The 2004 recall elections in Venezuela is the event former president Jimmy Carter stamped with the Carter Good Housekeeping Seal of approval. He went on to observe future Venezuela elections, declaring the “election process in Venezuela is the best in the world” [sic!].
Millions of people in the land of my birth were mocked and rebuked for not accepting the results, for being sore losers, for harming democracy, and worse. After all, Jimmy Carter had spoken and Venezuelans were said to respect and love him. And they did. And that made the hurt much worse: betrayal stings deepest when coming from a friend.
Given the current polemics, I’ll stick largely to “mainstream media” in their reporting on that fateful 2004 recall election in Venezuela.
You be the judge as to any parallels.
The New York Times (NYT) reported in August 16, 2004, “We categorically reject the results,” said Henry Ramos, spokesman for the Democratic Coordinator, the umbrella of 27 political parties that opposes the government. In a televised announcement soon after the meeting, he said: “They have perpetrated a gigantic fraud against the will of the people.”
“Opposition leaders reached this morning by phone, insisted that the new computerized voting system had been tampered with …. But the O.A.S. and the Carter Center said that the results could not have been manipulated.”
NYT reported on October 29, 2006, “The federal government is investigating takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez. The inquiry is focusing on the Venezuelan owners of the software company, The Smartmatic Corporation, trying to determine whether the government in Caracas has any control or influence over the firm’s operations.”
“Smartmatic was a little-known firm with no experience in voting technology before it was chosen by the Venezuelan authorities to replace the country’s elections machinery ahead of a contentious referendum that confirmed Mr. Chávez as president in August 2004.”
Suspicions were raised because the evidence, including unprecedentedly huge demonstrations [rallies] across Venezuela calling for the peaceful ouster of Chávez and the election of his opponent seemed to point to the dictator’s defeat. In Venezuela, millions marched and rallied for the opposition. The election results, with incredible precision flipped the expected results.
The shock was palpable. I still recall talking with folks who were reeling as if from a totally unexpected blow.
It simply made no sense.
I recall mathematicians challenging the results, especially in areas where it was well known Chávez had weak support, yet the voting machines showed him running strong. The mathematicians found “a very subtle algorithm” that appeared to adjust the vote in Chávez favor.
Computer scientists and well respected pollster, Penn, Schoen & Berland, who conducted exit polling, all found evidence of vote flipping based on statistics and thorough mathematical analyses. In the case of the exit polling, which was extensive, the recall was succeeding 60-40. The certified results were the exact opposite: a “statistically impossible” 40-point swing. That is six times the margin of error in terms of vote shift. “We are talking here of many standard deviations away from the expected result. That result is about as likely as Osama Bin Laden agreeing to be on Bill O’Reilly’s show in person tomorrow night.”
Other anomalies in that election were multiple voting sites where hundreds of machines had identical voting totals, all with the exact same differential between the “Yes” and the “No” votes. Another statistical impossibility.
As added insurance for a favorable outcome, pro-Chávez groups cordoned off voting centers and allowed only their voters to cast ballots or physically assaulted anti-Chávez groups.
The New York Sun reported in February, 2007, “Astonishing as it may seem to Americans who believe the contention by Mr. Chávez that he won both elections by a landslide — 58% to 42% in the recall and 61% to 39% in the presidential election — the studies show that since 2003, Mr. Chávez has added 4.4 million favorable names to the voter list and “migrated” 2.6 million unfavorable voters to places where it was difficult or impossible for them to vote.”
Analyses were performed in 2006 and again in 2011, all concluding that the elections were fraudulent. (The generally liberal Wikipedia has a helpful article under “2004 Venezuelan recall referendum.”)
But the Carter Center was unmoved.
The McClatchy Newspapers reported on March 24, 2009 [emphases mine], “The CIA … has reported apparent vote-rigging schemes in Venezuela … and a raft of concerns about the machines’ vulnerability to tampering….”
“Appearing last month before a U. S. Election Assistance Commission field hearing in Orlando, Fla., a CIA cybersecurity expert suggested that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and his allies fixed a 2004 election recount, an assertion that could further roil U. S. relations with the Latin leader.”
“In a presentation that could provide disturbing lessons for the United States, where electronic voting is becoming universal, Steve Stigall summarized what he described as attempts to use computers to undermine democratic elections in developing nations. His remarks have received no news attention ….”
“Stigall told the Election Assistance Commission … that computerized electoral systems can be manipulated at five stages, from altering voter registration lists to posting results.“
“Susannah Goodman, the director of election reform for the citizens’ lobby Common Cause, said … ‘We can no longer ignore the fact that all of these risks are present right here at home … and must secure our election system by requiring every voter to have his or her vote recorded on a paper ballot.”
I’ve linked to the article below for readers who might be interested in learning more.
James Madison famously wrote, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…. you must … oblige [government] to control itself.”
Hence the almost fanatical care the Founders took to create myriad checks and balances to keep civil government and its agencies in check.
Josef Stalin is reported to have said something along these lines: “It’s not the number of votes that count, its who does the counting.”
Sadly, the Venezuelan people were unable, and are unable, to check on the officials doing the counting, including the programming of the machines.
And that is a problem.
Because men are not angels.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24530650.html
McClatchy Newspapers March, 2009 report on the CIA analyst presentation.
