Statistical Science

Forensic Analysis of the Venezuelan Recall Referendum

Raúl Jiménez

Full-text: Open access


The best way to reconcile political actors in a controversial electoral process is a full audit. When this is not possible, statistical tools may be useful for measuring the likelihood of the results. The Venezuelan recall referendum (2004) provides a suitable dataset for thinking about this important problem. The cost of errors in examining an allegation of electoral fraud can be enormous. They can range from legitimizing an unfair election to supporting an unfounded accusation, with serious political implications. For this reason, we must be very selective about data, hypotheses and test statistics that will be used. This article offers a critical review of recent statistical literature on the Venezuelan referendum. In addition, we propose a testing methodology, based exclusively on vote counting, that is potentially useful in election forensics. The referendum is reexamined, offering new and intriguing aspects to previous analyses. The main conclusion is that there were a significant number of irregularities in the vote counting that introduced a bias in favor of the winning option. A plausible scenario in which the irregularities could overturn the results is also discussed.

Article information

Statist. Sci., Volume 26, Number 4 (2011), 564-583.

First available in Project Euclid: 28 February 2012

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)

Election forensics Venezuelan presidential elections Benford’s Law multivariate hypergeometric distribution


Jiménez, Raúl. Forensic Analysis of the Venezuelan Recall Referendum. Statist. Sci. 26 (2011), no. 4, 564--583. doi:10.1214/11-STS375.

Export citation


  • Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B 57 289–300.
  • The Carter Center (2005). Observing the Venezuela presidential recall referendum. Comprehensive report, The Carter Center. Available at
  • De Veaux, R. D. and Hand, D. J. (2005). How to lie with bad data. Statist. Sci. 20 231–238.
  • Deckert, J., Myagkov, M. and Ordeshook, P. C. (2010). The irrelevance of Benford’s Law for detecting fraud in elections. Working Paper No. 9, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. Available at
  • Delfino, G. and Salas, G. (2011). Analysis of the 2004 Venezuela referendum: The official results versus the petition signatures. Statist. Sci. 26 502–512.
  • Durstchi, C., Hillison, W. and Pacini, C. (2004). The effective use of Benford’s Law to assist in detecting fraud in accounting data. Journal of Forensic Accounting 5 17–34.
  • Etteridge, M. L., Hillison, W. and Srivastava, R. P. (1999). Using digital analysis to enhance data integrity. Issues in Accounting Education 4 675–690.
  • Febres, M. M. and Marquez, B. (2006). A statistical approach to asses referendum resuslts: The Venezuelan recall referendum 2004. International Statistical Review 774 379–389.
  • Felten, E. W., Rubin, A. D. and Stubblefield, A. (2004). Analysis of the voting data from the recent Venezuela referendum. Available at
  • Hausmann, R. and Rigobon, R. (2004). In search of the black swan: Analysis of the statistical evidence of fraud in Venezuela. Working paper, J. F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univ. Available at
  • Hausmann, R. and Rigobon, R. (2011). In search of the black swan: Analysis of the statistical evidence of fraud in Venezuela. Statist. Sci. 26 543–563.
  • Hill, T. P. (1995). The significant-digit phenomenon. Amer. Math. Monthly 102 322–327.
  • Lohr, S. (2004). Sampling: Design and Analysis, 2nd ed. Brooks/Cole, Boston, MA.
  • Luhnow, D. and De Cordoba, J. (2004). Academics’ study backs fraud claim in Chavez election. The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2004.
  • Lupu, N. (2010). Who Votes for chavismo? Class Voting in Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela. Latin American Research Review 45 7–32.
  • Martín, I. (2011). 2004 Venezuelan presidential recall referendum (2004 PRR): A statistical analysis from the point of view of data transmission by electronic voting machines. Statist. Sci. 26 528–542.
  • McCoy, J. (1999). Chávez and the end of “Partyarchy” in Venezuela. Journal of Democracy 10 64–77.
  • Mebane, W. (2008). Election forensics: The Second-digit Benford’s Law Test and recent American presidecial elections. In Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation. (R. M. Alvarez, T. E. Hall and S. D. Hyde, eds.) 162–181. Brooking Press, Washington, DC.
  • Mebane, W. (2011). Fraud in the 2009 Presidential Election in Iran? Chance 23 6–15.
  • Neuman, L. and McCoy, J. (2001). Observing political change in Venezuela: The Bolivarianan constitution and 2000 elections. Final report, The Carter Center. Available at
  • Pericchi, L. and Torres, D. (2011). Quick anomaly detection by the Newcomb–Benford Law, with applications to electoral processes data from the USA, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. Statist. Sci. 26 513–527.
  • Prado, R. and Sansó, B. (2011). The 2004 Venezuelan presidential recall referendum: Discrepancies between two exit polls and official results. Statist. Sci. 26 502–512.
  • Press, S. J. (1982). Applied Multivariate Analysis: Using Bayesian and Frequentist Methods of Inference, 2nd ed. Dover, Mineola, NY.
  • Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, R. R. (1973). Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
  • Taylor, J. (2005). Too many ties? An empirical analysis of the Venezuelan recall referendum. Available at
  • Wallace, W. A. (2002). Assessing the quality of data used for benchmarking and decision-making. The Journal of Government Financial Management 51 21–23.
  • Weisbrot, M., Rosnick, D. and Tucker, T. (2004). Black swans, conspiracy theories, and the Quixotic search for fraud: A look at Hausmann and Rigobon’s analysis of Venezuela’s referendum vote. Briefing paper, Center for Economic and Policy Research. Available at
  • Zelterman, D. (2006). Models for Discrete Data, Revised ed. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.