The Dead Voted Massively Last October in Venezuela

June 2, 2013


While the Electoral Board (CNE) did not allow the opposition to look at the voting notebooks, nor has it released the details of the fingerprint system (SAI) data, which would reveal how many phantom votes took place last April, there are ways to infer that there were fake votes in the recent Presidential elections.

One of the biggest anomalies in the last two Presidential elections is that the number of polling stations in which 100% of the voters cast their ballots has been on the increase. In the October 2012 election (you can download the data here), a total of 48 “mesas” had all of their voters show up and vote, comprising 20,012 voters.

While the CNE has not released the data from the 2012 or 2013 fingerprint data, the data of who is still registered to vote is public and the data from the National Institute for Statistics on who is dead is also public. Well, someone in El Universal took the trouble to check how many dead voters were registered in the 48 mesas where 100% of the voters cast their ballot last October. A picture of the list is shown above, you can see the full list here, there were a total of 90 dead voters that resuscitated that day and went to vote.

Well, if 90 out of 20,012 voters that cast their ballots were dead, that extrapolates to 66,887 dead voters nationally, using the total numbers of voters cast (14,872,739) in October. Given that the number of dead people in the  voting rolls is estimated to be 210,000, one can only conclude that dead voters went massively to the polls last October with 31.85% of them voting, despite the significant limitations to go and and vote associated with being dead. (To say nothing abut the state of your fingerprint)

Recall that Maduro “won” by 224,268 votes in April.If we assume that these same 66,887 votes, also were cast in April, plus who knows how many more fake pushes of the voting button by those that controlled the process, then the difference may have been quite small indeed (or changed sign!)

No wonder the CNE does not want to release the fingerprint data or have the voting notebooks checked!

89 Responses to “The Dead Voted Massively Last October in Venezuela”

  1. Very good information. Lucky me I came across your website by chance (stumbleupon).
    I’ve book marked it for later!

  2. Very well written post. It will be valuable to anybody who usess it, including me. Keep doing what you are doing – for sure i will check out more posts.

  3. It’s easy to see why this game is becoming so popular.
    Missy Jess explains how to get the most of your Farm – Ville crops.
    Learning the theme of your collection is also important in spotting an antique

  4. I quite like reading through a post that will make men and women think.
    Also, many thanks for allowing for me to comment!

  5. […] Soon after, he faced an opposition leader defiantly meeting with Colombia’s president, the voting dead scandal, and a leaked recording revealing his party’s infighting and corruption. While these types of […]

  6. hi!,I like your writing very much! percentage we communicate more about your article on AOL?

    I need an expert on this space to resolve my problem.

    May be that is you! Looking ahead to see you.

  7. m_astera Says:

    Kate, how much are you being paid by the Cubans to betray the people of Venezuela? Very disturbing. Not that you care as long as you get paid. I will leave it at that.

  8. Stephen Hildon (@StephenHildon) Says:

    I checked the first three of the dead voters and three others chosen at random for the October 2012 election. Two had the wrong data for which voting centre they belonged to. However I was able to find the correct one via their ID number on the CNE website.

    The logic that if we know at least one of the registered voters was dead at the time of the election and that the mesa had 100% then someone must have impersonated them to vote.

    But the six mesas I checked didn’t in fact have 100% turnout which means that there is no proof of impersonation.

    • What happened was when Martinez’ report came out Sunday the 2nd., the CNE realeased a new set of data the next day (June 3d) for the October election, correcting centers that showed 100% voting. This decreased the number of dead(Martinez does believe they were errors, no bad faith involved) but they are still some dead voters left like Antonio Diaz in Delta Amacuro, but Martinez has to go back redo the work.

  9. LD Says:

    If the vote is secret, then why must be the people asking for it be in a public list (obviously exposing their vote intention)? It is enough to corroborate if the signatures are real, and that is the duty of CNE (don’t do they that in an election so perfectly?).
    What will be the reason of a public list? And who is going to ask for a revocatorio, knowing you will land on a public list and will be exposed to retaliation?
    Proof of this, it was the last revocatorio…
    Then this mechanism intended to make a better democracy has been turned into a useless one. If you fail to see that, well…

    • kate Says:

      What a ridiculous distortion!
      The petition for a referendum is not the referendum itself. It is not a vote.
      Petitions are public throughout the world, and when you sign one, you are well aware that your support for a particular cause or initiative is to be made widely known. Otherwise, you simply wouldn’t bother.

      • LD Says:

        Yeah, and try to collect 20% of the voters if you expect retaliation. So it is useless under non democratic conditions, isn’t?

        • kate Says:

          Right, but if the referendum had been won, the signers would have probably held their names up high as ‘saviors of the nation’!
          Obviously, most of the signers may have preferred their names only to be known to the opposition. But if it’s a public petition, you can’t have it both ways.
          I do however agree that retaliation for exercising a constitutional right is indefensible.

  10. kate Says:

    Again, aren’t petitions meant to be public in any case?
    As far as I know, when it’s private it’s called lobbying.
    The fact that the list released by Tascón wasn’t the one accepted by the CNE just goes to show anyone could have shared it.
    In fact, the CNE condemned Tascon’s release, but subsequently published its own list, where signers could check the accuracy of their entry.
    Seems fair enough to me! A case of public interest, actually.
    However, the use made of the list is another matter, and blacklisting is certainly unjustifiable when people were exercising a constitutional right.

    All the same, the legacy of McCarthyism arguably runs even deeper in American society to curtail dissent, where blacklisting has become so routine that it no longer seems noteworthy.

    • NorskeDiv Says:

      So the CNE’s release of the petition signers at Chavez behest, and then using that list to decide if people can recieve government benefits is nothing special? Its only a big deal in Venezuela because it is new there.

      Tell me, Kate, when did being a member of the communist or Nazi party, let alone mainstream opposition, disbar one from recieving social welfare benefits in the US? The closest the US has come to such a thing in the last fifty years was not extending college scholarships to those who advocate the violent overthrow of the US government, but even that was overturned! You are either tragically niave, or tragically uninformed.

      • kate Says:

        Aren’t lists of petitioners for plebiscites in the US made public?

        • Mick Says:

          I think the point was, in the US your opinion is not as detrimental to your ability to receive due benefits as it is in Venezuela.

    • Iguana_Master_7000 Says:

      I’d like you to address the comment regarding the lack of fingerprint data for 1.5 million electors, the guy with over 200 fake cedulas caught in Montalban and how fingerprint machines do not cross check each other to see if someone has voted elsewhere.

      If you can’t find the comment, just look for the one with Obama’s cedula.

  11. Mick Says:

    And you wondered why it was impossible to get an accurate poll before the elections.

  12. Kate: have you ever seen the tascon/Chavez (Maisanta) list?

    First, it was Chavez who publicly “approved” handing Tascon all of the info. The CNE, the same CNE which withholds public info from the opposition, mmediately handed out a copy of all of the signatures. The original copy, not even the signatures “accepted” by the CNE.

    Second, it was Chavismo that created the database, that contained more than just “who signed against Chavez”. It also included who was getting Government Misiones, each and everyone of them, addresses which CNE does not give the opposition even today for all voters, including phone numbers, addresses and birth date and whether people had voted or not in recent elections, something which was not “public”. The Tascon list was packaged as a databse in a CD called the Maisanta list. The Maisanta list, included everyone that “signed” whether the CNE accepted the signature or not.

    So, the CNE was guilty, guilty, guilty in terms that Richard Nixon would understand in giving out this information which was the basis for persecuting Venezuelans.

  13. Eduardo Linares Says:

    if venezuelans could learn to trust each other, we would not need this ‘Star Wars’ election system, which is like an arms race; absorbing huge amounts of energy and resources.
    as things go, we’ll probably end up having 1000 audits for every election, along with iris scans, not to mention DNA tests…
    This has to end somewhere!
    Maybe then we could just put our vote in the mail and not worry too much about it, like in Switzerland.
    obviously that demands high levels of social cohesion and trust, which doesn’t just happen overnight, and depends on every country’s historical and cultural context.
    The conditions of social exclusion which gave rise to Chavismo in the first place can’t easily be carpeted over. Even if the force of its polarizing narrative is clearly losing ground, it still has a good run left. This means that trust will, sadly, remain a scarce resource in Venezuela for the foreseeable future.

  14. concerned Says:

    I don’t think it is unusual that there are registered voters around the globe who have died and by default are dead. The difference in Venezuela under CNE management and under tibesey’s watch are that those votes are cast in volume soley for supporting the PSUV candidate, and most importantly because those and countless other fraudulent votes are required to win because chavismo is not supported by the majority of Venezuelans. If the majority of Venezuelans supported chavismo, they would not have to cheat. Is there anyone still not clear to that point? This is not a moral issue. This is survival for the crooks and clowns that are doing a piss poor job of running this country.

