(2004-09-01) Wsj Contra Chavez Election

The Wall St Journal questions the quality of Jimmy Carter's audit of the Venezuela Hugo Chavez election (Election Tampering). On referendum day, there was no open audit at the polling stations to reconcile the paper ballots to the electronic voting machines, as the opposition requested, because Mr. Chavez would not allow it. There was also no closed-door audit with all of the National Electoral Council members present because the Chavez-controlled Council did not allow it. There was no inspection of the electronic voting machines immediately after the vote because Mr. Chavez would not allow it. And there was no impartial impounding of the election data--paper or digital--because . . . you get the idea. We also know that Mr. Chavez sharply limited the number of international observers allowed into the country, something that hasn't been done (outside of Cuba) in Latin America since Manual Noriega used it as a way to steal elections in Panama in 1989. The European Union/EU refused to send observers because Mr. Chavez so severely limited the size of the team and its ability to move about... Yet he saw no cause for concern because "we reported on the assurances we had received from CNE and the military, which answered most of their concerns." He finally signed off on the outcome after he said he was invited "to witness the disclosure of the first electronic tabulation." Mr. Carter's logic seems to be that he could judge the election to be fair more or less because Mr. Chavez's military and election council told him it was fair.

Broader piece by Carroll Andrew Morse noting the work of Ricardo Hausmann and Roberto Rigobon.