Opposition Primary Results Show Urban Voters And Expected Geographical Correlation

February 14, 2012

The above graph, sent to me by EC (thanks!) shows the percentage of voters in each state that participated in Sunday’s primaries. Except in Amazonas, which is a rural state, you can see that States on the right, with the highest levels of participation, are mostly populous, more urban states. These results are no mystery, simply put, the opposition has always been stronger in these states. In fact, as EC pointed out in his mail, the correlation coefficient is 0.95, with the opposition”population” of each state, as measured in the last election when the opposition obtained 5.7 million votes.

Thus, about one out of every two opposition voters went to vote on Sunday, clearly a highly motivated opposition force, with a rather unusual participation for a primary. In fact, in the two primaries that Chavismo has held, the internal ones in 2008 and the one for the National Assembly in 2010, participation was 520,000 and 1.2 million, respectively.

This could indicate a more disgruntled population, but it is hard to extrapolate much from the data to what would happen in the Presidential election in October.


13 Responses to “Opposition Primary Results Show Urban Voters And Expected Geographical Correlation”

  1. Roberto N Says:

    It would be interesting to see the participation overseas too. Washington DC had 485 out of 1500 show up and vote.

    Capriles won by a landslide here too, and Voto Nulo (Null vote) beat Pablo Medina.

    • megaescualidus Says:

      Unless the opposition makes it possible for ex-pats in the Florida area to vote in October, votes abroad will almost be negligible (they may not reach 50k altogether). But of course, Florida alone represents 100k+ “escualido” votes (150k, perhaps?) HC doesn’t want to deal with.

      At least this almost answers a question I’ve had for a long time, whether votes abroad have been counted at all in past elections and referenda. I guess since Florida represents a non-negligible # of votes against HC, that it was brought out of circulation may (just may) mean votes abroad have been counted.

  2. megaescualidus Says:

    Tachira is the 9th state in the population-per-state list by Wikipedia (i.e., Zulia and Miranda are 1st and 2nd, respectively), yet, as I’ve seen over and over in my visits there over the past few years, “los gochos son escualidos hasta la medula”. Not surprisingly (to me, at least) they ranked very high in the participation (22%?), second only to Miranda and Amazonas, and surprisingly higher than Zulia. Way to go Tachira!!!

  3. NET Says:

    I believe the graph is significant, in that the “10” scoring states are “rural “, excepting Vargas, which certainly has a “rural/backward” mentality(and excepting the anomaly of high-scoring Amazonas). These were basically the same states which were AD holdouts for some time, before finally converting to Chavismo, and luckily they are low in population/votes. Significantly, the higher population/more urban/knowledgeable states are converting away from Chavismo, as is to be expected.

  4. Pelao Manrique Says:

    I think there was a mistake in Miguel’s original statement. The correlation could not have been 0.95% (extremely low), but 95%, or a correlation coefficient of 0.95. Right, Miguel?

    So, if you were to plot the votes in this primary election on the Y-axis versus the votes for the opposition in the 2007 election, you would have a very straight line with little scatter (meaning the 95% correlation). One important thing, though, is that the slope of the line need not be close to 1; meaning that there is no need that onbe vote now was one vote in 2007. In fact, from what Miguel says here, the slope is more like 1/2. This is important because it puts to rest the silly comment made by Chavistas that there is no way the opposition can win with 3 million votes. In fact, if elections were to be held today, there would be at least 6 million votes.

    Pelao Manrique

  5. Albionboy Says:

    Chavez made a mistake having the CNE hold the election, his penchant for trickery ha backfired, if the MUD had run their own show he could have thrown stones as he pleased. but now throwing stones at the CNE glass house will get him nowhere
    “Oh what a tangled web we weave
    When first we practice to deceive” – Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)

  6. island canuck Says:

    All the voting books have been burnhed.

  7. VJ Says:

    Please talk to me in cristiano.
    Explain me what means that ” there is a 0.95% correlation with the opposition”population” of each state, as measured in the last election when the opposition obtained 5.7 million votes ”


    • moctavio Says:

      In simplistic terms, 95% of the votes in all states can be explained based on the opposition votes in those same states in the elections for the National Assembly.

  8. Syd Says:

    miguel, could you put in the dates for the internal chavista votes?

  9. Dr. Faustus Says:

    But, this is how the ‘real’ political game is played….


    Just imagine if you work for the government, PDVSA perhaps, and you just finished voting in the primary and you notice this. That would scare the bejeesus out of anyone, especially those with a government job. This is nasty stuff. This is precisely how Chavez intends to keep power. It’s right out of Orwell.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: