Looking At The Numbers From Yesterday’s Presidential Election

October 8, 2012

People are throwing all sorts of tables suggesting the numbers say fraud. The main problem is that they fail to include the percentage of votes counted or the null votes or whatever. Above is my take on this (Thanks TD!), using the numbers from the CNE. There are minor inconsistencies, but that is about it.

The story of the day was not the abstention, it was the turnout, never seen before in Venezuela’s elections. Capriles won the cities, but the rural areas were a blow out in Chávez favor. In a previous post, I showed how we would have lost the vote in the Parliamentary elections in 2010 if abstention had been 4% less. Well, abstention was over 10% lower, big impact. Have not really looked at numbers, but I am told, for example, that Chacao was the municipality with the highest abstention rate in Miranda State, which we lost. So, they turned the tables around, their abstention was lower than ours, or at least comparable.

Anyway, post in the comments any interesting, weird or funny things you find in the data. I don’t think I have the will or the energy. Just a couple of numbers:

Chávez got 8.2% more votes (absolute) than in 2006

The opposition got 33.2% more votes than Rosales got in 2006

The absolute number of people that did not vote in 2006 was 3.994.380, this number decreased by 653.981 votes as of the last bulletin, despite the fact that the electoral registry has grown so much.

In my opinion, all pollsters did bad. Datanalisis may have gotten the difference right, but they still had 15.5% undecided. these people were found  yesterday, based on the turnout. In fact, all pollsters were saying abstention would be higher than 25%.

80 Responses to “Looking At The Numbers From Yesterday’s Presidential Election”

  1. Andrés Says:

    En Octubre 9, 2012, Chávez supera los 8 millones de votos.

    El presidente Hugo Chávez superó la barrera de los ocho millones de votos. Con el escrutinio de 38.066 mesas (96,7%) alcanzó la cifra de 8.044.106 sufragios válidos, lo que equivale a 55,11% de los ciudadanos que participaron en la elección presidencial.
    Por su parte, el aspirante de oposición, Henrique Capriles Radonski obtiene 6.461.612 votos válidos, lo que equivale a 44,27% de los electores que sufragaron el domingo.
    Este conteo aún es parcial, porque faltan por totalizarse 952 mesas en Venezuela y los votos emitidos en el exterior, concretamente en 127 misiones diplomáticas.

    [Ver Chávez supera los 8 millones de votos El Universal, Martes 9 de octubre de 2012, 12:00 AM]

    Si estas 38.066 mesas recibieron 14,505,718 votos válidos, a razón de unos 381 votos por mesa, en promedio, tuvieron que recibirlos a razón de casi 31,8 votos por hora; o sea, a unos 2 minutos por voto durante 12 horas, sostenido en cada mesa!
    Y esto es sin considerar los votos nulos, que también toman su tiempo cada uno.

    On October 9, 2012, Reelected President Chávez obtains over eight million votes.

    Venezuelan reelected President Hugo Chávez surpassed the eight million vote threshold. Upon review and counting of ballots in 38,066 polling stations (96.7%), the reelected president gained 8,044,106 valid votes totaling 55.11% of the electorate.
    For his part, challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski obtained 6,461,612 (44.27%).
    The final figures are yet to come. Counting is still pending in another 952 polling stations in Venezuela and 127 abroad.

    [See Chávez supera los 8 millones de votos El Universal, Martes 9 de octubre de 2012, 12:00 AM]

    If these 38,066 poling stations received 14.505.718 valid votes, at a rate of 381 votes each, in average, they had to receive them a rate of almost 31.8 votes per hour; that is, some 2 minutes per vote during 12 hours, sustained at each station!
    And this does not consider the null votes, each taking some time also.

  2. Observer Says:

    I think that probably the research study done and published by statistics experts from Austria end of september, could be interesting for all who still feel they need to get things straight concerning the election results. Dealing with election results, this study develops a parametric model “quantifying the extent to which fraudulent mechanisms are present”.

    A short citation of abstract of their scientific article, published on pnas.org: “National elections can be regarded as large-scale social experiments, where people are grouped into usually large numbers of electoral districts and vote according to their preferences. The large number of samples implies statistical consequences for the polling results, which can be used to identify election irregularities. Using a suitable data representation, we find that vote distributions of elections with alleged fraud show a kurtosis substantially exceeding the kurtosis of normal elections, depending on the level of data aggregation. As an example, we show that reported irregularities in recent Russian elections are, indeed, well-explained by systematic ballot stuffing. We develop a parametric model quantifying the extent to which fraudulent mechanisms are present. We formulate a parametric test detecting these statistical properties in election results. Remarkably, this technique produces robust outcomes with respect to the resolution of the data and therefore, allows for cross-country comparisons. ”

    Here is the complete abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/20/1210722109.abstract

    And since it is open source, here is their article, published september 24th 2012: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/20/1210722109.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes

    If necessary, maybe it can help to extinguish doubts about the election results? (Or, hopefully not, confirm them… – I say “hopefully not confirm” because having a true result, and to be able to trust it, is more important than seeing the result that one maybe likes.)

    So, among the people who doubt – Are there some statisticians who are interested to look at it in detail…?

  3. César Says:

    I was devastaded that after all the failures and all the abuses of Chavismo, half the Venezuelans still believe in it, but I really was not prepared to see the 68 thousand votes given to Reina Sequera and her million dollars per Venezuelan. Now I’m devastated and pissed off.

  4. Karl Says:


    Interesante, Personas con el mismo nombre con dos cédulas inscritas en CNE… Para analizar… http://www.cne.gov.ve/ ingresen las cedulas y
    compruébenlo, cuántas así habrán?

    23174142 ALDANA DE NARVAEZ LUZ ESTELA 1966-08-07
    24088409 ALDANA DE NARVAEZ LUZ ESTELA 1966-08-07
    22542237 ALVAREZ MELENDEZ ANGEL 1958-03-28
    25284741 ALVAREZ MELENDEZ ANGEL 1958-03-28
    22780120 ALVAREZ SERRANO SAMUEL ENRIQUE 1968-08-14
    24206726 ALVAREZ SERRANO SAMUEL ENRIQUE 1968-08-14
    22041111 ARAGON VILLA PARMENIDES 1966-04-15
    24203200 ARAGON VILLA PARMENIDES 1966-04-15
    22392432 ARAUJO CARDENAS GLORIA CECILIA 1971-04-10
    24700008 ARAUJO CARDENAS GLORIA CECILIA 1971-04-10

    22788652 ARIAS ACOSTA LEON ANGEL 1948-07-11
    24273512 ARIAS ACOSTA LEON ANGEL 1948-07-11
    22534407 BARRIOS BARRIOS RAFAEL 1962-11-26
    23713580 BARRIOS BARRIOS RAFAEL 1962-11-26
    22780222 BERRIO SILGADO EFRAIN 1969-04-23
    23712679 BERRIO SILGADO EFRAIN 1969-04-23
    6662616 BERROTERAN CAMPOS JOSE FELIX 1969-04-11
    11033471 BERROTERAN CAMPOS JOSE FELIX 1969-04-11
    22038707 BLANCO DE GARCIA DEMETRIA 1955-11-29
    24335496 BLANCO DE GARCIA DEMETRIA 1955-11-29
    22560816 BLANCO REVOLLEDO ADRIA 1966-07-15
    24699615 BLANCO REVOLLEDO ADRIA 1966-07-15
    6732515 BLANCO SOJO VICTOR JOSE 1967-07-28
    6732615 BLANCO SOJO VICTOR JOSE 1967-07-28
    6279089 BRACAMONTE MARGARITA 1953-09-22
    8416017 BRACAMONTE MARGARITA 1953-09-22
    22039143 BROCHERO ROJANO CLAUDIO MARTIN 1951-08-21
    23944600 BROCHERO ROJANO CLAUDIO MARTIN 1951-08-21
    22560950 BUENDIA GUARDO MARIA DEL ROSARIO 1963-05-05
    24699626 BUENDIA GUARDO MARIA DEL ROSARIO 1963-05-05
    22780157 CABELLO BLANCO SOFANOR 1955-01-13
    24206722 CABELLO BLANCO SOFANOR 1955-01-13
    22526163 CAMACHO ROJAS YOLI ENRIQUE 1984-06-14
    22526353 CAMACHO ROJAS YOLI ENRIQUE 1984-06-14
    22534657 CAMARGO DE AMOROCHO LUCIA 1959-06-15
    24887411 CAMARGO DE AMOROCHO LUCIA 1959-06-15
    22561163 CARDENAS JULIO PILAR MARIA 1935-06-28
    24757760 CARDENAS JULIO PILAR MARIA 1935-06-2

  5. gordo Says:

    This election reminds me of my recent bout with kidney stones… just when you think the pain can’t get any worse, it gets a whole lot worse!

