Scholars Unveil How Maduro Stole Venezuela’s Vote

 

The 2024 Presidential election in Venezuela, like most elections since the introduction of electronic voting 21 years ago, was heavily guarded and audited by citizens. Despite this oversight, incumbent president Nicolás Maduro stole the election. Due to the system's design and its built-in safeguards, the manipulation could not be concealed.

As reflected in the academic paper entitled “How Maduro Stole Venezuela's Vote,” by Javier Corrales and Dorothy Kronick: “Each voter cast a ballot on one of Venezuela’s electronic voting machines, inspected her individual ballot receipt (an actual piece of paper), and then dropped that receipt into a ballot box.

Later that evening, hundreds of thousands of people worked in concert to collect the results. They printed tally sheets from each voting machine. They counted millions of individual paper ballot receipts. They took photographs and videos documenting their work. And two days later, the González campaign published the results online. The campaign posted images of tally sheets that, taken together, accounted for more than 80 percent of ballots cast. González had won in a landslide. Shortly after midnight on election night, however, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) declared that Maduro had won. He remains in office.”

To steal an election in which voters had proof of the results, incumbent President Nicolás Maduro simply relied on his tight control of Venezuelan election authorities and the military to announce fake results and get away with it. It mattered little that the electronic voting system, in its various versions, had been extensively audited for years and reflected a victory for Edmundo Gonzalez. As Corrales and Kronick conclude: "Venezuela is a dictatorship in which people count votes democratically."

The electronic voting technology was implemented in 2004 for the Presidential Recall referendum, at a time when most Venezuelan voters supported then-President Hugo Chavez. “As the beneficiary of the biggest oil windfall in the history of the Americas, Chávez had no need to steal elections.” After winning that referendum, Chavez quickly realized that an efficient and transparent electronic voting system would provide the legitimacy he craved. Consequently, from 2004 until 2017, Venezuelan elections were closely monitored by the world's most prominent election observation missions, including the Carter Center, the Organization of American States, and the European Union. These institutions repeatedly validated the legitimacy of the results. Chavez simply had the votes.

“Unlike Chávez, his handpicked successor Maduro had little luck hanging on to popular support. Yet he chose not to uproot the transparent vote-counting system. Instead, he opted to buy election-loss insurance in the form of the armed forces’ loyalty. This loyalty is the base from which Maduro has safely defied the constitution and laws, not only by his reaction to the 2024 election but also by his behavior in previous elections, by the indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Venezuelans, and by political assassinations, among other crimes.”

As inauguration day approaches in Venezuela, widespread concerns about the legitimacy of the 2024 elections continue to intensify. There is wide consensus—from sworn adversaries like the United States and Argentina to former allies such as Colombia and Brazil—that Nicolás Maduro’s claim to the presidency on January 10 is illegitimate. The electronic voting system was designed to provide copies of tally reports to all political parties, serving as evidence capable of exposing electoral fraud if it were to occur. Citizens have diligently collected and safeguarded this proof.  Despite this, Maduro has refused to accept defeat and relinquish power.

How Hand Count Harms the Electoral Process

 

Automation has woven itself into the warp and woof of modern life, with people trusting algorithms to manage everything from banking to medicine to transportation. It’s difficult to imagine why anyone would even advocate for a return to manual counting in elections. Yet, as the 2024 presidential race draws near, pockets of the country are pushing for just that: hand-counting ballots. While this may seem like a throwback to a simpler time, the reality is that hand-counting is inefficient, error-prone, and dangerously outdated. Here’s why it’s a bad idea.

Humans Are Prone to Error

Hand-counting votes might seem like a logical solution, especially for small jurisdictions. But when scaled up to the size of a state or the entire nation, the problems become glaring. Research consistently shows that human error is a major factor when it comes to manual tallying. A study by Rice University found that when participants counted just 120 ballots by hand, they only got it right 58 percent of the time. Over 40 percent of the time, they made mistakes. Imagine such error rate applied to the millions of ballots cast in a presidential election. The result would be chaos.

In Nye County, Nevada, this nightmare did become reality. In 2022, the county clerk, Mark Kampf, an election denier, attempted to discard machine counts in favor of a "parallel" hand-counting effort. By the end of the process, Kampf admitted to a staggering 25 percent error rate in the hand-count.

Volunteers, many of whom had no experience with election processes, struggled to reconcile the tallying process. The delay in the process didn’t just cause frustration; it led to legal intervention, with the state Supreme Court stepping in to stop the hand-counting due to concerns over early vote leaks.

This episode wasn’t an isolated incident, but an eye-opening example of what happens when we expect humans to do a job that’s far better suited for machines.

The Time and Cost of Manual Counting

Hand-counting is also a costly and time-consuming endeavor. It’s a far cry from the efficiency of electronic systems. In Texas’ Gillespie County, a hand-count of Republican primary ballots stretched into a grueling 24-hour marathon with 200 volunteers working through the night. Despite their best efforts, the final tally was riddled with errors that required additional corrections. The cost? Double what it would have been for machine tabulation.

Shasta County, California, offers yet another cautionary tale. In 2022, officials there explored the idea of hand-counting ballots. But after a cost analysis, the plan was shelved. Hand-counting would have required more than 1,200 additional workers and cost the county an estimated $1.6 million — a price tag that made the process economically unfeasible for the

small county (population of 180,663). At the end of the day, manual counting isn’t just logistically infeasible challenge; it’s a financial burden on taxpayers as well.

The Perils of Slow Results

The risk with hand-counting isn’t just about errors or costs; it’s about the delays in announcing election results. Every moment that goes by without a clear outcome invites uncertainty and distrust. In a world where misinformation spreads like wildfire, the longer it takes to tally votes, the more time there is for conspiracy theories to take root. The prolonged process in places like Texas and Nevada only fuels this distrust, making it harder to maintain the public’s faith in the electoral system.

The slow pace of manual counting also makes it vulnerable to interference. In the Nye County example, where election officials failed to meet deadlines due to slow counting, early vote tallies were leaked — a situation that could easily compromise election integrity. The longer the process drags on, the more room there is for outside forces to sow doubt or confusion.

Why Machines Are Better

E-voting systems, which are already in place across the United States, offer a far more efficient and reliable alternative. These systems are designed to count ballots quickly and accurately, with much less risk of human error. In fact, these systems are regularly audited through post-election checks, where small samples of ballots are manually recounted to ensure machine accuracy.

Election officials have long known that human beings are not suited for tasks that require repetitive precision. Machines, on the other hand, excel in this domain, making them a far better choice for large-scale elections. A well-designed tabulation system can count ballots faster, more accurately, and at a much lower cost than any hand-counting process could hope to achieve.

The push to hand-count ballots is a misguided effort driven more by misinformation than by logic. While manual counting might work for a few small, local elections, scaling it up is a recipe for disaster. It’s slow, expensive, and riddled with human error — exactly the opposite of what we need in a fast-paced, high-stakes democratic process.

Machine tabulation isn’t just more effective — it’s the future of voting.

If You Can’t Be Fast, Prebunk

 

Why Speed Matters for Voter Trust, but Proactive Messaging Can Save the Day

Election night in the United States has become less a climactic revelation than a prolonged waiting game. In 2020, four days passed before the winner was declared the winner, and in 2022, control of Congress remained uncertain for over a week. These delays—caused by legitimate procedures like verifying mail-in ballots—feed a growing distrust in elections. But does the delay itself erode trust, or is it the vacuum of information during this time that allows skepticism to fester?

A study of nearly 10,000 Americans offers a critical insight: delays in vote counting do harm trust, even without deliberate efforts to misinform. Yet, there’s a powerful vaccine—prebunking. By educating voters beforehand about why accurate results take time, election officials can temper much of the distrust that delays might otherwise create.

Delays in announcing election results create a fertile ground for doubt. Voters accustomed to rapid results may interpret delays as incompetence—or worse, malfeasance. In recent years, political rhetoric has amplified these concerns, with claims of fraud tied to slower counts. Even when these claims are baseless, they tap into preexisting fears, particularly among partisans.

The study reveals that simply informing voters about a delay reduces trust by 6.5 percentage points. For Republicans, already primed by narratives of election fraud, the drop is even steeper—nearly 10 percentage points. This effect occurs without any mention of fraud, underscoring that the delay itself, paired with a lack of context, is enough to seed doubt.

Prebunking—providing accurate, anticipatory information—acts as a vaccine against distrust. The study tested a 40-second video from Arizona’s Secretary of State that explained why counting ballots takes time and emphasized the importance of accuracy. The results were astounding: viewers of the video were significantly more likely to trust the election, even if they later learned about delays.

Among Republicans, who exhibited the sharpest drop in trust due to delays, prebunking restored most of their confidence. The key lies in its timing—by addressing concerns before they arise, prebunking prevents misinformation from taking root and shapes how voters interpret delays.

Much is to be done to reduce these long waits. Legislators should address policies that exacerbate delays, such as prohibiting early ballot processing. Allowing election workers to verify and count mail-in votes before Election Day can shorten the timeline and reduce opportunities for distrust.

Second, election officials must embrace prebunking as a standard practice. Simple, low-cost videos explaining the ballot-counting process can have outsized effects. These messages are especially impactful coming from trusted local officials rather than faceless institutions.

In a time where speed is often equated with competence, delayed election results will always invite scrutiny. But delays need not erode trust if voters understand their purpose. By prebunking, election officials can bridge the gap between integrity and perception, ensuring that democracy remains credible—even when it takes a little longer to count.

Just What Makes the U.S. Elections Tick?

 

Like clockwork, Americans gird for their presidential elections every four years, an impressive undertaking that combines time-honored traditions with contemporary nuances. The 2024 presidential election is the 60th presidential race since the nation’s founding in 1788. Subsequently, the U.S. has elected its president in the prescribed time without fail, a custom that has weathered time and occasional turbulence, and has given the rest of the free world an enduring gold standard in the democratic transfer of power.

Decentralized System

One curious fact is that while most countries have centralized electoral systems, the U.S. election infrastructure is a vast network of over 10,000 jurisdictions. State and local authorities are autonomous, setting their own rules, processes, and technological solutions. One may indeed wonder how this fragmented approach can even work, but an army of 800,000 poll workers ensure that millions of votes are cast and counted accurately across these jurisdictions.

Electoral College

Winning the White House requires navigating the byzantine terrain of the Electoral College, another feature unique to the U.S. With 538 electoral votes up for grabs, candidates must secure at least 270 to win. While most states are “winner-takes-all,” Maine and Nebraska are outliers, using the Congressional District Method that distributes their votes proportionally, which add more layers of complexity and unpredictability to the race.

Key Dates

The U.S. election is governed by important dates, as follows:

· Election Day: The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, an unbroken tradition since 1845.

· State Certification: Within a week to a month post-election, states finalize their results.

· Electoral College: On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors cast their votes.

· Congress Certification: January 6 sees Congress officially count and certify the electoral votes.

· Inauguration Day: January 20 marks the swearing-in of the new president, ushering in the next chapter of leadership.

Ballots

American voters today have a variety of options at the polling booths:

• Hand-Marked Paper Ballots: About 70% of voters still opt to use these ballots that blend tradition with tangible verification.

• Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs): Used by about 25% of voters, BMDs offer a digital edge to the voting process.

• Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Systems: Accounting for 5%, these systems streamline vote recording, processed primarily through optical scanners for efficiency and accuracy.

Turnout

Voter participation has been on an upswing, peaking at a 66% turnout in 2020—the highest since 1980. With some 246 million voting-age citizens, the electoral landscape is dynamic, especially with more and more states enabling same-day registration, lowering barriers and empowering the electorate.

The U.S. election process is an interesting interplay of historical precedence and adaptive innovation. Rooted deeply in the nation's democratic ideals, it remains innovative enough to meet the evolving needs of its citizens. As technology advances and societal values shift, the American electoral system remains a testament to the indomitable spirit of the United States.