What the CIA’s Venezuela Memo Actually Says About Voting Machines

President Trump’s July 16 address promised long-awaited proof that foreign actors had manipulated the 2020 U.S. election. Among the declassified documents released alongside the speech was a CIA assessment examining nearly two decades of intelligence on Venezuela’s electronic voting system.

Rather than validating years of allegations about voting machines, the report reaches a far narrower conclusion.

The CIA found that Venezuelan officials had developed some capability to manipulate electronic voting systems domestically, but it also concluded that there was no evidence they had done so or that such technology had been used to carry out large-scale electronic fraud in Venezuelan elections. Most significantly, it states that neither Smartmatic, the technology provider, nor the Venezuelan government had the capability to manipulate the outcome of an election outside Venezuela.

That distinction between possessing a theoretical capability and demonstrating that it was actually used is the central finding of the report, and one that was initially overshadowed by the political narrative surrounding its release. Much of the subsequent media coverage, however, has examined the document critically, challenged the claims surrounding it, and clarified what the assessment does and does not establish.

The six-page assessment, which does not identify its author or disclose the sources allegedly relied upon in preparing it, reviews intelligence collected between 2004 and 2020, a period encompassing every Venezuelan national election conducted using electronic voting. Although it is an anonymously drafted document based on anonymous sources, it does not establish, even after examining nearly two decades of reporting, that electronic vote manipulation occurred. The report notes, however, that with respect to the 2020 National Assembly election, a source judged that the Maduro government did not need to resort to electronic fraud because the opposition had largely boycotted the vote and the regime had already neutralized much of its political competition.

This does not mean Venezuela’s elections were free or democratic. For decades, international observers, including the Carter Center, repeatedly documented serious shortcomings that undermined the integrity of the electoral process. Across multiple election cycles, they cited the misuse of state resources to benefit the incumbent, the overwhelming dominance of state media and unequal access to broadcast coverage, restrictions on opposition campaigning, and the use of government institutions to tilt the playing field. More recently, the Carter Center concluded that the 2024 presidential election failed to meet international standards of electoral integrity and that the electoral authority demonstrated a clear bias in favor of the incumbent. These criticisms point to an uneven electoral environment, not to evidence that electronic voting machines altered votes.

The assessment also revisits Smartmatic’s role in Venezuela. While the company has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories, the CIA notes that Smartmatic ultimately broke with the Maduro government after publicly accusing it of inflating turnout by more than one million votes during the 2017 Constituent Assembly election and subsequently ended its operations in the country.

Perhaps the report’s clearest conclusion concerns allegations that Venezuelan voting technology was used to influence elections abroad. The CIA rejects that claim outright, concluding that neither Smartmatic nor the Venezuelan government possessed the capability to manipulate election outcomes outside Venezuela. That finding is consistent with conclusions reached by international election monitors, post-election audits, election security experts, and several U.S. courts.

The declassified memo does not paint a flattering picture of Venezuela’s electoral system. It describes an authoritarian government, political manipulation, and longstanding concerns about electoral integrity. But on the question that has fueled years of conspiracy theories, whether electronic voting machines were used to rig elections in Venezuela or abroad, the CIA’s own assessment does not deliver the evidence many expected. If anything, it points in the opposite direction.

Historic: Estonian online voting system breaches 50% mark in recent Estonia polls

 

Estonia achieved a new world record last week when 51% of voters chose to participate in the 2023 parliamentary elections via the Internet. Since its introduction in 2005 in the Baltic nation, online voting has been enjoying a steady growth.

This success of internet voting is particularly impressive in light of the major cyber-attack in 2007 that disrupted Estonia’s government services and raised concerns about the security of its digital infrastructure. Despite the harrowing episode, Estonians have taken to the idea of digital democracy, a testament to how thoroughly the Estonian government had implemented its recovery measures, including its cyber deterrence strategies.

The increasing sophistication of the technology itself is also driving adoption. Online voting systems are now even more secure, transparent, and inclusive than ever before. They use advanced encryption and other security measures to make the system more impregnable against hacking and other cyber-attacks. The technology is designed to ensure voter anonymity and to be tamper-proof.

As the technology matures, more people are realizing the immense benefits of the internet as voting modality -- flexible, accessible, inclusive, user-friendly. Anywhere there is an internet connection, citizens can vote using a device of their choice. While online voting used to only appeal to tech-savvy young people, it now is increasingly within the reach of voters of all ages and backgrounds.

The COVID-19 pandemic proved to be another accelerant to i-Voting adoption. Online voting offers a safe and convenient alternative to in-person voting, a fact that has made it more attractive to citizens who may be hesitant to participate in traditional voting systems during a widespread health crisis.

The 2023 Estonia experience is a strong tell for the readiness of voters to embrace even more modern voting modalities such as the internet. Despite important questions around security and accessibility that need to be addressed, election commissions around the world would do well to take a page from the success of Estonia and start exploring how online voting technology could help them conduct better elections.

Amid intimidation, Brazilian Congress foils Bolsonaro’s plan to tinker with e-voting system

 

In a scathing rebuke to President Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s lower house of Congress rejected a Bolsonaro-backed bill seeking to add paper ballots to the country’s all-digital election system.

The defiant vote took place amid saber-rattling by the Brazilian military, which paraded tanks in the streets of the capital city of Brasilia, reminiscent of the country’s military dictatorship from 1964-1985.

Senator Simone Tebet decried the show of force, saying that “tanks in the street, precisely on the day of the vote on the paper ballot amendment, is real, clear and unconstitutional intimidation.”

The proposed amendment died after failing to muster the 308 votes needed to pass, getting only 229 yes votes and 218 no votes.

Earlier, Bolsonaro launched a blistering attack on the voting system, calling it susceptible to fraud, without citing evidence. He warned that elections will not be held next year “if they are not clean and democratic.”

Brazil’s electronic voting system has been in use by the country in all elections, plebiscites, and referendums since 2006, including the 2016 polls which swept Bolsonaro into power.

The populist president is demanding for the adoption of a hybrid system using printed ballots that can be counted in case of disputes. Critics, however, fear that this regression to a manual system would undermine the credibility of the existing all-electronic system.

Critics are wary of Bolsonaro’s motives, suspecting that the sweeping and unsubstantiated claims are laying the grounds for claims of fraud in case the incumbent loses. The 66-year-old president’s popularity is at a record low and is in danger of losing to left leaning Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who is topping the surveys.

Observers are finding similarities between Bolsonaro’s move to that of former US President Donald Trump, who months before the elections in November 2020 had claimed in speeches, tweets, and interviews that he would be cheated, in case he lost.

The Brazilian Congress’ vote comes on the heels of a strongly-worded statement issued by a group of current and former judges warning of chaos if Brazil goes back to its manual counting of 150 million printed ballots.

Bolsonaro has been drawing flak for his anemic pandemic response which has resulted in Brazil registering the second-highest number of deaths in the world.

Anatomy of election fraud: How manual counting abetted poll-rigging in Belarus

 

Kommersant Photo / Polaris/Newscom

In a massive outpouring of indignation, hundreds of thousands of protesters have occupied the streets of Belarus demanding the resignation of President Alexander Lukashenko, who was recently elected for a sixth term in an election tainted by allegations of rigging.

Yet even as the high-stakes political drama plays out before the watchful eyes of the world, the nuts and bolts of how the alleged rigging was executed is likewise worthy of investigation.

The European Union has already rejected the results of the elections and is set to impose sanctions. Steffen Seibert, German Federal Government’s Press and Information Officer, declared that the minimum standards for democratic elections were not observed during the vote and believes the claims of the opposition about election fraud.

The Belarus election fraud debacle throws into sharp focus the inherent vulnerability of hand-counted elections to manipulation and the damage it brings to the integrity of the whole electoral process. Add this to the fact that manual elections are notorious for its lack of mechanisms to audit the results and you have a perfect storm for massive electoral fraud.

Ihar Barsuk, who served as a precinct election commission during the presidential election, revealed exactly how fraud was committed in his precinct. “According to my calculations, Lukashenka received about 10% of the vote. I do not remember the details but about 9-10% were stolen from opposition candidates. Just like that, in front of the entire commission and observers,” said Barsuk. Barsuk went on to say that commission members did not get to sign most of ballot papers, which raises serious questions on the chain of custody. But the major violations took place after the vote count where, according to Barsuk, his numbers “were very different to the results voiced by chairman of the commission.”

Outraged, Barsuk requested for a recount which the Commission granted. The recount revealed the discrepancy between Barsuk’s count and that of the chairman, which prompted correction of the official count. Barsuk made sure to document the attempted fraud by writing a note in the final protocol.

An election observer stationed in a Minsk precinct, Zmicier Sauka describes how the elections at his station were rigged. He claimed that 13 of the 15 observers were from the Belarusian Republican Youth Union and similar government organizations, precluding an independent observation of the proceedings.

Also, Sauka observed how he counted 710 people drop ballots in but was surprised to see the official tally at 1,046 voters, noting the difference of 336 “pseudovotes.” Worse, he noted that early voting votes for opposition candidate Karatkevich, which totaled 36, were not counted in the official tally which only reflected the in-person votes.

He believes that one person was enough to perpetuate election fraud in the precinct and laid the blame on the commission chair – the head teacher of secondary school 28 in Minsk.

The same fatal flaws of manual elections made evident in Belarus has provided the impetus for a growing number of countries to modernize their electoral processes and adopt automated election systems in one form or another. It remains to be seen how the Belarus will resolve the political upheaval. Either way, the international community is expected to put more and more pressure on the landlocked Eastern European country to fix its broken election system.

Questions hound purchase of new voting machines in Venezuela

  

When 48,000 voting machines burned in a mysterious fire that razed the warehouses of Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) earlier this year, rumors flew thick and fast that it had something to do with the December parliamentary elections. The timing of the fire seemed suspicious to many as it left the CNE with very little wiggle room to select, purchase, and implement a new voting system.

Yet, as if on cue, news that the CNE acquired 15,000 new China-made machines have recently surfaced even as the circumstances around the fire is still unknown.

Alarmingly, the purchase seems to be clouded with questions. Chief of which is the criteria used to arrive at the decision to purchase the technology from an Argentine company named Exclé. There are no records of the company ever manufacturing a voting machine, not even in Argentina. Many have also observed the lack of transparency on the cost of the machines and the software they will use.

In the center of the controversy is the CNE, where shadiness seems to have been reigning supreme. The lack of transparency in crucial decisions made at the helm of the CNE prompted Director Rafael Simón Jiménez to resign only two months after being sworn in. Among the many irregularities he exposed as he exited the post was the direct purchase of the machines from ExCle.

Recently, the popular Venezuelan news portal Efecto Cocuyo ran an exposé on ExClé’s numerous involvement with the government of Nicolas Maduro Moros which include providing tech support for Bank of Venezuela and the Venezuelan cryptocurrency "Petro.” The company also provides biometric technology for Carnet de la Patria, or the homeland card.

These dealings led former Governor Carlos Tablante to raise in a Twitter thread the issue of conflict of interest. How indeed can a company with numerous lucrative dealings with a government be expected to count votes fairly?

The director of the Venezuelan Electoral Observatory (OEV), Carlos Medina, also expressed concern about the new purchase of voting machines claiming it "has not been very transparent". For years, OEV had been a staunch advocate of election automation. Yet concerns about the opaqueness surrounding the new technology have made the group question the credibility and legitimacy of future elections.

In 2017, automated voting company Smartmatic broke relations with the CNE after denouncing that the poll body had published results different from those counted by its system. Hastily, Exclé took over to organize the 2018 presidential elections, which was roundly condemned as illegitimate by the Lima Group, the Organization of American States, and the international community at large.

To make sure that everyone knows that it had severed any and all relationship with the CNE since August 2, 2017, Smartmatic issued a statement underscoring its public break with Venezuelan poll body. The statement also said explicitly stated that the break meant that CNE cannot anymore use the company’s software, and that the software to be used in the 2020 election with new machines purchased from another supplier is not theirs. Time is running out for Venezuela. As doubts grow, the hope of having credible elections to quell its roiling political environment dims.

Switzerland cancels online voting pilot

The Swiss government has suspended the use of online voting just months ahead of this year’ October parliamentary elections. The reason: technical flaws in the two e-voting systems currently in use.

Following a cross-party campaign, critics have announced they will be proposing a five-year moratorium on e-voting trials. The setback is concerning. Stalling technology development could prove detrimental to election participation, as many voters had grown accustomed to the convenience of online voting.

Even though the Swiss Federal Council has been a champion of e-voting, and has trialed remote electronic polling across multiple cantons for the past fifteen years, the deferral should not come as a surprise.

A similar situation occurred back in 2015, when the Swiss government decided to deny access to e-voting technology in nine cantons before the parliamentary polls.

The e-voting context is relevant

·      Only about 2% of Swiss voters cast their ballots online. The Federal Council proposed (2018) to make e-voting a third regular voting channel, alongside in-person and postal votes.

·      While the Council has suggested that two-thirds of cantons should offer it, opponents launched a people's initiative asking for a 5-year moratorium on e-voting and ongoing trials.

·      Over 90% of voters in Switzerland vote by mail. A more common voting option than in most countries around the world. Public trust in the postal service and other voting providers is usually at high levels.

·      A technical flaw concerning universal verifiability was discovered in the e-voting system that the postal service planned to roll out in four cantons for this year’s parliamentary elections.

·      Swiss Post acknowledged that the error in the source code had already been identified in 2017, and pledged to develop a new, updated version available from 2020. Regretfully, the correction was not fully implemented by the technology provider.

·      The government and the cantonal authorities are currently evaluating possible ways to move forward.

Affected audiences

The government resolution to drop online voting directly affects the expatriate community. The Organisation of the Swiss Abroad (OSA) has requested the government to reconsider the decision and has taken a leading role in the introduction of electronic voting.

Over 180,000 Swiss expatriates are eligible to take part in votes. They usually vote by post, but the organization has denounced that the envelopes often arrive too late, violating their right to fully participate in the elections. Remo Gysin, OSA President, has called for online voting to be made available for all Swiss expatriates by 2021.

On the other hand, other stakeholders affected by the decision are the cantons which were subscribed e-voting. For instance, Fribourg, Neuchâtel, and Thurgau will seek compensation after spending money on making the system ready to voters in the October elections.