Rumors of CNE's competence have been greatly exaggerated

Quico says: I hate to write this, but for transparency’s sake, I’m forced to. It took the eagle eyed maths monsters who read this blog all of twenty minutes to realize something is seriously weird about CNE’s second bulletin.

As amieres put it…

Lucena said that the second bulletin is for 94% of the actas (first bulletin was 86%). But she didn’t announce enough new votes.

First bulleting —> 8,857,797 valid votes
Second bulleting-> 8,899,721 valid votes

I would expect at least 500,000 more valid votes. But she announced only 42,000 more votes than the first bulletin.

According to amieres, they’re saying they added 7% of actas, over 2300, but they account for just 42,000 votes…

That means an average of 18 votes per acta. Those same missing actas in 2006 had an average of 232 valid votes, after adjusting for the larger abstention. Furthermore, when I considered only the 2300 actas with the smallest turnout, the average was still 163 valid votes per acta.

Not for the first time, I’m left wondering what bizarre game CNE is playing.

Why can’t anything ever be straightforward with these people?

Sigh…acta por acta is the only solution. UNT…speak!