  6. CharlesC Says:

    “Venezuelan people ….having fair and free elections, which we don’t always see.” President Obama said this.

    I think Obama needs freakin’ glasses.

  7. […] Venezuelan bloggers John Manuel Silva and Daniel Duquenal are disheartened, while Miguel Octavio’s Looking At The Numbers From Yesterday’s Presidential Election. […]

    • CharlesC Says:

      I was literally sick since Sunday night and Monday. Today I decided to “get over it”, but
      a. I feel the election was stolen (where’s the evidence?)
      b. I cannot believe el pueblo is this misguided (but they may well be…)

      • CharlesC Says:

        And, don’t tell me about “building bridges” and “getting to know the chavistas.” (They are lying traitors, just like their THEIR leader-HugoChavez.)
        I am not interested.

      • I was kinda optimistic at first, hearing Capriles’ concession speech, he is a great leader and no doubt he can be a great President, but then it hit me, doesn’t matter how many votes Capriles will get, he is never gonna win. This only gave el golpista another coat of democracy so Obama (G Bush-the man so many of you hate him, HE would have never said anything on the likes that Chavez is a democrat!). So if this elections doesn’t serve its purpose, to demonstrate the fraud, then … well, the road is much longer than we ever suspected.

  8. CharlesC Says:

    Also, if Capriles won the cities and Chavez the countryside, then Capriles should have won..
    CIA World Factbook Venezuela-
    urban population: 93% of total population (2010)

    • Kepler Says:

      Charles, don’t tell me you are going to vote in the US elections, please.

      The definition of what a city is depends a lot.
      Actually, for a Caraqueno, a Valenciano and a Maracucho cities are only where they live. That has been one of our faults.
      I suspect the definition of what an urban centre is according to the CIA book is a place of 30000 inhabitants or more, as opposed to 4300 or 1000.
      Capriles won in the major cities and some middle-sized cities connected to the outside world plus recent enclaves with middle class people like
      some areas of Northern Anzoátegui plus areas with a large white population, like Táchira.
      We have made progress in many places.
      Take the huge forgotten city of Maturín.
      In 2006 we had 29.57%. Now we got 43%.

      One of the problems of the opposition has been that they looked
      at this 95% number (many have quoted that) and think that refers to
      Caracas and a few other cities and there is where they had gone and done an effort.
      It was only in the few months that Capriles – and few others- did the Herculean effort to visit those areas most Caraquenos consider “rural” but are in reality urban, just with less than 1 million people.
      Capriles really visited few rural areas. He visited the urban areas we, people from C-M-V, call “rural”, “monte y culebras”…places such as the city of Tocuyo, the city of Puerto Ayacucho, the city of Maturín, Tucupita, etc, etc.
      Those are cities.

      • CharlesC Says:

        Ok, I won’t tell you. -ha.
        Yes, I see much progress reaching the “hinterlands”.
        I suppose it is a fact that many of the rural pueblo are very poor and therefore they have heard 14 years of Chavez as “their man” and the fact that many only see and hear “Alo Presidente” .
        And, the rural schools must be chavista?

  9. CharlesC Says:

    O/T _Venezuela.

    I think many of the so called facts on the CIA Factbook page for Venezuela
    are wrong. Do they believe the information from the government?
    Net migration rate:
    0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2012 est.)

    • CharlesC Says:

      I have to mention this: (from Fausta article today)
      “His continuation in power for another six-year term will no doubt rob Venezuela of the economic growth opportunities that are spurring job creation and investment elsewhere in the region. Venezuela’s professional class of lawyers, doctors, engineers and entrepreneurs have fled the country in droves.” (Dallas Morning News)

      0 migrants, eh? I thought I heard a who?

  10. CharlesC Says:

    Chavez can thank the media he controlls-esp. Alo Presidente and all of the chavista henchmen in all the “community circles” around the country who
    are brainwashed fanatics themselves and have forced the brainwashing on the innocent, weak “el pueblo”.Now they are all graduates
    of the “school of not right”.
    As so many have said-Chavez has the answers-bring in the foreigners with the brains to run things.Meet your new masters.
    Soon you will find out Russians are not angels and neither are Moslems or
    Chinese. One day, you are going to miss those gringos and be kicking yourself saying “Maybe they weren’t so bad, even if Chavez screams they are until his

  11. ARCO3 Says:

    how much bsf for the dolar since yesterday??

  12. amieres Says:

    I also estimated the growth compared to 2006:
    According to CNE information @ lunes 8 de octubre de 2012 03:21:54 PM)

    From 2006 to 2012:
    – REP grew 19% = 18.903.937 / 15.922.003
    – Chávez grew 11% = 8.255.873 / 7.273.823 (extrapolated to 100%)
    – Opposition grew 52% = 6.623.956 / 4.266.937 (idem)

  13. Padme Says:

    Hm, I have a question for the abstention model, Have you ever tried to identify the swing voters, and, do you think if they were included in the model the result would vary?

  14. John Doe Says:


    Judging by the results of this elections, I m afraid that the coming years will be Hell on earth in this country, considering that:

    1) Chavez once was president but now is The Landlord; the most powerful man in Venezuela.
    2) keeping too many people in such poor condition and depending on government assistance.
    3) having opposition parties divorced from current reality, little cooperating spirit with communities and rural areas. (They give a shit)
    4) Ruled by to many left wing mental impaired seeking vengeance in name of The people.

    The coming reality:

    Private property will loss rapidly its value due too expropriation acts and threats, and little or none interest in the market for acquisition. Even chavistas are investing in the US. So any investment in real state became an imminent “gone with the wind”. Hence, Business value likely=0.

    US currency will be the desperate Lure of Gold. Not sure if the rate of the lechuga will be a “rate” or the value of “any trade to get to the exit”

    Seniat, Cadivi and all L.O.Ts, Onas, etc, will be more rigid and authoritarian. Business will be closed quickly and fully attack , government will show no mercy. Well known companies are the main targets, including banks and the media.

    As from now on clearly civil liberties depends on “one man’s wish”, very likely individuals with different political tendencies will be walking in a maze.

    Capriles already talked to Chavez about respect and consideration, because everybody knows that we are about to witness the true horror of this revolution. Lets hope the six millions voters will grow rapidly and the oppo wil certainly work closer to the people in rural areas to catch up better opportunities.

  15. Fernando Calderon Says:

    Hinterlases got it right

    • Moctavio Says:

      Not true they said 18%

      • A. Shaw Says:

        Hinterlaces poll published Sept. 25, 2012, found 50% for Chavez and 34% for Capriles, a gap of 16 points. But earlier Hinterlaces polls fluttered around 18% in favor of Chavez.

        So, what did Capriles do right between Sept. 25 and Oct 7 that produced a significant improvement in his numbers — that is, a jump from 34% Sept. 25 Hinterlaces to 43% Oct. 7 results — although it was not enough of an improvement for Capriles to win?

        • Ira Says:

          You can’t speculate that Capriles “did something right” between Sept. 25 and Oct. 7 to change the numbers, because then you’re assuming Hinterlaces’ numbers were correct in the first place.

          You could have used 50 polling organizations, and 5 would have been more accurate than Hinterlaces simply based on the vagaries of modern day polling:

          In other words, it’s still not a science. If it was, every TV program would be a hit based on a green light from positive focus group results, and every commercial would sell the shit of its product, based on those same positive focus groups held prior to airing the commercial.

          • A. Shaw Says:

            The margin of error is supposed to address some these concern.

            Yes, doing something right may not have caused the jump. But doing something right seems a more likely candidate than doing something wrong or not doing anything. The latter possibility is most unlikely because we know Capriles did things.

            When we blame people for doing something wrong, it seems only decent to praise them when they do or appear to have done something right.

            The 34% on Sept. 25 — although a bit on the high side — clustered well with most the findings of long-time pollsters, whether reactionary or liberal.

  16. Bernie Says:

    One last comment. There should be no voided votes or very few with an electronic system. 2% seems extremely high. They say you had to wait to see the picture of who you were voting for before committing your vote. I have no proof of this, but being a computer programmer i know it’s easy to do. Is it possible Chevez’s picture showed up right away, while there was a small delay for Capriles picture to show up, causing most of the voided votes to be pro Capriles.

    • ErneX Says:

      But this is irrelevant and a non-issue given the amount those were.

      • TV Says:

        I partially agree. The differance is too big to be caused by potential electioneering. I estimate that the fraud, such as it was – null votes, extra votes, wrongly counted votes – amounted to between 200,000 – 400,000 votes. Voter disfranchisement alone was on the order of a few ten thousand votes. Chavez would, in all likelyhood, obtain more votes than Caprilles without these advantages.

        That said, it is most certainly not a non-issue. Chavez may well face a recall referendum again soon. He even promised one in two years once. Between a currency devaluation, recession and broken promises, he will face a severe voter fatigue next year. He may also die, or become incapacitated. Who’s to say the next casting of votes will not be to the wire?

