Statistical Science

Election Forensics and the 2004 Venezuelan Presidential Recall Referendum as a Case Study

Alicia L. Carriquiry

Full-text: Open access

Abstract

A referendum to recall President Hugo Chávez was held in Venezuela in August of 2004. In the referendum, voters were to vote YES if they wished to recall the President and NO if they wanted him to continue in office. The official results were 59% NO and 41% YES. Even though the election was monitored by various international groups including the Organization of American States and the Carter Center (both of which declared that the referendum had been conducted in a free and transparent manner), the outcome of the election was questioned by other groups both inside and outside of Venezuela. The collection of manuscripts that comprise this issue of Statistical Science discusses the general topic of election forensics but also focuses on different statistical approaches to explore, post-election, whether irregularities in the voting, vote transmission or vote counting processes could be detected in the 2004 presidential recall referendum. In this introduction to the Venezuela issue, we discuss the more recent literature on post-election auditing, describe the institutional context for the 2004 Venezuelan referendum, and briefly introduce each of the five contributions.

Article information

Source
Statist. Sci. Volume 26, Number 4 (2011), 471-478.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 28 February 2012

Permanent link to this document
http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1330437930

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/11-STS379

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR2951383

Keywords
Election forensics post-election audits Venezuelan Presidential Recall Referendum exit polls electronic voting systems election accuracy

Citation

Carriquiry, Alicia L. Election Forensics and the 2004 Venezuelan Presidential Recall Referendum as a Case Study. Statist. Sci. 26 (2011), no. 4, 471--478. doi:10.1214/11-STS379. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1330437930.


Export citation

References

  • Balzarotti, D., Banks, G., Cova, M., Felmetsger, V., Kemmerer, R., Robertson, W., Valeur, F. and Vigna, G. (2008). Are your votes really counted? Testing the security of real world electronic voting systems. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. Seattle, WA. Available at http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~seclab/projects/voting/issta08_voting.pdf.
  • Carter Center (2005a). Observing the Venezuela Presidential Recall Referendum. Available at http://www.cartercenter.org/.
  • Carter Center (2005b). Final report: The Venezuela Presidential Recall Referendum. Available at http://www.cartercenter.org/.
  • Dopp, K. (2009). Checking election outcome accuracy: Post-election audit sampling methods. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Southern Political Science Association Conference.
  • Elklit, J. and Reynolds, A. (2002). The impact of election administration on the legitimacy of emerging democracies: A new comparative politics research agenda. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 40 86–119.
  • Estok, M., Nevitte, N. and Cowan, G. (2002). The Quick Count and Election Observation. National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Washington DC.
  • European Union (2001). Preliminary statement—2 October 2001. European Union Election Observation Mission in Bangladesh.
  • Groves, R. M., Fowler, M. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M. and Singer, E. (2009). Survey Methodology. Wiley, New York.
  • Hyde, S. D. (2011). Catch us if you can: International election monitoring and norm diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 55 356–369.
  • Jacobson, A. J. and Rosenfeld, M. (2002). The Longest Night. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, CA.
  • Lehoucq, F. (2003). Electoral fraud: Causes, types and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science 6 233–256.
  • McCarthy, J., Stanislevic, H., Lindeman, M., Ash, A. S., Addona, V. and Batcher, M. (2008). Percentage-based versus statistical-power-based vote tabulation audits. Amer. Statist. 62 11–16.
  • Mebane, W. R. (2007). Election forensics: Statistical interventions in election controversies. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Chicago, Aug. 30–Sep. 2.
  • Norden, L., Burstein, A., Joseph, L. H. and Chen, M. (2007). Post-election audits: Restoring trust in elections. Brennan Center for Justice. August 1, 2007.
  • Saltman, R. G. (2006). The History and Politics of Voting Technology: In Quest of Integrity and Public Confidence. Palgrave McMillan, New York.
  • Stark, P. B. (2008). Conservative statistical post-election audits. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2 550–581.
  • Stark, P. B. (2010). Risk-limiting vote tabulation audits: The importance of cluster size. Chance 23 9–12.
  • Taylor, J. (2005). Too many ties? An Empirical Analysis of the Venezuelan Recall Referendum. Available at http://esdata.info/pdf/Taylor-Ties.pdf.
  • Weisbrot, M., Rosnick, D. and Tucker, T. (2004). Black swans, conspiracy theories and the Quixotic search for fraud: A look at Hausmann’s and Rigobón’s analysis of Venezuela’s referendum vote. Briefing Paper, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, DC.
  • Zetter, K. (2008). Election problems around the country. Available at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/11/election-prob-1/, Nov. 4, 2008.