rendon, who said on TV he had detected already 24 centers with a problem like that out of the 60 voting centers in Bolivar state, a fairly large proportion.

The case in the picture is an extreme case in which all three numbers for the “Si” vote agree. In most cases, out of three Smartmatic machines, two have the same number (x) of Si votes and the third one a different one (y), but this third number is always less or equal (y<, y=x) than the one the other two had. But the third number (y) is NEVER larger (y>x) than the two identical ones.

Let’s look at what is so improbable about this:

 I) First of all, it is highly improbable that so many coincidences occur. Even if the number of voters were divided evenly between machines, abstention and different voter’s intention would vary the numbers from machine to machine sufficiently that this would be a rare occurrence.

II) If it were a matter of even distribution of voters between machines, then the percentage of equal NO votes in two machines in the same center should be equal to the coincidence of the Yes votes in two machines. No such occurrence has been reported and in all examples I have seen (Something like 15-20 of them) not once did the number of NO’s repeat.

III) But perhaps the most powerful argument is that if this were a matter of probabilities, the third number would be either higher or lower then the two numbers that coincide, much like tossing a coin, half the time above, half the time below. But as far as I know ALL of the cases that have been reported correspond to the third number being less or equal to the two identical ones.

How many cases are there?

Well, this is hard to answer at this time. J.J. Rendon has said 24 of the 60 centers in Bolivar state have the pattern. Enrique Mendoza said that he already had 500 cases documented. Nelson Rampersad said that  25% of all Smartmatic machines, more than 5,000 have irregularities, but he did not specify what these irregularities were. The Governor of Zulia state said that 33% of that state’s 931 tables had irregularities, but once again, he did not clarify if they were these type of coincidence although he did say he had consulted mathematicians and technicians who had told him this was essentially impossible. This suggests he is talking about the same pattern. This alone could be around 1,000 Smartmatic machines in 300 centers.

These are HUGE numbers that have very little probability of occurring, least of all, if they all have the same pattern in which the third number is smaller. I have not been able to confirm this.

What explains the coincidences?

Well, the theory is that they wanted to have the total number of votes be consistent with the final number of voters in each machine. Thus, the machines were somehow programmed with a table, machine by machine, center by center, so that above a certain number any additional Si vote would be assigned to the No’s. Then there were four possibilities: No machine exceeded the number, one machine exceeded the number, two machines exceeded the number or all three machines exceeded the number. Only the last two would be detectable.  Since there are also mesas or tables with one or two machines, these two would also show no significant pattern. Thus, the numbers being mentioned are quite significant and if true, likely to be present in 50% of all machines.

Can it be something else?

Sure it can, some voting machines have been released to the public only to make mistakes the first time they were tested. These machines were never tested before under field conditions, heavy voting and/or long hours of voting.

However, voting machines can be rigged and have a history of being rigged. As this article attests, e-voting is still not tamper proof and manufacturers seem to be after the money and have not made their machines full proof yet. Given the fact that the software was handed out to the CNE, that the machines were programmed and given to the CNE, who in turn gave it to the military, many things could have happened after they were first programmed by the company that made them.

However, one thing is clear, in either case; a proper audit of the printed ballots would show the problems. The CD refused to accept the audit because it felt it should have the right to choose some ballot boxes. This for two reasons, the CNE decided on the algorithm to choose the boxes, this could be as rigged as the original voting machines. The second is that the CD knows where the biggest differences between exit polls and final results are, it could pick those as a testing ground of this possible massive fraud. Thus, if the CNE did not allow for the CD choosing some boxes, The CD could not participate in a process that may become the final nail of its own coffin, unless its conditions were met.

Can the boxes be rigged?

Yes and No. It would be difficult to rig all of them, some 15,000 to 20,000 boxes with 10 million little papers in the correct proportions to match the results in each box. Then they would have to fake the signatures in each precinct. Seems hard. In fact, you could even check for fingerprints in the ballots. If real, they should all have different fingerprints, if faked, pick three at random and the fraud will be revealed.

Conclusion

My own personal opinion is there was fraud and if the CNE people knew about it, the sample is rigged and nothing will be detected in the audit. If none of the boxes are from the cases with coincidences it would generate new doubts about the whole process. If they did not know, tomorrow in the audit, the whole fraud will come out and everything will implode. Beyond that we will be in unchartered territory.

There is a need to clarify concepts at this time. There is a lot of confusion about statistics, CNE results, coincidences, patterns and what it is that the opposition via the Coordinadora Democrática (CD) is claiming as evidence of fraud. So, I thought I would review the basic facts:

Each voting center had “mesas” or tables. Each mesa consists of volunteer “members” and witnesses, all chosen at random from voter rolls. The members handle the logistics, the witnesses are supposed to be checking that things are done properly and correctly. Both sides had witnesses and members in most tables. There were 8,142 mesas or tables in the country, some did not have the Smartmatic electronic voting machines.

Each voting center  had from one to five tables and each table could have up to three Smartmatic machines (1) to vote in. In each Smartmatic machine, people voted. Ther are two buttons with the possible answers “Yes” and “No” (2) and the voter has to select the answer of his/her choice by touching the correct button. To finish the voter confir her/his choice touching the Vote button (3) on the screen. When the voter touches the “Vote” button, the machine prints a physical ballot (paper ballot) allowing the voter to instantly see if his/her selection was recorded properly. The paper ballot must be deposited into the ballot (4)box , so that poll workers can return the ID card to the voter. The poll workers testify and guarantee that the ballot was introduced in the ballot box.

Sebastian from zonageek has actually downloaded all of the preliminary data from the CNE site and placed it in a .dat file here as an Excel file. Here you can read state by state, school by school, how many tables there were, the number of voters and the number of Si and No votes. However, this table by the CNE does not show the details of the machine vote individually.

At the end of the voting day, after polls closed, the people at each table would gather around, put the ballot box in a plastic bag with a precinct that all would sign and proceed to read how many Si and No votes there were in the Smartmatic machine readout. The Smartmatic machine would print a cover sheet (Acta) that all members and witnesses of the table would sign as confirmation that they agreed with their content. They would all take a copy, one Acta per Smartmatic machine as in the following picture, where I show three Actas from a single mesa, i.e. three Smartmatic machines:

This picture shows one of the cases of “coincidences” what is now being called a “pattern” or irregularity. In this particular case, the number of Si votes is exactly the same in all of the machines at a single table or mesa. As I described last night, such a pattern was first found in Bolivar state by J.J. Rendon, who said on TV he had detected already 24 centers with a problem like that out of the 60 voting centers in Bolivar state, a fairly large proportion.

The case in the picture is an extreme case in which all three numbers for the “Si” vote agree. In most cases, out of three Smartmatic machines, two have the same number (x) of Si votes and the third one a different one (y), but this third number is always less or equal (y<, y=x) than the one the other two had. But the third number (y) is NEVER larger (y>x) than the two identical ones.

Let’s look at what is so improbable about this:

 I) First of all, it is highly improbable that so many coincidences occur. Even if the number of voters were divided evenly between machines, abstention and different voter’s intention would vary the numbers from machine to machine sufficiently that this would be a rare occurrence.

II) If it were a matter of even distribution of voters between machines, then the percentage of equal NO votes in two machines in the same center should be equal to the coincidence of the Yes votes in two machines. No such occurrence has been reported and in all examples I have seen (Something like 15-20 of them) not once did the number of NO’s repeat.

III) But perhaps the most powerful argument is that if this were a matter of probabilities, the third number would be either higher or lower then the two numbers that coincide, much like tossing a coin, half the time above, half the time below. But as far as I know ALL of the cases that have been reported correspond to the third number being less or equal to the two identical ones.

How many cases are there?

Well, this is hard to answer at this time. J.J. Rendon has said 24 of the 60 centers in Bolivar state have the pattern. Enrique Mendoza said that he already had 500 cases documented. Nelson Rampersad said that  25% of all Smartmatic machines, more than 5,000 have irregularities, but he did not specify what these irregularities were. The Governor of Zulia state said that 33% of that state’s 931 tables had irregularities, but once again, he did not clarify if they were these type of coincidence although he did say he had consulted mathematicians and technicians who had told him this was essentially impossible. This suggests he is talking about the same pattern. This alone could be around 1,000 Smartmatic machines in 300 centers.

These are HUGE numbers that have very little probability of occurring, least of all, if they all have the same pattern in which the third number is smaller. I have not been able to confirm this.

What explains the coincidences?

Well, the theory is that they wanted to have the total number of votes be consistent with the final number of voters in each machine. Thus, the machines were somehow programmed with a table, machine by machine, center by center, so that above a certain number any additional Si vote would be assigned to the No’s. Then there were four possibilities: No machine exceeded the number, one machine exceeded the number, two machines exceeded the number or all three machines exceeded the number. Only the last two would be detectable.  Since there are also mesas or tables with one or two machines, these two would also show no significant pattern. Thus, the numbers being mentioned are quite significant and if true, likely to be present in 50% of all machines.

Can it be something else?

Sure it can, some voting machines have been released to the public only to make mistakes the first time they were tested. These machines were never tested before under field conditions, heavy voting and/or long hours of voting.

However, voting machines can be rigged and have a history of being rigged. As this article attests, e-voting is still not tamper proof and manufacturers seem to be after the money and have not made their machines full proof yet. Given the fact that the software was handed out to the CNE, that the machines were programmed and given to the CNE, who in turn gave it to the military, many things could have happened after they were first programmed by the company that made them.

However, one thing is clear, in either case; a proper audit of the printed ballots would show the problems. The CD refused to accept the audit because it felt it should have the right to choose some ballot boxes. This for two reasons, the CNE decided on the algorithm to choose the boxes, this could be as rigged as the original voting machines. The second is that the CD knows where the biggest differences between exit polls and final results are, it could pick those as a testing ground of this possible massive fraud. Thus, if the CNE did not allow for the CD choosing some boxes, The CD could not participate in a process that may become the final nail of its own coffin, unless its conditions were met.

Can the boxes be rigged?

Yes and No. It would be difficult to rig all of them, some 15,000 to 20,000 boxes with 10 million little papers in the correct proportions to match the results in each box. Then they would have to fake the signatures in each precinct. Seems hard. In fact, you could even check for fingerprints in the ballots. If real, they should all have different fingerprints, if faked, pick three at random and the fraud will be revealed.

Conclusion

My own personal opinion is there was fraud and if the CNE people knew about it, the sample is rigged and nothing will be detected in the audit. If none of the boxes are from the cases with coincidences it would generate new doubts about the whole process. If they did not know, tomorrow in the audit, the whole fraud will come out and everything will implode. Beyond that we will be in unchartered territory.

There is a need to clarify concepts at this time. There is a lot of confusion about statistics, CNE results, coincidences, patterns and what it is that the opposition via the Coordinadora Democrática (CD) is claiming as evidence of fraud. So, I thought I would review the basic facts:

Each voting center had “mesas” or tables. Each mesa consists of volunteer “members” and witnesses, all chosen at random from voter rolls. The members handle the logistics, the witnesses are supposed to be checking that things are done properly and correctly. Both sides had witnesses and members in most tables. There were 8,142 mesas or tables in the country, some did not have the Smartmatic electronic voting machines.

Each voting center  had from one to five tables and each table could have up to three Smartmatic machines (1) to vote in. In each Smartmatic machine, people voted. Ther are two buttons with the possible answers “Yes” and “No” (2) and the voter has to select the answer of his/her choice by touching the correct button. To finish the voter confir her/his choice touching the Vote button (3) on the screen. When the voter touches the “Vote” button, the machine prints a physical ballot (paper ballot) allowing the voter to instantly see if his/her selection was recorded properly. The paper ballot must be deposited into the ballot (4)box , so that poll workers can return the ID card to the voter. The poll workers testify and guarantee that the ballot was introduced in the ballot box.

Sebastian from zonageek has actually downloaded all of the preliminary data from the CNE site and placed it in a .dat file here as an Excel file. Here you can read state by state, school by school, how many tables there were, the number of voters and the number of Si and No votes. However, this table by the CNE does not show the details of the machine vote individually.

At the end of the voting day, after polls closed, the people at each table would gather around, put the ballot box in a plastic bag with a precinct that all would sign and proceed to read how many Si and No votes there were in the Smartmatic machine readout. The Smartmatic machine would print a cover sheet (Acta) that all members and witnesses of the table would sign as confirmation that they agreed with their content. They would all take a copy, one Acta per Smartmatic machine as in the following picture, where I show three Actas from a single mesa, i.e. three Smartmatic machines:

This picture shows one of the cases of “coincidences” what is now being called a “pattern” or irregularity. In this particular case, the number of Si votes is exactly the same in all of the machines at a single table or mesa. As I described last night, such a pattern was first found in Bolivar state by J.J. Rendon, who said on TV he had detected already 24 centers with a problem like that out of the 60 voting centers in Bolivar state, a fairly large proportion.

The case in the picture is an extreme case in which all three numbers for the “Si” vote agree. In most cases, out of three Smartmatic machines, two have the same number (x) of Si votes and the third one a different one (y), but this third number is always less or equal (y<, y=x) than the one the other two had. But the third number (y) is NEVER larger (y>x) than the two identical ones.

Let’s look at what is so improbable about this:

 I) First of all, it is highly improbable that so many coincidences occur. Even if the number of voters were divided evenly between machines, abstention and different voter’s intention would vary the numbers from machine to machine sufficiently that this would be a rare occurrence.

II) If it were a matter of even distribution of voters between machines, then the percentage of equal NO votes in two machines in the same center should be equal to the coincidence of the Yes votes in two machines. No such occurrence has been reported and in all examples I have seen (Something like 15-20 of them) not once did the number of NO’s repeat.

III) But perhaps the most powerful argument is that if this were a matter of probabilities, the third number would be either higher or lower then the two numbers that coincide, much like tossing a coin, half the time above, half the time below. But as far as I know ALL of the cases that have been reported correspond to the third number being less or equal to the two identical ones.

How many cases are there?

Well, this is hard to answer at this time. J.J. Rendon has said 24 of the 60 centers in Bolivar state have the pattern. Enrique Mendoza said that he already had 500 cases documented. Nelson Rampersad said that  25% of all Smartmatic machines, more than 5,000 have irregularities, but he did not specify what these irregularities were. The Governor of Zulia state said that 33% of that state’s 931 tables had irregularities, but once again, he did not clarify if they were these type of coincidence although he did say he had consulted mathematicians and technicians who had told him this was essentially impossible. This suggests he is talking about the same pattern. This alone could be around 1,000 Smartmatic machines in 300 centers.

These are HUGE numbers that have very little probability of occurring, least of all, if they all have the same pattern in which the third number is smaller. I have not been able to confirm this.

What explains the coincidences?

Well, the theory is that they wanted to have the total number of votes be consistent with the final number of voters in each machine. Thus, the machines were somehow programmed with a table, machine by machine, center by center, so that above a certain number any additional Si vote would be assigned to the No’s. Then there were four possibilities: No machine exceeded the number, one machine exceeded the number, two machines exceeded the number or all three machines exceeded the number. Only the last two would be detectable.  Since there are also mesas or tables with one or two machines, these two would also show no significant pattern. Thus, the numbers being mentioned are quite significant and if true, likely to be present in 50% of all machines.

Can it be something else?

Sure it can, some voting machines have been released to the public only to make mistakes the first time they were tested. These machines were never tested before under field conditions, heavy voting and/or long hours of voting.

However, voting machines can be rigged and have a history of being rigged. As this article attests, e-voting is still not tamper proof and manufacturers seem to be after the money and have not made their machines full proof yet. Given the fact that the software was handed out to the CNE, that the machines were programmed and given to the CNE, who in turn gave it to the military, many things could have happened after they were first programmed by the company that made them.

However, one thing is clear, in either case; a proper audit of the printed ballots would show the problems. The CD refused to accept the audit because it felt it should have the right to choose some ballot boxes. This for two reasons, the CNE decided on the algorithm to choose the boxes, this could be as rigged as the original voting machines. The second is that the CD knows where the biggest differences between exit polls and final results are, it could pick those as a testing ground of this possible massive fraud. Thus, if the CNE did not allow for the CD choosing some boxes, The CD could not participate in a process that may become the final nail of its own coffin, unless its conditions were met.

Can the boxes be rigged?

Yes and No. It would be difficult to rig all of them, some 15,000 to 20,000 boxes with 10 million little papers in the correct proportions to match the results in each box. Then they would have to fake the signatures in each precinct. Seems hard. In fact, you could even check for fingerprints in the ballots. If real, they should all have different fingerprints, if faked, pick three at random and the fraud will be revealed.

Conclusion

My own personal opinion is there was fraud and if the CNE people knew about it, the sample is rigged and nothing will be detected in the audit. If none of the boxes are from the cases with coincidences it would generate new doubts about the whole process. If they did not know, tomorrow in the audit, the whole fraud will come out and everything will implode. Beyond that we will be in unchartered territory.

Three of the men that participated in the shootout Monday that left one dead and eight injured were captured today by the Sucre municipality police together with the intelligence police. Hopefully, this crime will have no impunity and the people will be jailed for life.

Three of the men that participated in the shootout Monday that left one dead and eight injured were captured today by the Sucre municipality police together with the intelligence police. Hopefully, this crime will have no impunity and the people will be jailed for life.

While the local media identifies the guy who found the inconsistencies in the final result of the voting as a political analyst, apparently he is a Statistician from Venezuela who lives in Mexico, where he works on political analysis for campaigns and elections.

He claims to have found in Bolivar state at least 24 of 60 centers in which two or three machines have the same number of SI votes as I described in a previous post. Moreover the same characteristics have been appearing on other states like Lara, Miranda and Zulia.

He claims he does not know why this happens, but there is a pattern with a cap and the cap varies from table to table. Once the SI reaches a value, you have two tables with that value and the third always with a lower value. Rendon, who just appeared on local TV being interviewed, said this pattern is “improbable, practically impossible”. He said this is not a doubt, this is proof. He claims the only way to find out the truth will be to recount all ballots.

He said Smartmatic may not have known about the problem. He also said what is different about his study is that he did not sample; he looked at all the centers and all of the details in each center.

Rendon said that this is a proof that something was not working properly and if the ballots agree with this, it proves nothing. It simply means it was done properly. He suggests that the President himself should request that it be checked since he would be the one that is most affected. He thinks the Democratic Coordinator should look into it and concentrate on a single message about this improbable coincidence.

While the local media identifies the guy who found the inconsistencies in the final result of the voting as a political analyst, apparently he is a Statistician from Venezuela who lives in Mexico, where he works on political analysis for campaigns and elections.

He claims to have found in Bolivar state at least 24 of 60 centers in which two or three machines have the same number of SI votes as I described in a previous post. Moreover the same characteristics have been appearing on other states like Lara, Miranda and Zulia.

He claims he does not know why this happens, but there is a pattern with a cap and the cap varies from table to table. Once the SI reaches a value, you have two tables with that value and the third always with a lower value. Rendon, who just appeared on local TV being interviewed, said this pattern is “improbable, practically impossible”. He said this is not a doubt, this is proof. He claims the only way to find out the truth will be to recount all ballots.

He said Smartmatic may not have known about the problem. He also said what is different about his study is that he did not sample; he looked at all the centers and all of the details in each center.

Rendon said that this is a proof that something was not working properly and if the ballots agree with this, it proves nothing. It simply means it was done properly. He suggests that the President himself should request that it be checked since he would be the one that is most affected. He thinks the Democratic Coordinator should look into it and concentrate on a single message about this improbable coincidence.