  15. […] However, thanks to the invaluable Fausta’s Blog, I see the Fascist (Peronist in South America) practice of “voting the cemeteries,” just as in Chicago and in Mussolini’s Rome, has become a feature of Chavez’ Bolvarian Revolution. […]

    • LD Says:

      Probably every system has flaws, but only in Venezuela you have the organization to actually do the fraud. Who are the people controlling the new laptops for this information-acquiring (only to tell what number is your table), why are they WI-Fi enabled? What are those puntos rojos outside doing? How comes the PSUV has the CNE data while this is not allowed. Add the Tascon/Maisanta list… The CNE rectors are to 3/4 from the PSUV, etc. I can assure you in Chile it is not like that…

      • kate Says:

        I agree that ‘puntos rojos’ don’t belong anywhere near polling centers and need to keep a distance of at least 200 meters.
        But the SIE (Sistema de Información al Elector or ‘Information for Voters’ System) is just there to help speed things up and avoid queues in front of long lists posted on walls, just to find out which polling booth you need to go to, as was previously the case.
        I’ve experienced how much quicker and simpler this makes the voting process. Surely this is a step forward!
        Anything else is just scaremongering.
        And CNE data is given to all political parties, not just the PSUV.
        As for the Tascón/Maisanta list, it could easily have been leaked by someone from the opposition itself!
        Aren’t petitions meant to be public anyway?
        On balance, Venezuela’s electoral system is far more transparent and accountable today than it ever was; far more than during the days of “acta mata voto” (when witnesses basically rigged the vote at polling booths, regardless of ballots cast). Don’t you agree?
        Certainly it is far, far, cleaner than Colombia’s…
        But it also relies on the citizens that make it up to perform at its best.

  16. moctavio Says:

    It turns out estimate of dead registered is 500,000

    • gordo Says:

      Well, that explains a lot! For one thing, the dead don’t eat! They don’t care about the food shortage!

  17. kate Says:

    True. The other possible way is for people who lack fingerprints altogether (perhaps because of missing limbs; or in the case of fishermen, owing to their constant handling of nets) -in which case the head of the ‘mesa’ requests a special password to the National Support Center (unique to every case), which registers all such incidents and monitors these exceptional requests; generally setting a very low limit for the passwords it provides in these cases.

    But what is perhaps most crucial is that all these provisions where made at the request of political organizations, and by the opposition itself; in order to ensure people’s right to vote as the prevailing concern.

    • Ira Says:


      Fishermen can lose their FINGERPRINTS!?

    • Mick Says:

      What if the zombie’s finger print now had a Cuban body?

      How many Cubans are currently in Venezuela?

      One study of voting fraud in the US indicates one zombie for every 4500 live voters. This ratio would result in 4 zombies in the 48 mesas. Considerably less than 90. This is probably the result of much higher transparency and more importantly, freedom of the press. Between security cameras, smart phones, and social media, everyone has become a paparazzi making dishonest activity more impractical.

      The thing I find funny, is that the people who are defending the establishment are nitpicking each item as if it were only a single isolated hairline crack. The window has been shattered by a baseball and the glass is all over the floor. You have public statements of officials threatening their underlings. You have gangs harassing the voters at the centers. You have “helpers” overlooking the voters as they cast their ballots. You have gerrymandering. You have observers being kicked out. You have a 90% government funded domination of the airwaves. You have a rushed inauguration. You have non-cooperation by the regulators.

      Now you have food shortages, proposed rationing, 40% inflation, an oil industry that cannot expand when prices are sky high, and a government so deceitful they wouldn’t even mention what kind of cancer Hugo had, let alone his condition at the time.

      What is it going to take?

    • Roberto N Says:

      Currently there are approximately 5000 voters that the system shows as not having “superior limbs” and therefore do not have fingerprints.

      Toe prints don’t count

  18. kate Says:

    I think it’s fair to say that no electoral system in the world has as yet totally got rid of voting in the afterlife (least of all in the US, where there are still around 1.8 million dead people in the rolls: A comparative perspective is helpful here.

    There is a point at which any electoral system is only as good as the citizens that make it up allow it to be. You’ve got to remember that polling booth members are ordinary citizens selected at random from the electoral register. They are not chosen based on political affiliation, even if smaller polling centers are generally more favorable to Chavismo, given that they are rarely in urban middle class neighborhoods; and so their make-up probably reflects this. But this could also be said for polling booth members in traditionally opposition areas.

