FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Statistical Analysis of Venezuela’s Elections

by MARK WEISBROT

Probability and statistics were not on the favorites list of most college graduates who were required to take a course in the subject – all those permutations and combinations and probability distributions generally leave a lot of heads spinning.   But their real-world relevance has been growing in recent years as political polling becomes more widespread and sophisticated. Nate Silver of the New York Times and Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium have shown eloquently that this branch of applied mathematics, combined with a good array of polls, can be an excellent predictor of election-day results. Silver became America’s most famous geek: Jon Stewart proclaimed him “the lord and god of the algorithm.”

But what about an election that has already happened?  Can we use probability and statistics to determine whether a close vote count was stolen through fraud? Normally a close election result would be difficult to second-guess with pre-election or exit polls.  But there is one election in particular where statistical analysis gives us an answer that is vastly more certain than any collection of polls.  And it happens to be a subject of some controversy.

On April 14 in Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro of the governing party won with a closer-than-expected margin of 50.8 percent of the vote versus 49 percent for challenger Henrique Capriles. This was a margin of about 270,000 votes.  Capriles immediately demanded a full “recount,” and the Obama administration joined him, saying that it would not recognize the new president until there was a 100 percent audit of the paper receipts produced by Venezuela’s voting machines.  Capriles first agreed to, then rejected, an audit by the National Electoral Council, but many people not only in Venezuela but throughout the world have doubts about whether the vote count showed the true winner.

Should they?  Actually, no.  There is really no doubt at all about the outcome, because there is a relatively simple statistical analysis that can be done on the basis of what happened on the day of the election.  After going through a very thorough identification that includes their fingerprint, Venezuelans make their choice on a computer touch screen.  They then receive a paper printout that confirms their vote, and place the paper receipt in a sealed box.  When the polls close, a random sample of 53 percent of the machines is selected, with at least one machine at each polling place.  The paper receipt count is then compared to the machine count to make sure that they match.  This is done in front of witnesses from both sides, as well as election officials; members of the community are also invited to watch.

There has not been a single reported allegation of a mismatch between the machine count and the paper receipts. Capriles and his campaign have not produced even one allegation of such a discrepancy.

So the question is, how likely is it that this audit of 20,825 machines could produce no errors, if in fact Capriles were the true winner? The answer, as described in our new paper, is that it is far less likely than one chance in 25 thousand trillion.  There is really no way around this conclusion, and it does not depend upon any assumptions other than what tens of thousands of people witnessed in the vote audit of the 20,825 machines.

The results are intuitive: if there was a fraud big enough to move 135,000 votes from one candidate to another, it would have been discovered in some of those 20,825 machines.  But it wasn’t.  So you have a choice:  you can believe that the world witnessed something so improbable that it cries out for supernatural explanation on April 14:  an audit result that had far less than a one in 25 trillion chance of occurring.  That is what Capriles and his supporters are asserting when they claim that an audit of the remaining machines would change the election result.  Or, you can believe that Maduro actually won the election.

Nate Silver triumphed over his critics and the pundits who insisted that the 2012 U.S. presidential election was “too close to call,” correctly predicting the results in 50 out of 50 states.  But the actual result of the Venezuelan election is much simpler than any prediction, and vastly more certain.  Why, then, is it treated by so many as an uncertain result?

Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This essay originally appeared in The Guardian

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

March 27, 2017
Robert Hunziker
A Record-Setting Climate Going Bonkers
Frank Stricker
Why $15 an Hour Should be the Absolute Minimum Minimum Wage
Melvin Goodman
The Disappearance of Bipartisanship on the Intelligence Committees
Patrick Cockburn
ISIS’s Losses in Syria and Iraq Will Make It Difficult to Recruit
Russell Mokhiber
Single-Payer Bernie Morphs Into Public Option Dean
Gregory Barrett
Can Democracy Save Us?
Dave Lindorff
Budget Goes Military
John Heid
Disappeared on the Border: “Chase and Scatter” — to Death
Mark Weisbrot
The Troubling Financial Activities of an Ecuadorian Presidential Candidate
Robert Fisk
As ISIS’s Caliphate Shrinks, Syrian Anger Grows
Michael J. Sainato
Democratic Party Continues Shunning Popular Sanders Surrogates
Paul Bentley
Nazi Heritage: the Strange Saga of Chrystia Freeland’s Ukrainian Grandfather
Christopher Ketcham
Buddhism in the Storm
Thomas Barker
Platitudes in the Wake of London’s Terror Attack
Mike Hastie
Insane Truths: a Vietnam Vet on “Apocalypse Now, Redux”
Binoy Kampmark
Cyclone Watch in Australia
Weekend Edition
March 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump is Obama’s Legacy: Will this Break up the Democratic Party?
Eric Draitser
Donald Trump and the Triumph of White Identity Politics
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Nothing Was Delivered
Andrew Levine
Ryan’s Choice
Joshua Frank
Global Coal in Freefall, Tar Sands Development Drying Up (Bad News for Keystone XL)
Anthony DiMaggio
Ditching the “Deep State”: The Rise of a New Conspiracy Theory in American Politics
Rob Urie
Boris and Natasha Visit Fantasy Island
John Wight
London and the Dreary Ritual of Terrorist Attacks
Paul Buhle
The CIA and the Intellectuals…Again
David Rosen
Why Did Trump Target Transgender Youth?
Vijay Prashad
Inventing Enemies
Ben Debney
Outrage From the Imperial Playbook
M. Shadee Malaklou
An Open Letter to Duke University’s Class of 2007, About Your Open Letter to Stephen Miller
Michael J. Sainato
Bernie Sanders’ Economic Advisor Shreds Trumponomics
Lawrence Davidson
Moral Failure at the UN
Pete Dolack
World Bank Declares Itself Above the Law
Nicola Perugini - Neve Gordon
Israel’s Human Rights Spies
Patrick Cockburn
From Paris to London: Another City, Another Attack
Ralph Nader
Reason and Justice Address Realities
Ramzy Baroud
‘Decolonizing the Mind’: Using Hollywood Celebrities to Validate Islam
Colin Todhunter
Monsanto in India: The Sacred and the Profane
Louisa Willcox
Grizzlies Under the Endangered Species Act: How Have They Fared?
Norman Pollack
Militarization of American Fascism: Trump the Usurper
Pepe Escobar
North Korea: The Real Serious Options on the Table
Brian Cloughley
“These Things Are Done”: Eavesdropping on Trump
Sheldon Richman
You Can’t Blame Trump’s Military Budget on NATO
Carol Wolman
Trump vs the People: a Psychiatrist’s Analysis
Stanley L. Cohen
The White House . . . Denial and Cover-ups
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Marines to Kill Desert Tortoises
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail