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

More articles by:

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).

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

June 28, 2017
Diana Johnstone
Macron’s Mission: Save the European Union From Itself
Jordon Kraemer
The Cultural Anxiety of the White Middle Class
Vijay Prashad
Modi and Trump: When the Titans of Hate Politics Meet
Jonathan Cook
Israel’s Efforts to Hide Palestinians From View No Longer Fools Young American Jews
Ron Jacobs
Gonna’ Have to Face It, You’re Addicted to War
Jim Lobe – Giulia McDonnell Nieto Del Rio
Is Trump Blundering Into the Next Middle East War?
Radical Washtenaw
David Ware, Killed By Police: a Vindication
John W. Whitehead
The Age of No Privacy: the Surveillance State Shifts into High Gear
Robert Mejia, Kay Beckermann and Curtis Sullivan
The Racial Politics of the Left’s Political Nostalgia
Tom H. Hastings
Courting Each Other
Winslow Myers
“A Decent Respect for the Opinions of Mankind”
Leonard Peltier
The Struggle is Never for Nothing
Jonathan Latham
Illegal GE Bacteria Detected in an Animal Feed Supplement
Deborah James
State of Play in the WTO: Toward the 11th Ministerial in Argentina
Andrew Stewart
Health Care for All: Why I Occupied Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s Office
Binoy Kampmark
The European Commission, Google and Anti-Competition
Jesse Jackson
A Savage Health Care Bill
Jimmy Centeno
Cats and Meows in L.A.
June 27, 2017
Jim Kavanagh
California Scheming: Democrats Betray Single-Payer Again
Jonathan Cook
Hersh’s New Syria Revelations Buried From View
Edward Hunt
Excessive and Avoidable Harm in Yemen
Howard Lisnoff
The Death of Democracy Both Here and Abroad and All Those Colorful Sneakers
Gary Leupp
Immanuel Kant on Electoral Interference
Kenneth Surin
Theresa May and the Tories are in Freefall
Slavoj Zizek
Get the Left
Robert Fisk
Saudi Arabia Wants to Reduce Qatar to a Vassal State
Ralph Nader
Driverless Cars: Hype, Hubris and Distractions
Rima Najjar
Palestinians Are Seeking Justice in Jerusalem – Not an Abusive Life-Long Mate
Norman Solomon
Is ‘Russiagate’ Collapsing as a Political Strategy?
Binoy Kampmark
In the Twitter Building: Tech Incubators and Altering Perceptions
Dean Baker
Uber’s Repudiation is the Moment for the U.S. to Finally Start Regulating the So-called Sharing Economy
Rob Seimetz
What I Saw From The Law
George Wuerthner
The Causes of Forest Fires: Climate vs. Logging
June 26, 2017
William Hawes – Jason Holland
Lies That Capitalists Tell Us
Chairman Brandon Sazue
Out of the Shadow of Custer: Zinke Proves He’s No “Champion” of Indian Country With his Grizzly Lies
Patrick Cockburn
Grenfell Tower: the Tragic Price of the Rolled-Back Stat
Joseph Mangano
Tritium: Toxic Tip of the Nuclear Iceberg
Ray McGovern
Hersh’s Big Scoop: Bad Intel Behind Trump’s Syria Attack
Roy Eidelson
Heart of Darkness: Observations on a Torture Notebook
Geoff Beckman
Why Democrats Lose: the Case of Jon Ossoff
Matthew Stevenson
Travels Around Trump’s America
David Macaray
Law Enforcement’s Dirty Little Secret
Colin Todhunter
Future Shock: Imagining India
Yoav Litvin
Animals at the Roger Waters Concert
Binoy Kampmark
Pride in San Francisco
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail