Carter Continues to Molest Venezuelans

The presidential recall process was a novel electoral event for Venezuela. The process suffered from some irregularities, delays, politicization, and intimidation, as described below. Nevertheless, we note it is important to distinguish between irregularities and fraudulent acts that could change the outcome of a process. It is the Center’s finding that the official results reflect the will of the Venezuelan electorate as expressed on Aug. 15, 2004.

With respect to distinct parts of the process, the Center found the signature collection was conducted in an atmosphere mostly free of violence, with citizens who so wished having the opportunity to sign, though with some confusion on the exact procedures and limited instances of intimidation. The verification process was complex, conducted by the CNE [National Election Center] for the first time with multiple levels of review, unclear rules inconsistently applied, numerous delays, and with a concern for detecting fraud given priority over a concern to recognize the good faith of signers.

The reparo period, despite the call made by the pro-government parties for the removal of signatures (known as the arrepentidos act), was conducted in an atmosphere mostly free of violence, with citizens who so wished having the opportunity to confirm their signatures or remove their names and with clear and transparent procedures that had been negotiated between the CNE and the political parties. Nevertheless, allegations of intimidation that had surfaced earlier in the process re-emerged prior to the reparo process, involving threats of loss of government jobs or benefits.

The Aug. 15 balloting day was conducted in an environment virtually absent of any violence or intimidation; yet the voting procedure required several additional hours because of high voter turnout and insufficient voting stations. (Forty-seven percent of the tables, or mesas, had more than 1,700 registered voters.) Voting station capacity was stressed further by incorporating new electronic voting and fingerprint machines while maintaining the usual written administrative procedures.

"The pair issued a report that tried to measure the possibility that the vote was clean using two separate analyses of the official results. In both cases, they said, the chances of a clean vote were less than one in 100."

After the CNE announced results of the Aug. 15 referendum, many claims that fraud had occurred began to emerge. An opposition-commissioned exit poll had indicated that the Yes vote would win by a large margin. Most of the fraud claims centered on the voting machines themselves, asserting that either they had been preprogrammed to alter the results or communication from the central computer to the machines during the voting day altered the electronic result of individual machines. The transmission of the voting results from the machines to the CNE and the tabulation of the national results in the CNE were tested through various statistical samples, or quick counts, performed by the campaign for the Yes and by the international observers. These tests showed the transmission and tabulation processes performed accurately.

The concerns about the accuracy of the electronic results produced by individual voting machines were based on the finding of allegedly improbable mathematical patterns. These patterns included a number of machines within the same voting station or the same voting center having identical results, an alleged “cap” on the Yes votes, and similar percentages of votes for the Yes or the No within centers.

Carter Center technical experts, in consultation with OAS technical experts, investigated the allegations presented to the mission in writing by the Coordinadora Democrática. The Center also consulted the conclusions
of other independent statisticians who investigated additional reports from Venezuelan academics about similar mathematical patterns. These patterns were not found to provide a basis to assert fraud.