WikiLeaks: “Electronic” Election Fraud in Venezuela 2004

• Share on Facebook
• Tweet it
• Share on Reddit
• Pin it
• Share it
• Email

AENN Exclusive

Electronic Election Fraud in 2004 Venezuelan Election Plays Big in 2023.

By Numbers Guy

From WikiLeaks 2004

Content Raw content Metadata Print Share Show Headers

——- SUMMARY ——-

1. (U) Miranda state Gov. Enrique Mendoza told reporters August 18 the opposition would not participate in the audit of election results agreed to by the National Electoral Council (CNE) at the suggestion of the OAS and Carter Center. The Coordinadora instead wants an audit that would look at the software used in the August 15 presidential recall referendum. Chavez opponents found similarities in results at specific voting machines that they allege to be statistically highly improbable.

A computer analysis of Baruta municipality results by the Coordinadora found other anomalies leading them to claim that an algorithm was at work that increased the number of no votes and capped the number of yes votes. Coordinadora representative presented part of the information to international observers. CNE director called the opposition allegations irresponsible. He said the CNE would proceed with the audit, noting that the audit would not change the results of the election. End Summary.

——————— Opposition Won’t Play ———————

2. (U) Miranda state Gov. Enrique Mendoza, leader of the Coordinadora Democratica, ordered Coordinadora supporters around the country August 18 not to participate in an audit by the National Electoral Council (CNE) of the August 15 referendum results. The audit, negotiated by the OAS and Carter Center, would involve a check of the paper receipts from 150 electoral tables with the information the electronic voting system transmitted during the referendum.

Speaking to reporters, Mendoza showed alleged evidence of fraud the Coordinadora claims took place during the August 15 referendum. He showed statistics which allegedly indicate that voting machines were programmed to produce a pre-determined number of yes and no votes. He also showed machine-by-machine results with the same number of yes votes in different centers in Baruta municipality (Caracas), which Mendoza said was the result of an algorithm which automatically increased the number of no votes in each center. (Note: Mendoza’s public presentation was a disaster, with him tripping over his own explanation.)

——————————– Improbable Similarity in Results ——————————–

3. (U) The possible irregularities in the voting table numbers were first revealed by Bolivar state Governor Antonio Rojas Suarez August 17. Rojas told reporters that several tally sheets from his state showed that machines in one voting center each had 133 yes votes. Bolivar state Legal advisor J.J. Rendon appearing on all news channel Globovision, showed several original tally sheets indicating that results from machines at the same voting table indicated the same number of yes votes or a lower number.

This pattern repeated for nine tables for which Rendon had the tally sheets, which he alleged is statistically highly improbable. Chavez opponents continue to examine tally sheets from around the country, and as of 1900 local August 18, similar anomalies had been found in Zulia, Aragua and Nueva Esparta states, according to press reports. Gov. Rojas and Rendon met with the Ambassador and PolOffs late on August 19 and presented much more detail. We urged them to make the presentation to OAS/CC.

———————– Fooling the Quick Count ———————–

4. (U) A pattern was evident when looking at the results at the voting machine level, but is lost when numbers are examined at the mesa level. This makes the discrepancy undetectable to the “quick count” method used by the national and international observers, according to Rendon, because the quick count looks at random tally sheets. These random checks would not reveal this type of anomaly, since a different upper limit for the yes votes appear to have been set. The anomaly is only apparent if one looks at the tally sheet from machines at the same table, according to Rendon. Rendon said only a recount of the paper ballots would reveal the true results of the referendum.

———————– Alleged Algorithm Found ———————–

5. (C) Coordinadora electoral control chief Amado Dounia August 18 showed PolOff an analysis of Baruta municipality voting results by machine. (Transmitted to Department via e-mail.) The study shows different voting machines throughout Baruta repeating the same number of yes votes and a determined number added to the no column. Dounia speculated that the electronic voting machines may have transmitted their information to the CNE correctly, but then received a reverse transmission of data, either from the main CNE server, or another GoV server connected to the system. Dounia said the fraud may have affected as few as 4,000 of the 20,000 receipt boxes, and that the CNE or GoV elements involved in the fraud might be able to tamper with them to hide the evidence.

—————————– Coordinadora Pushes for Audit —————————–

6. (U) After the finding of the statistical anomalies by Chavez opponents August 17, National Assembly deputy, and Coordinadora CNE liaison, Nelson Rampersad told reporters on August 18 that the Coordinadora had asked the Carter Center and the OAS mission to conduct a more exhaustive audit of the August 15 presidential recall referendum. Rampersad said the Coordinadora had asked the international observers to count the paper receipts from more than the scheduled 150 electoral tables, and to look at the electronic voting machines’ programming, as well as the programming of the central server of the CNE.

————— CNE Says No WAY —————

7. (U) CNE director Jorge Rodriguez told reporters the CNE refused to change the terms of the audit it is conducting. Rodriguez argued that the similarity in voting results, was to be expected in a polarized election. He showed statistics of similar voting patterns in several voting tables. (Comment: Rodriguez knocked down a straw man, since the opposition’s argument is not that the results were similar at the mesa level, but when individual machines were compared.)

8. (C) Carter Center director Jennifer McCoy told the Ambassador late August 18 that the audit would proceed with or without Coordinadora observers. She said the audit will deal with all of the Coordinadora’s concerns except the question about the server — a concern which she said Sumate itself had already discarded. The Carter Center’s chief technical observer, Edgardo Mimica, told the Ambassador that he was already examining the patterns which the Coordinadora claims to have uncovered.

The actual count of the paper receipts began at 8:00 a.m., August 19.

——- Comment ——-

8. (C) The referendum results are not being accepted by opposition leaders or supporters. These irregularities, though as yet unproven, are more than enough to convince the opposition they were robbed. The key will be how well the statistical evidence holds up, and how convincing it will be for the Carter Center and OAS. If the allegations are indeed without basis, the only way to get the opposition to accept the August 15 results, and overcome the “group think” that they had/had to win, is to fully address the allegations, which even to an interested observer are difficult to decipher and understand. Resolving these doubts is also crucial for the gubernatorial and mayoral elections scheduled for September 26. Already, there are many — politicians and voters — saying they cannot possibly participate in that contest. At minimum, the confidence of some 40% of the electorate (the number which the official result says voted to get rid of Chavez) has been severely shaken.

9. (C) We cannot discount that part of the rejection of the results and of the international observers validation of the results thus far arises from personal political ambitions. Much has been at stake in the referendum process, and many politicians and proto-politicians have been projected onto the national scene. How many will be left by the wayside will become known as Venezuelans take stock of what participating in the referendum process has meant. For the moment, nevertheless, movement towards a “loyal minority opposition” mode is absent.

Shapiro NNNN 2004

CARACA 02669 – CONFIDENTIAL

Pin it
https://www.agenda21radio.news/2023/01/30/wikileaks-electronic-election-fraud-in-venezuela-2004/#dGgtMy5qcGc=