    In Venezuela, the only possibility of stealing a dead person’s id, in order to vote, arises in cases where that dead person never registered his/her fingerprints (bearing in mind that nearly everyone has their fingerprints registered by now). The id thief could be a relative of the dead person, who either passes unnoticed with the dead person’s id card (very unlikely) and places his/her fingerprints as those of the dead person (for the first time ever); or where all polling booth members and witnesses, etc. knowingly allow him/her to vote (even less likely, but not impossible in remote closely-knit communities). In addition, this relative cannot be registered in the same polling booth as the dead person, unless he/she is not in the electoral roll at all (Ex. a foreigner, or not yet of voting age).

    The residual quantity of people who have never registered their fingerprints is more concentrated in remote rural locations, with generally small polling centers, but not exclusively.

    At any rate, all this means that it is very tenuous to extrapolate voter behavior in the 48 polling booths mentioned to the entire process.

    And even if dead voters are not the only group under scrutiny, this does not mean that you can infer a “multiplier effect” of what are essentially exceptional cases, within margins of error which had been accepted as normal by everyone until now.

    • There are other ways. The Head of the “Mesa” can bypass the system is there is no “match” between the fingerprint and the database. The fingerprint system registers such ocurrences, which is the reason why the opposition requested that the data would be given to it. The CNE promised it would release it and never did . Two days ago they decided they would NOT release it.

    • Roberto N Says:

      “In Venezuela, the only possibility of stealing a dead person’s id, in order to vote, arises in cases where that dead person never registered his/her fingerprints (bearing in mind that nearly everyone has their fingerprints registered by now). ”

      Just would like to point out that according to Voto Limpio, 1.5 million registered voters do NOT have their fingerprints registered in the CNE fingerprint database which is the one the fingerprint readers use to validate identity when voting.

      So all you need is a fake id, such as one that the person in Montalban had among the other 200 he was caught with, in order to consumate fraud.

      Cedulas today are not printed on special paper, do not have special laminated plastic (they used to, back in the 4th Republic), lack any kind of security device, so anyone with a PC can print and then laminate to their hearts content. My 14 year old could gin up one for you in a jiffy.

      In fact, here’s one you’ll enjoy (maybe)

      This is one reason the MUD wants to audit using the notebooks, the Fingerprint database and the report, generated electronically, that shows how many non registered FINGERS voted at which table. This last report is generated on election day and forms part of the data transmitted alongside votes and vote tallies. Keep in mind that if a non registered fingerprint “goes to vote”, the machine will allow the vote but will note that an unregistered fingerprint voted. This data has NOT been released by CNE, EVER.

      Also keep in mind that the fingerprint machines do not cross reference each other, that is, they do not communicate to each other that a certain fingerprint already voted elsewhere.

      Since ACTUAL fingerprints, in ink, are part of the record of the notebooks, along with signatures, you could easily prove or disprove fraud and multiple votes by dead people took place.

      I agree that extrapolating is not the best indicator.

      Nor is voting by dead people exclusive to Venezuela, just ask the Daley clan in Chicago!!

      However, cross referencing paper vote vouchers, vote tallies (actas), votes transmitted with notebooks, fingerprint databases and voter rolls would soon lay bare why the CNE refuses to hand over notebooks or databases.

      • kate Says:

        It is no secret that not everyone has their fingerprints registered in the rolls, even if this is now well over 90%, and on the increase!
        In fact, this is why political parties, including the opposition, requested the provision allowing those people whose fingerprints were not yet registered to still exercise their right to vote, by letting the system take a person’s fingerprints for the first time; while using the opportunity to update the rolls.
        On the other hand, it is pretty much impossible to find out who doesn’t have their fingerprints registered, in order to know exactly what ID cards to fake.

        Venezuelan ID cards are certainly not the world’s most reliable, which is why the fingerprint scan is there to eventually replace it as the main guarantee that a person who turns up is the person he/she says he/she is!
        Over 90% of fingerprints registered is no small achievement.

        Perhaps national cross-referencing of fingerprint data will be a next step, although I can imagine that current software probably takes more than a reasonable amount of time to determine if each voter has not voted elsewhere. Maybe security issues arising from the election hardware being connected to an external system before transmission of results takes place is also a concern. Certainly, I am not aware of any such cross-referencing anywhere in the world as yet. Maybe Venezuela will be the first!

        As for the Moltanbán case, every political party has the right to help their people go out and vote, whether in buses or otherwise.
        However, it was certainly not very smart to hand cédulas to these homeless and disabled people turning up in a bus!
        But is there any evidence to show that these ids were not actually in their name, and that they were not in fact registered to vote at this polling center?
        What about their right to vote? Does a person not have the right to vote just because he/she is homeless or disabled?
        Actually, it turned out that these people had been registered to vote at the Liceo Aplicación in Montalbán for over four previous elections!
        That most of the media decided to ignore this is another matter.

        If anything, the Moltanban case illustrates how difficult it is to pass the social control of watchful citizens at polling centers, whenever something fishy is felt to be going on.

        • The number of people without fingerprints has to go down in time, not up. But it has been doing exactly the opposite. Why does it have to go down? Because new voters have their fingerprints taken when they register and because more and more people have boted. Exactly the opposite has hapened. There can be no explanation for this.

        • Roberto N Says:

          The link you provided regarding Montalban does not state that the person caught with 200 cedulas was holding those for 200 homeless/handicapped. The link just states that handicapped folks were having a hard time voting.

          The person with the 200 cedulas arrived with several buses of people who walked just fine and did not look like they lived on the street. They also tried to skip the line and enter via the back of the voting center, which pissed off those in line, leading to the fracas which revealed the 200 cedulas, so frankly that whole episode still belongs in the Mercado de los Pescadores for all the fishy-ness associated with it.

          The person handing out the cedulas was arrested, and he arrived with Deputy Carlos Sierra, to boot. If he was not up to no good, and with a parlamentarian next to him he would not have been arrested, but he was.

          That particular voting center was closed by noon and re-opened at 3 pm, yet another irregularity in an election plagued with over 5,000 irregularities as stated in the motion before the Supreme Tribunal

          AS Miguel states, the fingerprint issue is growing, not declining over time when it should be the other way around.

          Whatever percentage you want to use is not a good argument when you have 1.5 million undefined in an election that was “officially” and “por ahora” won by 220K votes.

          • kate Says:

            Even according to oppostion reports, the figure was 40 cédulas, not 200!

            Actually, the figure was around 25 members of the Negra Hipólita mission, who had voted at this polling center several times before.

            But even going by the figure of 40, such levels of gross exaggeration (by a factor of 5), imply than only a fifth of what you say is true.

          • Roberto N Says:

            I stand corrected, 40 or 25, you are right in retrospect.

            What is not in dispute is that the man was arrested despite being accompanied by a diputado, the voting center was re-opened 3 hours after it was closed and that more than 5000 irregularities are to be examined in a very partisan court.

            However, you sound rather sophomoric stating that what I claim must be 1/5 true.

            I thought we were having an adult conversation.

            Like a child you choose to ignore what you don’t want to admit, that our “perfect electoral system” has holes you could drive a truck through.

            You may be able to fool country club communists with your cheap sophistry, but you are not fooling anyone here

            • kate Says:

              The man was indeed arrested by the National Police until the situation was clarified. And it was. What’s the point here?

              Also, if the disruption is such that voting cannot continue, would you still keep a polling center open, or would you wait until the process can resume normally?
              This would happen in any election process, given the circumstances.

              3 hours is nothing compared to the hours of queuing you have to endure to cast your ballot in many parts of the US, and many other countries of the “developed” world; not to mention cases such as those of Desiline Victor: the 102 year old woman who had to queue up over six hours to cast her ballot in the much lauded democratic paradise of Miami…
              Outrageous! This would NEVER happen in Venezuela.

              As for the 5.000 purported irregularities, you have only yourselves to fool.
              Verifiable evidence is very scarce indeed in the opposition’s court challenge of polling booth results, despite all the big noise.
              It has clearly been crafted so that the TSJ has no alternative but to reject it, except for maybe a handful of cases.

              If anyone is sophomoric here it is those bent upon challenging an election for not meeting fairy tale standards of perfection, which are to be found nowhere on Earth.

            • Roberto N Says:

              And still, you keep ignoring the elephants in the room.

              1.5 million unregistered fingerprints, easily faked id’s.

              You also conveniently ignore the many documented cases of “assisted voting”. Something meant for people like the 102 year old you mention, yet used in Venezuela to ensure that people voted for a certain mustachoied candidate.

              I suppose that you believe Venezuela to be a shining paragon of Democracy and Socialism as well.

              Say hello to “el pajarito” for me.

            • kate Says:

              Really? I thought I addressed these ‘elephants’ in my first considered response to your comment. But it obviously seems to have gone amiss…

        • gordo Says:

          Any fraudulent voter has to worry about the real voter trying to vote later afterwards. However, in the October 2012 election, many tables stayed open beyond the official closing time, which would permit fraudulent votes without this worry of a real voter coming in later on.

  19. The Cat Says:


  20. Kepler Says:

    Miguel, look at this, these people are so shameless!

    “That dead people vote should not be reason for a scandal”

  21. Mick Says:

    So you are saying that 90 dead people voting is not really a problem, the system is still perfect. OMG!

    The fact that the polls were as close as the were, even though most people were scared of government threats and rightly didn’t trust pollsters, should indicate that Caprilles had more support than the vote count showed. There was fraud in every corner of that election, times 30,000.

  22. amieres Says:

    The article is wrong.
    The ones who investigated this were not thorough enough.

    I didn’t verify all cases but in the few I did the problem was that the specific voting “acta” was manual and when that happens the number of voters counted (Electores Escrutados) is equal to the total of voters in the table.

  23. jc Says:

    I think Maduro probably won, squeeked by a tiny bit, but I think an audit of the system would throw the entire process into dispute, and it’s likely that the areas with the most fraud were chavista leaning, and if you nulled the vote in those stations, Capriles wins. If you were to selectively figure out how many votes were cast that were legitimate Maduro would still have the most votes. But that would throw his legitimacy into dispute since if fraud happened at a polling station it throws into question the entire vote that day in the polling station. This is why Mexico nulled the votes in the 2006 Mexican elections.

  24. Noel Says:

    The sad truth is that, given Cuba’s reticence to hold elections, and one can assume that Maduro will follow that line (especially since he is not so good at winning them), it may be a long time before the dead can vote again.

  25. Gervasio Lezama Says:

    Whatever the very particular conditions which ensured that 100% of registered voters voted in 48 polling booths (out of a total of more than 39.000, i.e. around 0,001%!), it is absurd to extrapolate these conditions to the entire election process, as a projection of “66,887” votes affected!
    There is very little scientific rigor here.

    • Of course that is true and it is an exaggeration, but the point is that the only parameter we can check is that one and it shows an impossibility, 90 dead people voting. What other votes are fake in just those 48 tables? What if you checked all the cuadernos. 90 dead people is not a small number out of 20,000 votes, when there could be sick people, non-voters and much more. . What would happen if we were able to check it all? This could be done if the notebooks were checked.

    • concerned Says:

      “Whatever the very particular conditions which ensured that 100% of registered voters voted in 48 polling booths (out of a total of more than 39.000, i.e. around 0,001%!)”

      The very particular conditions were that chavismo goofed on 48 polling booths out of 39,000 by ballot stuffing to the maximum and impossible percentage of possible votes. Miguel’s extrapolated numbers are probably dead on with the percentage per polling station that were added in the final hours.

      A little here, a little there will go unnoticed right? Until they overstuff beyond the possible max. Regardless of the “scientific rigor”, it is yet one more example of the flaws within the “perfect” system. The CNE is so damn stupid to continue with the zero error claims. They would be a little more convincing to admit through the fake audit that there were a few discrepancies found, but not enough to overturn. To claim zero error with overwhelming evidence of error only accents the fact that it is all a farce and discredits everything that they have claimed up until now.

      • I am obviously exaggerating with my extrapolation, but what I dont know is how many “categories” of fake votes there are and in what mesas. Obviously, the people at these 48 mesas were very stupid, faking the votes of all voters that did not show up, but with witnesses being kicked out of 5% of the centers and the surprisingly low abstention: Piensa mal y acertaras

    • AIO Says:

      You’re missing the forest for the trees. This doesn’t prove the scale of the cheating, but it proves quite conclusively that there WAS cheating. Start with that and proceed not to numbers, but to legitimacy of the electoral process, and see where you end up.

  26. […] VENEZUELA The Dead Voted Massively Last October in Venezuela […]

  27. John Barnard Says:

    In the U.S., the dead are taxed. In that instance, they SHOULD have the right to vote!

  28. concerned Says:

    The system is broken, and there should not even be talk of another election until it is fixed.

    I would expect that maduro would hold a cadena shortly and explain that the majority of the zombies actually voted for Capriles. He would say he had proof, but would never show it. That the reason there is not enough food is because the zombies are so ravenous and eat even when they are not hungry. Also zombies are known for not abiding by laws and resorting to violence. These Capriles supporting zombies should also be blamed for the crime rates.

    Maduro is afraid that the Colombians are going to infect him with the zombie virus, and after a year or two he will die. He may be half way there now as he is not showing any recent brain activity. After maduro and ramirez were so convinced that the CIA infected chavez with cancer, what in the hell was he expecting when he decided to play president? If indeed they hold that technology, what are they waiting for? Double the dose!

  29. Joe Says:

    But, now the opposition is starting to work for the Municipal elections…how to reconcile that we have prove of the fraud but opposition wants to participate again, with the same CNE and same rules?

  30. Iguana_Master_7000 Says:

    How do I find out if my dead relatives voted?

    I know their cedula numbers. When I check the CNE website they still appear as registered but nothing about whether they are considered to be dead (as far as the CNE goes) or not.

    So, how to tell via Internet, if people we know are dead voted or not?

    • Dr. Faustus Says:

      You don’t, at least not now. CNE refuses to release that data. But the dead did vote, must have. That’s the point. All the registered voters were shown to have voted (100%), which means that ‘dead voters’ must have been included in the numbers. It’s rock solid logic. So,like, how did these ‘dead’ people vote? This is supposedly an iron-clad, tamper-proof electoral system. How can something like this take place? The point being is that this can ONLY be done through electoral fraud. It’s very, very embarrassing for the CNE.

      • Mick Says:

        Every one of these discrepancies shows just how fallible the “perfect” voting system is. Like I said before, a few votes here, a few votes there, who is going to notice. Multiply that by 30000 and the numbers start to look significant.

        Chavez used every dirty trick in the book, and he already had a comfortable margin. These guys were scared, so they weren’t going to chance losing. What choice did they have. If Capriles won, he would have access to information that would either put them in jail, make them flee, or give him all the control. In their haste they left trails even a blind man could follow.

        And just to show how stupid they are, none of them have flown the coop. Once the first one takes the money and runs away, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

        • Ira Says:

          “These guys were scared, so they weren’t going to chance losing. What choice did they have. If Capriles won, he would have access to information that would either put them in jail, make them flee, or give him all the control.”

          You really did hit the nail on the head:

          Illegal activities result in an exponential increase in OTHER activities to cover their tracks and protect themselves.

          It’s a basic, simple and obvious concept–but I don’t think anyone has expressed it as clearly as you have.

      • megaescualidus Says:

        One detail, not conclusive though, but indicative there’s something wrong with a Cedula of someone deceased is if you enter his/her number and he/she shows up not deceased and registered in a location that doesn’t match where he/she always voted (say someone deceased always voted somewhere in Caracas and when you check in the CNE website he/she now shows up voting in, say, Maracaibo, and moreover doesn’t show up as deceased)…

  31. notiven Says:

    I wouln’t just extrapolate the votes. I would extrapolate the fact that the voting process used wasn’t able to guarantee the principle of one person, one vote.

  32. m_astera Says:

    Capriles won, by a landslide. He should not let that go, and I’m glad he is not.

    Cuban controlled scum in power. Ripping off the Venezuelan people.

  33. kika bisogno Says:

    And you’re not even taking into account those who are legally interdicted by virtue of by severe intellectual defect or by virtue of a criminal conviction and were eligible to vote or those with duplicate IDs also eligible to vote ( or those whom the CNE had removed from the RE by virtue of their VERY OLD AGE (111 upwards) and whom suddenly reappeared with BRAND new birth dates! (!!!

    Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Fake button pushers!

  34. moctavio Says:

    I know, it just dramatizes the effect, but realize that the dead votes are not the only ones, so you can multiply that by a large number.

    • PM Says:

      Tibisay is such a scumbag. They spent like $10 mil getting those capta huellas that serve no purpose other than coaxing voters. Have they even cared to explain why they won’t share the cuadernos or the captahuella data?

  35. PM Says:

    So, when are they going to do a similar study for the apr14 election?

    Miguel, I think what you are saying is outrageous and that this should be enough in a civilized country to redo the election. I, however an not sure we should extrapolate it the way you are doing it as ballot stuffing is more likely to happen in these small electoral centers you are talking about

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: