Let's-Flog-This-Dead-Horse-S'more Chronicles

0

Listen, I remember the criticisms from 2004 because I made a lot of them. When fraud claims came following the Recall Referendum then, they all seemed to be based entirely on arcane mathematical theory. The opposition didn’t really have a coherent, compelling narrative about how the seemingly weird patterns in the election data might have come about, they just had some strange-seeming numbers. And strange seeming numbers aren’t really enough to hang a fraud claim on.

Fast forward nine years, and we’ve way over-learned that lesson. These days, the opposition does  have a coherent and compelling narrative about the how of fraud – witnesses were prevented from watching the audits in selected voting centers, and ballots were stuffed at those centers – but it has entirely foregone trying to show that with actual data, falling back on a generic demand that an obviously uncooperative CNE provide with documentation it will self-evidently never give up.

We’ve gone from bald to two-toupee’d in just nine years, and it’s unfortunate. Because while the 2004-era argument that numbers-without-a-political-logic do not a contestation strategy make still holds, it seems clear to me that if you really want to establish your case to the neutrals, you need to show the fraud in the data as well.

This is especially odd because the alleged rigging mechanism would clearly leave visible statistical traces. For ballot stuffing to make a difference, you’d have to do it on a scale that would be obvious in the data CNE did release. Ballot-stuffed centers should have both noticeably higher turnout and noticeably higher propensity to vote for Maduro.

In a scatterplot, that would look something like this:

Slide1With the visible cluster in the upper-right quadrant giving the game away. Instead, here’s what the actual graph looks like, courtesy of D. Kronick:

real data
Source: CNE. Lowess curve: degree one polynomial, tri-cube weight function, bandwidth=0.05.

So prima facie, there’s no there there.

Of course, this analysis might be too simple by half. You might need a more sophisticated test that matches the results from voting centers where you think ballots were stuffed with results in near-by, otherwise similar centers with a history of voting similarly, and then show the disparity. Or think up some other smart way to look into this that we haven’t thought of yet.

But looking back, it’s hard to find clear evidence that there were wild swings between voting behaviour back in October and then last April. In other words, if they stuffed ballots on April 14th, they did it in the exact same voting stations as the ones they stuffed last year:

Graph_Turnout_June3

Again, it’s possible that more sophisticated research would uncover a pattern of irregularities that match the opposition’s allegations that we’re not seeing here.

What’s troubling is that either nobody in the opposition has bothered to do this research or nobody has thought it germane to circulate it. One way or another, I sure haven’t seen it. (If you’ve done it, send it! I’ll gladly eat my post…)

Instead, what I’ve heard is a screechy pseudo-maracucho blathering about whether you’ve ever met anyone who voted for Maduro but not for Chávez.

Which makes for an ok soundbite, I suppose, if soundbites are the main thing you’re interested in. But it doesn’t get you very far if your main concern is figuring out, y’know, what actually happened.

1 COMMENT

  1. A few issues ..

    “Ballot stuffing” would most easily be done using live people voting with multiple IDs voting at multiple centers. One could do a round of about 10 centers in one day. Indirect evidence of this exists, as some centers stayed open for groups of voters they knew they were coming. Assuming such 10-1 scheme (cynically, eh?), you need about 30,000 people to change the results fraudulently. Cubans in Venezuela would be almost enough. Furthermore, since you can be smart enough to spread fake voters around the country, their impact on individual centers would be statistically insignificant and wouldn’t show in a scatterplot.
    There is evidence (on Devil’s excrement) that dead people voted, this is only logical if this scenario happened.

    Secondly, the mere fact CNE won’t release figures that would prove or disprove this is evidence of fraud. Again this only makes sense if they’re hiding fraud.

    • A couple of things

      1-Speculation is fun and all, but what the Capriles campaign is actually alleging is clearly centered on the way witnesses were ejected from voting centers and the inability to witness the verificacion ciudadana there = ballot stuffing after the voting center closed and before results were sent into CNE. If they want to make that allegation, why don’t they show the evidence such an event obviously would produce?

      2-“Secondly, the mere fact CNE won’t release figures that would prove or disprove this is evidence of fraud. Again this only makes sense if they’re hiding fraud.”

      To me, the mere fact that CNE won’t release figures is evidence that they have good incentives to fuck with our heads.

      • What do you think of the cases of dead “voting”?
        They don’t make up for 300 000 votes, but they are more than enough proof there was fraud. In any democratic country that would be reason enough for a full disclosure.

      • Nice. Simple and to the point. With the stuffing theory you also need at least 3000 people that remain completely silent. Not sure how do you keep people quiet in Venezuela. Mudos?. I just don’t get why the CNE doesn’t show the data and clears speculation especially with platanote’s popularity going down the drain. Maybe they are saving it for a later day. Mind boggling.

        • How many Cubans do you think have Venezuelan Cedulas?

          I bet the answer is more than 3000.

          How many do you need to threaten relatives of?

          How many voters do not have fingerprints in the database? 1.5 million.

          There are too many ways to defeat statistical analysis.

          It all goes back to the cuadernos, the fingerprint database and the REP

  2. Ah, c’mon! You’re just afraid that by the end of this week you’ll be forced to mail $100 checks by the bucketful. Can I submit my address now? Before the rush?

  3. The “Universal” newspaper recently showed that in polling places which had 100% turnout, the provably-dead had cast about one half-of one per cent of the votes. That is about 1/3 of Maduro’s margin, extrapolated nationally. If provably-dead people cast ballots, it is likely that non-partisan ni-ni’s were also recorded as voting beyond what they really did. I think you are right that some good statistical work could help with the international effort to expose Maduro.

    • Regarding Quicos graph you can actually see in the top right corner precisely that effect that he mentions: Higher participation and higher percentage for Maduro. There is a clear slope upwards. This is not enough to claim ballot stuffing because it can also be explained by the Get Out The Vote machinery.

      Strangelly enough in the left side, the Capriles side of the chart, you can see the opposite effect: the more caprilista the center the lower the participation. That is actually a very strange effect which is not so easy to explain.

  4. The enclosed is the closest thing I ve seen to an statistical review of the april electoral results: . http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/130428/capriles-gano-con-52-y-una-diferencia-de-cuatro-puntos . Lacking in any statistical training I find the conclusions in this article suggestive of fraud but not conclusive proof that a fraud was committed which changed the electoral results in Maduros favour . This suspicion of fraud is further reinforced by two factors . First : the many instances where Capriles team has come up with evidence that there was at least the intent to commit fraud or to create the conditions for fraud to be committed , Second the conviction that this regime controls the agencies thorugh which elections are held and (from painful past experience and observation) that it has absolutely no scruples in gaming or manipulating the system , to the extent possible , to improve the results in its candidates favour. Al three factors taken together make for a strong case that indeed in all likelyhood fraud was committed to help the regimes results . Whether this fraud was of a scale that allowed the results to be reversed in Maduro’s favour , we cant tell , at least with the information now available . There is an additional item coming from Mauro Silvas recording where he mentions having inside information to the effect that the systems safeguard mechanism was turned off during a certain crucial period of the electoral process ( his assumption of course is that this turning off was done by Opposition hackers to multiply Capriles votes ) , this might be suggestive of the possibility that some inside tampering ocurred which could have been used to help Maduro inflate his votes without anyone in the opposition being wise to what was done. Lets hope that Quico’s statistical exercises and those of other similarly knowledgeable experts are able to pin point the precise manner in which any fraud may have been perpetrated !!

  5. Talk about beating a dead horse for sure! That all y’all have is talk and you can talk till your blue in the face and it won’t change one thing for you.We have more fraud in the States than y’all will ever have. But then we only really have two parties ( really one with 2 right wings) hows that for a bourgeois democracy, only for the rich.

    You got to be a rich and connected to be on the misquito control board.

    Bunch of cry babies!

    • Capriles is actually making good headway in proving the illegitimate nature of Maduro’s presidency to an international constituency. Since Communists don’t believe in elections anyway, spare us your false comparisons.

      • Maybe you didn’t read the blogpost above, but there’s nothing with which to prove anything yet (still?).

        What Capriles is doing is attempting to look presidential, but curiously refusing to go to the only country in the world that doesn’t recognise Maduro as president.

        • Yoyo, can dead people vote in Venezuela? It seems so. That’s the way Boligarchs see the world: dead people can vote as long as they vote for the Boligarchy.

          • “Seems”?

            Who’s going to be the most honest opositor on this blog and admit they would endorse the MUD secretly stealing an election in Venezuela?