        This election was a perversion of democracy before the first vote was cast. That doesn’t mean any part of fraud was unimportant.

    • Noel Says:

      I had the same thought as you, and while 2% is not enough, it may be just one of a series of “adjustments”. I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I guess there is a first for everything.

  17. Bernie Says:

    Also, it’s not like voting places had to stay open late because of all the unexpected voters. On the contrary, most closed on time.

  18. Bernie Says:

    The part that is hard to believe is the over than 80% participation. That is unheard of and just gives you pause.

  19. A. Shaw Says:

    Forgive my univited return in order to gloat before you.

    Please, for your own sake, stop whining. Stop sniveling. It’s unbecoming.

    You all, should learn to sulk with dignity.

    Above all, stop pretending to be an electoral prophets.

    Shockingly, the 11-point margin inadvertently affirms the prophetic powers of Datanalysis and Hinterlaces. This isn’t good for the future of the revolutionary forces.

    Capriles and the pro-capitalist forces waged a hell of a campaign — after all, the revolutionary forces expected to win by 20 points, but they happily settled with 11 points, once the results started to pour in.

    As our glorious and heroic Muslim brothers say, all praises to Dr. Jorge, the messenger.

    The Nazarenes are clearly relieved by the Oct. 7 outcome, although the Nazarenes didn’t exert themselves — the craven devils — to produce the outcome.

  20. sincero Says:

    Hi Miguel I read your blog a lot, thanks for your posts. I found a great help in interpreting the results I have browsed through today, having read sociologist Mireya Vargas essay ¿País en regresión? a few days before. It was published a year ago. Hope you find it as much of an eye opener as I did.

  21. Ramón Peña Says:

    Just one historical comment: the lowest abstention in Venezuela was registered in 1963, only 7%. Nobody paid attention to the leftist guerrillas calling the population not to vote. President Leoni was elected.

  22. Noel Says:

    Miguel, you may well be right, but then again, if it is the rural vote that won it for Chavez, it is easier to carry out fraud there than in big cities where there is much closer monitoring. I also was struck by the confidence of the government on Sunday evening, as if they knew they couldnt lose, which was in contrast to their behavior in previous votations. Finally, I am not convinced that electronic voting machines are intrinsically safer ( I have seen some spectacular foulups in the US with supposedly improved machines).

  23. el_inmigrante Says:

    Reality is none of us knows the truth and there is no way for us to know. Capriles accepted the results and that’s what matters for us. Maybe there was fraud, maybe Chavez threatened to use force, maybe… If capriles accepted defeat I trust him it was the only reasonable option. We need to look into the future now.

  24. Cisco Says:

    If Chavez was inclined to now come clean about his illness would that be the next step toward him pushing for a change that allowed his VP to finish his term? Not sure he would even need to come clean or the implications but more interested in knowing the time frame. Would it be a 3-4 month process drafting the law and vote?

  25. captainccs Says:

    If Chavez won then Venezuela lost.

  26. Ramon Says:

    How many registered voters in 2006?
    How many registered voters in 2012?

    Is the increase in six years normal?

    Well there u have the mystery. I think the registry was loaded with anyone they could give a cedula to in the last 6 years….chinese, Cuban, etc. How big can that number be?

    • Ronaldo Says:

      If they could vote, there is no guarantee that any Cuban, Iranian, or Chinese worker in Vzla would vote for Chavez.

      • Ramon Says:

        But a good number of them would. If they were threatened to be sent back, cut off from pay, etc. You don’t need all of them, still could add up to a few hundred thousand votes.

  27. I have been told that the electoral votes abroad are still on closed boxes and soon to be recycle paper, meaning they won’t ever be counted. Is there any truth on that, Miguel? Do you know something about this?

  28. gabriela Says:

    Have you ever looked into Hausman-Rigobon 2004 paper on the Recall Referendum?

    • moctavio Says:

      My blog is the best reference point for studies of the RR:


      I have seen nothing serious about fraud in these results, so I can not take seriously anything. I did then. If someone applied Benford’s law to the results and saw an anomaly, but so far, pure emotion.

      • extorres Says:

        What I would like to see is all the processes used for the RR now done for this election. My bet is that this would show no discrepancies, which will add yet another level of doubt on the RR for the naysayers.

  29. dianuevo Says:

    Yeah bla bla, fraud fraud. Chavez won and I think with reason. My balanced thoughts and yeah it took a while to find them: http://dianuevo.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/the-day-after/

    • Chinchilla Says:

      I totally agree with you. Unfortunately there is a significant part of the opposition which advocates violence, coups and even the murder of Chavez and still claim that he is the evil dictator.

      • syd Says:

        Really? Whose voice has been booming with threats, over chained broadcasting, frequently for hours at a time, over the years, especially since 2002? Get real.

  30. maracucho importado Says:

    80% participation does not equal 14,800,000 votes,,, many votes are missing,,, i heard of tanks being mobilised into caracas,, cubans voting from cuba by subsea cable.
    i noticed yesterday, chavista tents close to our voting area,, where, at the end of the day, chavistas were loading vast quantities of bottled water into pickups as not so many supporters showed up.
    looks fake to me.

    • LD Says:

      look at this, that is how they did it, the 10×1 was not that bad (for them):

      Me desperté a las 3:45. Me puse a ojear varios foros, de repente pasó la diana por la avenida, sonando tan duro que hasta aquí se oyó. Me preparé el cafecito de costumbre, metí un ropa en la lavadora (en mi casa manda mi mujer. Yo lavo la ropa y boto la basura).
      Después desperté a la cuaima, con mucho cuidado y con un cafecito. Nos fuimos y llegamos al Joaquín Moreno Mendoza de San Félix, a las 6:10.
      No habían instalado todas las máquinas y la cola era larga. Por fin votamos como a las 7:30.
      VBolvimos a la casa para recojer al viejito que tengo de vecino y llevarlo a votar, por Chávez, en el barrio Las Malvinas que se llama así porque se fundó por la época de la guerra. Como el vecino no sabe mucho de las cosas electorales, lo asistí en el voto. Ese proceso fue rápidito. Lo trajimos a su casa y llevamos a dos vecinas, más lejanas, hasta Río Claro, para que votaran por Chávez. Por último, llevamos a mi suegra a votar, por Chávez.
      Todo un periplo.

    • ErneX Says:

      Seriously? the guy won, stop spreading fear, uncertainty and doubts.

      • dianuevo Says:

        Agree. it is done and yeah every trick in the book is used.. wouldn’t you do the same thing?

      • m_astera Says:

        No, I would not use every trick in the book to win. Nor would I vote for or support anyone who did, or who thought that was acceptable behavior. Winning is not more important than honor or my own self respect. People who accept that sort of thing deserve that sort of thing, and they have nothing to complain about.

      • dianuevo Says:

        This is not how the world works. In an ideal society maybe but not in Venezuela. The opposition should have used the same tricks and should have shown the same commitment.

  31. Phil Says:

    Sorry guys but if he didn’t already have a blank cheque before he sure as hell has one now!

    Ps… Does that electronic system really link your vote to your personnal details?

  32. Kepler Says:

    Miguel, I agree with what you write here. Only one thing that I commented earlier: abstention has been lower in Venezuela before 1993, I plotted that and it shows very clearly. We should wonder why (and I don’t mean necessarily a fraud any time, even if CNE records are very crappy)

  33. Gaston Says:

    Despite it making no difference at all, I am annoyed by the fact that Reina Sequera got 16 times more votes on the Unidad Democrática ticket -with the misleading name and Capriles Radonski’s mugshot- than on her own. I have no idea who these Unidad Democrática guys are and what kind of support they have, but that is just ridiculous.

    Hell, her Unidad Democrática votes are almost the difference between Capriles and Chávez in Miranda.

    Of course this point is pretty much academic now, but you can imagine how, in the very different scenario that Quico posted last week, shit would have really hit the fan.

    So much for the best electoral system in the world.

    • sapitosetty Says:

      Right. It would indeed be interesting to add up all the known trampas:
      – that one should have added 68,000 to the Capriles total
      – how many people with known multiple cedulas actually voted (Kepler?)
      – how many overseas votes were ignored or made impossible by embassy BS

      But as you say, it’s all pretty academic — Chávez won this thing.

      • LD Says:

        and that were the open tricks, what about the last minute Misiones, the indiscriminate use of TV, not making a difference between government and state, between Chávez and government, etc. I would say 55/45 is a good result under that conditions… how to change that?

    • I completely agree, there were so many straight up abuses that this cannot be called fair in any way. I have tried going through the number a couple of times, but this post by Andres has been the best and most reasoned one I have seen: http://www.the-counterpoint.com/discussion/U.

      I know, regardless, it is over, even if we found fraud it is over. I am still unsure whether we are just playing fools to Chavez’s elections theater or if there is truly a democratic way to get rid of him.

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: