From Venezuelan friends who are incensed at the results of their last referendum. It is interesting to note that a lot more people made the recount possible than finally voted against Chavez. This is not the first source through which I have heard of possible electronic vote tampering. Also not surprising considering the 10 hour wait in line to vote and threats made on civilian lives by local officials.
We’re gentler here, we just get the Supreme Court to fix it for us.
To share with your friends around the world. Detailed information provided by U.S. observers regarding Venezuelan Referendum…
It is a “short” summary of what happenned. Unfortunately the opposition trusted too much Mr. Carter and the Organization of American States (OEA) among many factors. The report only misses the billions of OIL dollars that were thrown in social “missions” without any control, as part of greatest corruption and power abuse, ever, in Venezuela.
Sincere regards,
Humberto
***
Venezuela – What’s Not Reported in the News
Senator Bill Nelson Congressman Robert Wexler
Care of Pete Contostavolos Care of Eva Cargi
716 Hart Senate Office Building 213 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510-0905 Washington, D. C. 20515-0919
Phone: : (202) 224-5274 Phone: (202) 225-3001
Fax: (202) 228-2183 Fax: (202) 225-5974
Subject: Venezuelan Presidential Recall Referendum, as seen by US International Observers Curtis Reed and Steve Henley
Dear Senator Nelson and Congressman Wexler:
As you know, Steve Henley (Democratic candidate for Supervisor of Elections, Hillsborough) and I were in Venezuela as international observers with the invitation of the Democratic Coordinator. During the RRP, we traveled around to between 18 and 25 voting centers, so many we lost count. We saw a great many irregularities in the processes, actions that here in the United States would immediately be called a fraud.
As you read the list below, please ask yourselves the following question:
If, during the November 2004 election in the United States, we were witness to similar behaviors perpetrated by the currentadministration against the Democratic opposition, would we or wouldwe not decry that the government had committed a massive fraud?
* In the days leading up to the election, President Chavez had warned that with the Finger Print machines and the Smartmatic machines, he would know who voted against him. This was threat to the opposition, intended to intimidate the opposition. Remember that during the Referendum signature drive, voters were government employees and who signed against the government were fired en masse.
* The CNE’s Junta Nacional Electoral President Jorge Rodriguez made comments to the public about the norms and processes while flanked by military Generals, another tactic apparently designed to intimidate the
opposition by demonstrating that he had been given control of the military.
* The government ordered the police to remain in their barracks, leaving the people unprotected. In the opposition areas, the Chavistas operated with impunity, riding around threatening the people with arms,
and in some cases firing on them. Meanwhile, in the “popular” sectors of town, the police were out of their barracks, apparently to help the government control the vote.
* We were threatened on several occasions, at least once with pistols concealed under the shirts of Chavistas who yelled threats and showed us their weapons.
* When we went into the 23 de Enero barrio, Chavistas working in the voting area turned into rabble-rousers and tried to stir the crowd into attacking us. The Plan República troops did nothing to stop them, and when our safety was in question, they escorted us out. We could no longer observe the many irregularities in the area.
* We videotaped the damages to the home of the Primero Justicia coordinator, whose house was machine-gunned at around 3:00 AM of the morning of the Referendum. We witnessed that the government summarily
fired thousands of poll workers previously accredited by the CNE, simply because they had signed the referendum against the president. In their place, the CNE actively hired pro-government workers that they
called directly (in violation of the CNE’s own election norms that stated that they had to be selected by “sorteo”, or random drawing), and they brought in workers from other districts to work in the mostly
opposition areas, and other clear violation of the norms.
* We saw that the Comando Maisanta had obtained illegal “Security” badges and had illegally set up cordons and were blocking the entrance to the voting centers to members of the opposition (in the mostly Chavista centers, such as Catia).
* We received first hand reports from witnesses who saw armed Comando Maisanta and Circulos Bolivarianos posted outside voting centers, threatening the people who tried to vote SI.* We witnessed military officers prohibiting the vote of people in the opposition areas because they were “wearing shorts”, a violation of the constitution and their human rights.
* Thousands of voters who voted SI, were physically assaulted at the voting centers.
* We were informed by an elderly woman that when she asked forassistance voting in a mostly Chavista area, a CNE voting officer asked her: “You need help voting?” then pushed the NO button for her and said: “There.”
* Armed officialist “terrorists” of the Bolivarian Circles led by Lina Ron invaded a voting center in Avenida Urdaneta, of the Libertador unicipality in Caracas, and only allowed government supporters to vote. These terrorists fired their guns at the opposition that tried to vote.
* We saw that the military controlled the flow of people into the voting areas and slowed down the progress until we arrived. Witnesses heard them radio to their comrades that “International Observers have arrived. Speed up the flow.” They then gave orders to change the flow of voters from 5 or so every 10 minutes, to groups of 30.
* Voting centers (in opposition areas) that normally had up to 9 tables were reduced to only 3 tables.
* The CNE dictated norms detailing the anticipated behavior of CNE employees in general and in certain possible contingencies, such as machine malfunction (by both the Smartmatic SAES machines and the
Finger Print machines).
* CNE workers refused to follow the CNE changes to the norms to either stop using the Finger Print machines when they malfunctioned, or, when it was determined that the machines were becoming a bottle-neck to the process, the CNE ordered that they be used as a final process or stopped, but the CNE employees adept to the
government refused to obey the orders.
* Sixty CNE workers who were required to run the Finger Print Hunting machines (Caza Huellas) failed to report to duty on time, inviolation of the CNE norms. This caused great delays in the voting process.
* Other CNE workers refused to open the voting centers on time, causing delays of up to three or four hours.
* CNE workers friendly to the government closed the polls at the wrong times, ignoring the Norms created by the CNE.
* Many voters who provided their fingerprints were told that they had already voted and could not vote. Some of these voters were arrested.
* A Chavista table witness told us that she had personally told an elderly woman (in her seventies) whose fingerprint was rejected that she could not vote because she had already voted and accused her of trying to commit fraud. When we asked her if she knew that the machines had a margin of error and that the poor woman might have been wrongly accused of fraud, she told us she had not been told of that.
* We used stopwatches to time the flow of voters. In predominantly Chavista areas, we saw that the flow was rapid (roughly 1.5 to 2 minutes per voter). In areas that were predominantly opposition, the voting rate was much slower (between 5 and 10 minutes per voter).
* International Observers were blocked from entering some voting centers.
* In some voting centers, the review process was started without the presence of Opposition witnesses to guarantee transparency.
* Opposition witnesses and table members were physically removed fromvoting centers or blocked from entering and guaranteeing transparency.
* In the months leading up to the Referendum, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of foreigners were given citizenship and immediate voting rights in massive ceremonies that literally filled stadiums, in violation of the immigration laws. These expeditiously nationalized people were allowed to vote in the referendum.
* In the days leading up to the vote, the CNE workers migrated voters out of their home districts and into districts many miles from their residences, sometimes into other countries. A pattern was discovered indicating that many voters were migrated from mostly Opposition areas into areas filled with government supporters. These areas are lawless and extremely dangerous, and many voters chose not to vote rather than
risk their lives.
* When pro-government voters did not appear on the voting lists, in many cases they were immediately provided with a solution at that center and allowed to vote. Contrarily, opposition voters who were not
on the lists were told they simply could not vote.
* Pro-government representatives paid money to voters who indicated that they had voted NO.
* We received denunciations that the military members who wanted to vote had to do so with their superior officers watching their selection.
* After the tabulation of the votes, citizens from many centers are reporting that the Voter Verifiable Paper Trail tickets printed by the machines have been found dumped in the streets.
* The CNE workers in charge of safeguarding the materials failed to complete their duties after the end of the referendum, since reports have flooded in that indicate that the Voter Verifiable Paper tickets were found dumped in the streets of some barrios.
* The CNE repeatedly issued statements that contradicted the Venezuelan Bolivarian Constitution, limiting the rights of suffrage in unconstitutional ways. Regarding the suffrage rights of citizens living abroad, for example, the CNE said that only citizens living with permanent residence in those countries could vote, and that people with extended tourist visas could not vote. Only in the last days before the referendum, when it was too late for citizens living abroad to register to vote, did the CNE change its position and state that they determined
that the Constitution allowed for citizens on Tourist Visas to vote. However, they still denied the right of suffrage to Venezuelan citizens living abroad whose residency status was out of date, which still
remains hotly contested as a constitutional violation.
Despite these attempts to limit the access to vote, the voters remained in line heroically. They organized support teams bringing food, water, chairs, umbrellas/parasols, music, board games, radios, and everything
else you can imagine to keep people’s spirits up. Some waited in line to vote for up to 14 hours, and absolutely refused to leave.
When I asked the people if they would get tired and leave, the answer was ALWAYS the same: “I will die in this line before I leave!” For those who were shot while waiting in line, this statement of determination became a prediction of their real fate. These people have become martyrs for democracy, and we should not abandon them.
DEFINITIONS OF FRAUD:
As a general standard by which to examine the activities and determine
if they can be considered Fraudulent, the Florida Department of State
defines Voter Fraud as “Sintentional misrepresentation, trickery,
deceit, or deception, arising out of or in connection with voter
registration or voting”. (For more information, follow this link:
Florida Definition of Voter Fraud). According to these standards (which
by their nature of being US laws are not applicable to Venezuela but at
least give us a standard by which to examine the activities), we can
come to an initial conclusion that the behaviors would, at least in the
United States, be considered fraudulent behavior.
Article 216, number 2 of the Venezuelan Organic law of Suffrage and
Political Participation states that the election shall be nullified;
“Whenever there has occurred fraud, coercion, bribery or violence in
the formation of the Registro Electoral, in the elections or in the
examination of results and said vices affect the result of the election
involved.” This law consecrates the nullification of the election for
vices produced in various aspects of the electoral exercise such as the
formation of the electoral registry, the voting procedures and scrutiny
of results.
Venezuelan jurisprudence established precedence for the nullification
of election results in the Organic Law of Suffrage (1993) when it can
be demonstrated that the vices in the electoral exercise have a direct
affect on the end result of the election, that being the total
result of the election after examining the final vote count.
The Venezuelan Opposition legal teams will have to work to determine if
the fraud currently evidenced by the many irregularities meets
these standards, but a quick examination of the election results
suggest that there was indeed fraud as determined by Venezuelan organic
law.
EXIT POLL RESULTS
Exit polls from across the country clearly gave the opposition the
victory. At the time of completion of the voting, SUMATE and Penn,
Schoen & Berland Associates, tabulated the results of their exit polls.
The results were consistent:
* Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates Exit poll: 59% a favor del SI; 41% a favor del NO
http://www.psbsurveys.com/home/index2.htm
*
SUMATE Exit poll: 59.4% a favor del SI; 40.6% a favor del NO
http://www.sumate.org
A breakdown by State indicates how widespread the victory appeared to
have been:
STATE YES Vote % NO Vote %
Dto Capital SI 61% NO 39%
Anzoátegui: SI 61% NO 39%
Apure: SI 62% NO 38%
Aragua: SI 60% NO 40%
Barinas SI 52% NO 48%
Bolivar SI 62% NO 38%
Carabobo SI 65% NO 35%
Falcón SI 48% NO 52%
Guárico SI 52% NO 48%
Lara SI 55% NO 48%
Mérida SI 52% NO 48%
Miranda SI 79% NO 21%
Monagas SI 60% NO 40%
Nva. Esparta SI 80% NO 20%
Portuguesa SI 65% NO 35%
Sucre SI 57% NO 43%
Táchira SI 74% NO 46%
Trujillo SI 54% NO 46%
Yaracuy SI 59% NO 41%
Vargas SI 33% NO 67%
Zulia SI 62% NO 38%
Note that, if these exit polls are correct, the Chavez government only
won two of the twenty one states (Vargas and Falcon). Adjusting
to reasonable statistical error of 3%, the government might have won
Barinas, Guarico, Merida, and Lara.
Poll results from voters outside Venezuela are also very telling:
Voting Center SI % NO % Null Total
New York 881 92.7 67 7.3 2 950
San Francisco 479 95.2 19 4.8 5 503
Boston 436 94.8 18 5.2 6 460
Chicago 529 94.6 24 5.4 6 559
Houston 1.570 95.9 63 4.1 3 1,636
Germany 307 78.9 81 20.8 1 389
France 232 78.6 63 21.4 N/A 295
Italy 343 94.6 33 5.4 N/A 376
Australia 94 93 6 7 1 170
Chec Republic 13 68.4 6 31.6 N/A 19
Mexico 602 95.5 23 4.5 5 630
It can be inferred from this that the poll results across the country
clearly indicated that the trend across Venezuela was for a landslide
victory for the Recall. Unfortunately, something happened that rendered
those poll results moot.
WAS THE SMARTMATIC MACHINE USED TO COMMIT FRAUD?
Analysis of the Acts is providing evidence that the Smartmatic voting
machines may have manipulated the results, and we are naturally very
concerned. This is exactly the worse case scenario about which we
warned you in June.
SUMATE has identified a number of areas where the voting results
indicate that a “cap” was placed on the total possible SI votes. In a
number of tables and voting centers, the voting results are absolutely
identical. That is to say, the number of people voting for
the SI option stopped at a specific number (say, 1,500 SI votes) in
multiple voting centers, and in some cases, both the number of SI
votes and the number of NO votes are identical between multiple voting
centers.
MUNICIPALITY No. C. V. VOTING CENTER NAME TABLE MACH. No. ACTA NO SI
BERMUDEZ 45170 U. E. MARIA DE VERA 1 1 1.1-1000-4 324 180
BERMUDEZ 45170 U. E. MARIA DE VERA 1 2 2.1-1000-3 306 180
BERMUDEZ 45190 C. B. JOSE FCO. BERMUDEZ 2 1 2.1-1000-1 355 112
BERMUDEZ 45190 C. B. JOSE FCO. BERMUDEZ 2 3 2.3-1000-7 364 112
VALDEZ 47860 G. E. ALEJANDRO VILLANUEVA 1 1 1.1-1000-8 285 138
VALDEZ 47860 G. E. ALEJANDRO VILLANUEVA 1 3 1.3-1000-4 267 138
VALDEZ 47870 G. E. GUIRIA 1 1 1.1-1000-7 249 132
VALDEZ 47870 G. E. GUIRIA 1 3 1.3-1000-3 235 132
ARISMENDI 44290 U. E. ROJAS PAUL 1 1 1-1-1000-1 273 147
ARISMENDI 44290 U. E. ROJAS PAUL 1 3 1-3-1000-7 266 147
ARISMENDI 44300 U. E. NICOLAS FLORES 1 1 1-2-1000-6 254 145
ARISMENDI 44300 U. E. NICOLAS FLORES 1 2 1-1-1000-8 276 145
Reports are also being presented to the effect that in many centers the
“cap” was on the percentage rather than on the number of votes. We are
waiting to receive more information on these allegations to corroborate
them.
These are just a few of the highly suspicious results that are being
reported. We have chosen to await more details before
drawingconclusions about the Smartmatic system’s performance. It is
absolutely crucial now that all of the paper ballots and the machines
be sequestered, although it may very well be too late, as the
government has probably prepared for this situation and has covered its
tracks.
CONCLUSIONS
After personally witnessing the process, our organization has decided
to divide the analysis into two separate areas and provide separate
conclusions on each.
Electoral Processes and Procedures: We are able to confidently state,
without fear of unfair bias, following close study of the CNE’s voting
norms and the Venezuelan Bolivarian Constitution, that the Venezuelan
government, military services (Plan República) and itsclosely allied
civil organizations (Comando Maisanta and Circulos Bolivarianos), did
regularly and knowingly violate the Constitutional
Protections, Electoral Norms, and Human Rights of the Venezuelan
opposition electorate in a manner that is consistent with an attempt to
change the election results. It is difficult at this juncture to tell
if these tactics had any effect on the election, since the voters were
so determined to withstand the intimidation, long delays and other
tactics employed to try to disenfranchise them.
We, the Directors of Free Venezuela, denounce the fraud (or attempted
fraud) committed by the Venezuelan government and its supporters in the
military and civilian organizations.
Electronic Vote ManipulationThere are a number of other irregularities
in the results that indicate that the machines were used to manipulate
the election results, and that this manipulation of results would have
been sufficient to change the end results of the election.
If the Venezuelan opposition is able to demonstrate this, and if we
find that the machines were indeed used to commit a fraud, we shall
immediately request an investigation in the United States Congress and
Senate of the Smartmatic Company and, as we have indicated
previously, will propose application of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act to the company’s officers.
WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR VENEZUELA AND DEMOCRACY?
Senator Bill Nelson and Congressman Wexler, the Venezuelan democratic
crisis has finally reached the boiling point, and if our suspicions are
correct, we may now be witnessing the “worst case scenario” about
electronic voting fraud. This situation is worrisome not just for
Venezuela, but also for democracy everywhere.
We know for a fact that Smartmatic is trying to obtain certification in the United States, and eventually hopes to sell their SAES machines
here.
We respectfully request that you use your influence to initiate an
investigation, and to pressure Smartmatic to explain in detail all of
the discrepancies. We would like to request that Doctor Rebecca Mercuri
and Doctor Avi Rubin become involved in the case, as we believe they
are the foremost experts in this subject and will be able to shed light
on the case.
Additionally, I would like to speak directly with the Senator and
Congressman to explain what we saw. We would be willing to travel to
Washington D.C. or your local offices to do so. Top-level members of
the Democratic Coordinator and SUMATE would be willing to join us. This
issue is of utmost importance. Please grant me this meeting request.
Thank you