          • You know what I mean but you are dishonest enough to make the conversation longer.
            According to clear data (look at Miguel’s blog), it has been proved that the CNE and the military & Cubans have used the vote of dead people to cheat. That is a fact and you should be ashamed.
            Is your dad working at an embassy or something like that that you are clinging so desperately to Chavismo?

          • “Son dos harina PAN por persona, ud. lleva 4”
            – “Llevo la mía y la de mi papá”
            – “¿Y su papá?”
            – “Se murió, pero votó y quiere harina pan” —

    • .”We have more fraud in the States than y’all will ever have.”

      Evidence please? Fraud is vanishingly rare in the US.

      The problem in the US is when some GOP controlled states (see Florida 2000) do a ‘scrub’ of the voter rolls to take off convicted felons, but ‘accidentally’ take off 10s of thousands of nonfelons, most of whom happen to be minority or low income voters.

    • And, Venezuela has two left wing parties. But outside of a very few people you don’t here a bunch of whining and crying about it, unlike your cry baby ilk that can’t accept that no more than a small percent of the US is communist (and I voted for Bernie Sanders).

    • This video shows the last 2% of the votes counted has a different trend that the 98% of the votes.

      I am not surprised at seeing the last 2% of the votes counted as having a different trend than the first 98% of the votes- if one can prove that. There is an alternate explanation to ballot-stuffing.
      In the October election, it was pointed out that during the election day Chavismo had access to who had voted and who had not. The response of Chavismo was to round up as many of the still-not-voted Chavistas and drive them to the electoral centers so that they would cast their vote.
      Is having up-to-date information on who had voted and not voted available to all, or is it an example of Chavismo gaining undue advantage?

    • The video’s beginning premise assumes, incorrectly, that the 2% must have a similar proportion to the earlier scrutinezed 98%. One could probably find a 2% within the 98% which shows Capriles winning by the same huge proportions.

      A possible explanation for the disparity is that it is precisely the centers that are further away that supported maduro the most, which would also explain why they’d be the last centers to be scrutinized. Clearly, the 2% are not a random sample of the universe, but it is not impossible that they have such a different proportion.

      • I totally agree with this statement: “it is not impossible that they have such a different proportion”, but this trend is at least suspicious. It could be made a perfectly credible statistical analysis, verifying which centers belong to that 2% of the votes, and their historical behavior. Also, it could be verifying if these centers always enter into this last 2% of votes scrutinized. This would mean give substance and arguments the prosecution of fraud, which is what is proposed in this post.

        Demonstrate the fraud is easy. Take a look to this link: http://resultados.cne.gob.ve/resultado_presidencial_2013/pp/2/reg_210803003.html. In this center Maduro obtained 692 votes (100%), Capriles 0 votes, 0 null votes, and a 100% of participation. This is obviously statistically impossible, and the CNE shows in his page without any trace of remorse.

        • Daniel88, we must be careful when stating “obviously statistically impossible”. Statistically, it may be improbable, but not *impossible* that 100% of the registered voters voted and did so for maduro. Perhaps near impossible, but it remains a valid possibility. The key is to perform statistical analysis to determine, based on the variability of all other locations and other elections, exactly how improbable it is.

          • By the way, I checked out that very centre for Chávez times…there were several people back then who voted for Capriles and now all are Maduristas.

            http://www.cne.gob.ve/resultado_presidencial_2012/pp/2/reg_210803003.html

            It would be interesting to verify in what centres Maduro outperformed Chávez and where they are located. Isn’t that simple? It is, I wanted to do that but somehow when I was uploading the tables something got corrupted. I will do that in the weekend…if someone wants to do it earlier, let me know.

  6. Quico,

    Fraud, by definition, can be claimed by the mere excesses in advertising by the government. So, the real questions are what are you willing to accept as fraud, or as proof of it.

    I have mentioned on earlier occasions that Rigobon’s work in 2004 pointed to one simple thing: the chosen tables for the audit were not a random sample. On this post, however, you place that work in the “arcane mathematical theory” bucket.

    Rigobon’s work is based on one of the most basic premises of mathematical statistics: a sample must behave like its universe in every aspect for the sample to be considered a valid random sample of its universe.

    Ignoring Rigobon’s expert analysis, we can look at Carter Center’s very basic correlation chart and find that the audit sample is off by about 10% with respect to its universe.

    Put the two together and the only mathematical conclusion is: the sample was not a valid random sample. Nothing arcane there.

    I’ve also mentioned on earlier occasions that statistics is on what DNA evidence is based. A geneticist will state in court, “the probability of the blood on the accused’s clothing not belonging to the victim are close to nil.” Please note, the DNA evidence doesn’t “prove” anything. It simple points to the probability of it “not being as hypothesized”. Same with fingerprint “evidence”.

    Yet, when an equally expert statistics states that the “probability of this data behavior not belonging to fraudulent data is close to nil”, you won’t accept it as evidence.

    There is something you ‘ve got to start owning: When dealing with numerical fraud, the proof is necessarily going to be in the numbers; if you won’t accept numerical analysis as proof, then there is no convincing you.

    ——-

    Coming back to these recent elections, there has already been proof that:
    1) the fingerprint machines did not prevent invalid voters, nor prevent repeat voters
    2) the vote was not secret for voters supervised by government supporters
    3) dead people voted
    4) government workers were and continue to be under threat

    Nothing arcane, here, either. Own it.

  7. La Red de Observación Electoral de la Asamblea de Educación no avaló el proceso electoral debido a irregularidades y actos de coacción y violencia, que no incluyen necesariamente “ballot stuffing”. La primera página del informe está abajo.
    The Education Assembly’s Electoral Observation Network did not approve of the electoral process becasue of irregularities and coercion that do not necessarily include ballot stuffing.
    http://reflexiones4-karen.blogspot.com/2013/04/informe-de-la-red-de-observacion.html

  8. OT- I just attended Maria Corina Muchado’s presentation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. I was deeply impressed with her in many ways. Her English is impeccable and expressive with a large vocabulary. MCM is determined to change the government in Venezuela for the better and she has a realist approach both within Venezuela and internationally. The majority of the audience appeared to be Venezuelans who have moved to the United States.

    The beatings in the NA were a setup with all doors except one chained closed three hours ahead of time. Cameras were confiscated from all opposition in the balcony, For the first time, a metal detector was at the door (not for Chavistas). The internet was blocked to stop all communications. It is well known that the official cameras stopped as the beatings took place.
    MCM looked very good and I hope the pain is gone.

    Thank God for people like Maria Corina Muchado.

    • I was hoping she would be at the protest yesterday (Sunday) that took place at the Bolivar Plaza (in DC). Maybe she was not in town yet or not aware of it.

  9. There certainly may be lack of statistical analysis, I for one wanted to play with the data but the lack of time didn’t allow me much, in any case in 5 minutes I found an specific case (and then noticed many people found the same case) where this Centro Electoral in Machiques where Maduro got 100% votes with a record participation of 93% of voters and 0 null votes…. Chavez didn’t get close to that even in his best moment against Rosales…

    http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/3787/caso.gif

    Tell me you don’t think something very fishy happened in that center… I’m sure others less obvious cases like this exist but they aren’t easily discoverable and they could amount to thousands of votes, I guess with this one “se les paso la mano”…

    • This is a much more interesting hypothesis than the ones that have been proposed. But you would have to test it using all the data and not just one case. I think that showing the government wins elections by the advantage it obtains in those centers where the electoral register grew the most would be very suggestive.

      • Sorry, in a democratic country it is enough to show there was massive fraud to demand a full audit (I am not talking about a new election, just a full audit as we want).

        How many thousands of voting dead do you need?

          • Dude, aren’t you reading? If people found already with the tiny bit of data they could get dozens of voting dead you can very well extrapolate. If we had previously determined there were thousands of people who had a full name and the same birth date and a similar ID we have enough proof to say that at least over 30000 people had fake IDs.
            I think that should be already enough to demand for the whole audit.

          • Dead people have voted in Venezuela since forever. I am not saying it is acceptable or unimportant, but it’s not enough evidence of massive fraud. Massive fraud should be something very clearly present in the data we have. Instead of wasting time trying to find the proof of the fraud we should be investigating the avalanche of votes that changed sides in this last election and thinking about a focused strategy to maximize future support from that segment.

  10. Quico, maybe because they need the audits to come with those more professional studies? Or, you r saying that the info that the CNE has made available is good enough?

    I don’t know I come here and other places in the internet to find out what the people who know is doing. And I am assuming there is a group of Venezolanos working on this.

    Question, do we all want/ need audits, yes or not? Starting with bigotes and his “presidente” name tag, which screams he needs to be more legit than legit. Or, you are saying that Capriles shouldn’t be asking for audits and support from the Latin American governments and swallow it?

    You guys know people in the CSB have you talk to them about this?

    • Personally and as a citizen, and I imagine everybody else, including Chavistas too, want to see an audit process. And the country as a whole accepting the results later whatever they are.

  11. Yes I know, I would be nice to see graphs and charts proving the fraud (as said before in the comments it has actually being done, by showing dead people did vote) but in the end it was not needed. La gente de a pie, did not need that to believe the election was a fraud.
    If you could please tell us your theories on why the CNE did not allow a complete audit, other than knowing the fraud would be proved please illustrate us. Quico, el que no la debe no la teme.

  12. As an amateur statistician, I am convinced that evidence of ballot stuffing cannot be hidden. I have looked at the data and there are certainly many “fishy” things going on, especially in the small voting centers (one and two tables). The difficulty is trying to make the argument in one single neat chart that can be easily explained and can travel. The chart that I like most is the following:
    If you average results by voting center, the Maduro vote by % abstention looks like this:
    http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt202/nanucious/Bubblueplot.png

    • What I find strange about this chart is that reading it from right to left, as the % of abstention in a polling center decreases, the Maduro vote goes down, but then something strange happens when the % of abstention dips below 15% and then all of those centers start to have an increasing win % for Maduro. My interpretation is that it is unrealistic for a voting center to naturally have less than 15% abstention and all of the centers with less than that had some measure of “stuffing”. By the way, the size of the bubbles on the chart represent then number of voting centers that present a given value.

        • It uses all voting centers. Each “dot” is the average value for a voting center that had a given % Maduro vote and a given % abstention. The size of the dot indicate how many centers were averaged together to obtain that value.

  13. I may have missed this from an earlier post / comment… but would someone be able to direct me to the raw compiled results by mesa? I have only seen the tables posted at CNE, but was curious if there is a single or more consolidated extract of the data?

  14. The only thing this post shows is that allegations of fraud do not fit neatly in Quico’s nice little graph. The only thing that is going to help us “find out what actually happened” is in the CNE’s vaults, which is precisely what the opposition wants to look into.

    • I can see how that works from a messaging point of view. But we’re already sitting on a pile of data and the best we can do is “do you know anyone who voted for Maduro but not for Chavez?”

      • I think the statistical evidence would require multiple regression analysis, and it might be too soon for that. As you pointed out, the story doesn’t fit neatly in a single graph, there are more variables involved. I can envision somebody modeling the likelihood of the percentage of Maduro’s votes using a series of variables, and adding a dummy variable for the centers where hanky-panky was involved.

          • Regression analysis may not detect a fraud of this nature, since regression analysis is designed to seek relationships between data, not to seek lack of it. This subtle distinction is what made Hausmann’s work so genial. He used regression analysis on the the errors of the datasets. Since errors of data cannot be correlated, finding correlations gave away that the data could not, not have been tweaked.

          • Out of the ordinary (as defined by demographic trends perhaps) increase in voter registration. However, this wouldn’t necessarily mean fraud if correlated with other factors like socioeconomic status. That’s why multiple regression would be nice. It allows you to measure the partial correlation holding constant SES and other potential confounders.

      • Francisco, you are sending mixed messages. It’s difficult to feel incentive to carry out any data processing, given the experience with people precisely like you in not accepting their results.

        Besides, shouldn’t it be easy for to come up with busloads of people claiming to have voted for maduro and not chavez, if the results are non fraudulent?

      • Conchale Quico, what the maracucho tried to say was that in many tables Maduro got more votes than Chavez himself… and to me, that’s a very interesting observation that requires utmost follow up. Only to audit those tables will be very interesting, I say.

  15. Has the opposition released a list of tables they are contesting? A comparison of those tables vs. the rest will provide a good indication if those tables behave differently.

  16. I understand Francisco’s point about statistical analysis. But the “Do you know someone that voted for Maduro and not for Chávez?” argument is evidence of fraud. This happened in almost 10% of the electoral tables, and at the same time, Maduro DIMINISHED the national vote when you compare it to Chavez’s. How can you explain this? A couple dozen can be explained by weather conditions, maybe others by better campaigning (yeah right). But 3.224 electoral tables? 10% of the total in an election in which he DIMINISHED the national votes? It doesn’t make any sense, and it is a clear indication of fraud to me.

    • On the contrary, It makes perfect sense. 10% where Maduro got more than Chavez means 90% where he got less. What percent of tables with Maduro beating Chavez would have seemed normal to you? 0%?

      Additionally, in 90% of those tables where Maduro beat Chavez, the average difference between them is only 5 votes: 0.9 * 3,224 * 5 = 14,508 votes. Hardly proof of fraud. . .

  17. I am not a mathematician, but take for instance “Estado: EDO. ZULIA – Municipio: MP. SANTA RITA – Parroquia: PQ. EL MENE – Centro de Votación: ESCUELA PRIMARIA BOLIVARIANA RURAL LAS MUCURITAS” (which I just saw randomly) Where Maduro wins 51,55% to 48,34%
    It has three electoral tables. In table 2 Capriles wins 50,15% with 79% of participation.
    Table 1? Maduro wins with 58%, and with a participation of 85%.
    Isn’t it weird that between two tables of the same electoral center there is a participation difference of 6%, and this difference entirely favors one candidate? I don’t know, I am not a mathematician. But it seems weird to me.
    I just remembered Manuel Rosales speech conceding Chávez victory, in which he basically said: “We lost, but the margin is smaller than the one published”.
    I believe chavismo has been inserting ghost votes since quite a while, I don’t think 14-a was the first time.

    • Daniel , the case you mention is an example of the kind of statistical anomaly reported by forensic statistician Alfredo Weil in an interview given to El Universal (which I posted in a previous comment above ) : “-Hay resultados inconsistentes en mesas de un mismo centro. Es decir, no tiene sentido, desde el punto de vista estadístico que en una mesa donde gane Capriles 20 a 40, en la del lado ocurra exactamente todo lo contrario. La probabilidad de que eso ocurra se mide por lo que se llama la Prueba de Pearson. Y esta, a un caso como el mencionado, le asigna una probabilidad de 0.1%. Así, a medida que aumentaba la probabilidad de rechazo en las mesas, los votos de Capriles bajaban.” . Your case also underscores the anomaly that the lower the absentism (vs the 19/20% average) the higher the number of votes going for Maduro .He also detected the Maduro bias shown in the results of those voting centres with one or two tables compared to those with 3 or more tables (80% of the total) where opposition presence of monitors witnesses is bound to be stronger.

    • And I see no international 3rd parties observers or opposition leaders invited. Do you know the meaning of what an audit means? It requires an independent party involved making the audit to be an audit, burro.

      • Ah, another idiot commenter. Serves me right for jumping into the loony bin this comment section has turned into.
        Feathers -where exactly do I defend that position?
        If you want to call people “burro” and rebut an argument, you’re kindly asked to do so on said blog, not on the person that links to that…
        Reading comprehension problems? Ask Get A Clue to help you, I’m sure both of you can get a discount for remedial classes.

        • True to that Vicente, my bad and please accept my apologies! In any case my burro comment was intended to the Chavistas making the show they are auditing, and the blogger, I assumed “guest” was Lubrio. Sorry you got offended in my rant, wasn’t my intention.

          I am sure you know better than Lubrio what an audit entails.

          Not gonna reply to the Get a Clue comment. Not interested in getting into words with you, but yes I assumed badly and got a sad, my bad.

        • No need to the “idiot” either since it was clear my comment was directed to what the link said, sorry again you took it personally.

  18. Agree with FT. I’ve looked at the data and didn’t find anything strange. Not saying it was a 100% fair election because irregularities did occur, but it does not seem they happened at the scale needed to clearly change the result of the election.

  19. This is interesting. I downloaded the data used in the Stanford map presented in this blog a few weeks ago. I found a linear, positive correlation between turnout and votes for Capriles. That was shocking to me because absenteeism is generally harmful to the incumbent or ruling party candidate, in other words, higher turnout normally benefits the incumbent/ruling party candidate. But, in the election, it benefitted Capriles. This was true all over the map, but in more rural areas, absenteeism was higher higher and it helped Maduro. The turnout rate was based on scrutinized votes, which as we know was a metric totally in the hands of the government and the know-nothing CNE leaders.

    Also, at least in that data, all voting centers outside Venezuela included 0 (zero) valid votes. We were not counted.

    • Did you see the cloud of points shown in the post? Doesn’t seem to be much of a correlation one way or the other.

      • I did a whole more than that. I built a series of different models. I will graph them and share them with the bloggers in case they’d like to post. Keep in mind that the data I used was the data used to call the election. For instance, they did not count foreign votes and there had been no audits, for the most part.

Leave a Reply