Expert advice on how to fight Fake News

The term ‘Fake News’ was named Word of the Year 2017 by the Collins Dictionary, after it saw an unprecedented usage increase 365% since 2016. Unfortunately, it was the 2016 US Presidential election that motivated this avalanche of fake news created to sway public opinion, favor some candidates and sow discord went viral.

A recent study conducted by the Politics Department at Princeton University revealed that one in four Americans read at least one false news story purposely fabricated to mislead. Understandably, the magnitude of this problem has election officials looking for ways to create appropriate conditions for future elections. Having correct information available for all voters is a crucial condition for all free, fair and transparent elections.

Luckily, non-governmental organizations, academics, journalists and communications experts are now joining election officials in trying to educate the population on how to detect and combat fake news.

Here are three tips recommended to stop the spread of false information:

-          Identify the source and follow your instinct: In this digital era, thousands of web pages and social media accounts are created each day. Therefore, when you read an article, you must check the reliability and trajectory of the journalist, “influencer” or media outlet.

In case you do not recognize who is behind the piece, it is always good to google the headline or part of the story to see if it has been replicated in other reliable outlets.

-          Follow the Three S rule: Before sharing a piece of news, first STOP to think if the title of the article is relevant. It may be pure clickbait material. Then, do your SEARCH on the author of the article to verify its veracity. And last but not least, SUBSCRIBE to newsletters or bulletins of reliable media to receive truthful and accurate information.

-          Use tools for fact check: Given how fake news have proliferated, and the impact they have had, many fact-checking organizations or media outlets have emerged. Factcheck.org, Politifact and Snopes can come handy for those who want to know if something is real or the product of a Fake News laboratory.

In addition to these tips, it is important to keep in mind that, during a campaign period, you should always keep an eye on social networks, making a lists of verified accounts of political parties, media and candidates to follow.

And one last recommendation. Do not get carried away by what others share. Develop your own database. By doing so, not only will you stay safe and informed, but you will educate others by sharing truthful and reliable news.

Controversial elections in Honduras leave fraud allegations, deaths and uncertainty

The Honduran presidential elections held in November 2017 resulted in a wave of protests - with more than 33 deaths -, fraud allegations and the demand of the Organization of American States (OAS) to repeat the election process.

Initial results showed Salvador Nasralla leading the vote count. The lead was substantial enough that a magistrate on the Supreme Electoral Tribunal estimated victory by Nasralla, characterizing his lead as “irreversible”. However, suspicions arose when the trend was suddenly reversed.

The observation mission of the Organization of American States (OAS) has basically declared the election to be null. To investigate what had happened, OAS commissioned a data analysis from Georgetown University professor Irfan Nooruddin. In his report, which reviewed the sudden change in the results, he states: “the difference in vote patterns between early- and late-reporting polling stations shows marked changes that raise questions as to the accuracy of the late-reported returns... The differences are too large to be generated by chance and are not easily explicable, raising doubts as to the veracity of the overall result”.

Nooruddin goes to conclude: "Based on this analysis, I would reject the premise that the National Party won the election legitimately."

Shortly after the election, a citizen movement was created through social media to call up demonstrations, not only in the capital Tegucigalpa but in different cities of the country. These protests led to violence and at least 33 deaths.

In spite of the street protest and the strong reaction of international observation missions, authorities took 21 days to declare incumbent Juan Orlando Hernández, as the winner.

The recommendations of the OAS international observers to repeat the elections were ignored. Furthermore, the Government advanced a bill to regulate information on social networks and minimize citizen mobilizations.

The political and social future of Honduras is now in the air. How will Honduras embark on new election processes after authorities refused to take into account the demands of opposition parties, election observation missions and the international community?

When elections in Venezuela stopped being trustworthy

On August 2^nd, 2017, Smartmatic, the company in charge of election automation in Venezuela, denounced that the nation’s National Electoral Council (CNE, by its acronym in Spanish) gave different results than those shown by the system. Since then, there have been two more elections and a third one is scheduled, where the nation’s president, 2,436 councilors and 233 members of regional legislative councils are to be elected.  

During the elections for the National Constituent Assembly on July 30^th, 2017, the president of the CNE received a voter turnout figure, and simply announced another.  Simple as that. That is how the Venezuelan government manipulated election results.  The software in the machines was not hacked, and neither were the transmission process or the counting.  The tallying system gave a number, the government announced theirs.  The opposition had decided to abstain from these elections, so there were no witnesses in the tallying centres.

Venezuelan elections have been under a microscope for years. Both government and opposition had won and lost using the same voting system, and there had never been a physical, printed voting record that failed to match the electronic ones published on the electoral body’s website.  The accusations by losing candidates never prospered.  Before, audits prior to the voting always showed the system did what it was supposed to, and audits following the voting confirmed the results to be exact. 

Everything changed in the October 2017 Regional Elections and the Municipal Elections later that same year.  During the former, 11 printed voting records failed to match the digital records published online by the CNE.  These 11 records were manually entered into the tallying system. When a voting machine cannot transmit due to technical or connectivity issues, the voting records are entered manually into the system.  Then, what does it mean when it is the manually loaded records that do not match? It means that tampering the automated system is impossible, and that every vote entered is counted exactly as it was cast. In the Municipal Elections, some states had more votes than voters, with totals that adding up to more than 100% of the votes.

For these upcoming Presidential Elections in May 2018, there was an “Agreement over Electoral Guarantees” signed by representatives of a few political parties and the National Electoral Council.

This agreement contemplates 11 alleged electoral guarantees. However, most of these are elements already present in the Venezuelan law governing elections.  There are two of them regarding the voting process: one, to undo the relocation of polling centres that took place in 2017, and two, to carry out all the technical audits that had been taking place until the Parliamentary Elections. 

As of today, having audits does not guarantee that results will not be tampered with, as it happened in Bolivar state, or that candidates will be allowed to have witnesses in the tallying rooms at the CNE to make sure the results announced match the records in the system. 

In the 2012 and 2015 elections, the CNE carried out between 12 and 15 audits in a period of 55 days.  For the elections this May, the CNE hopes to perform 14 audits (an additional two) in a mere 31 days.

The absence of Smartmatic as a technology provider, the accusations of tampering of the vote turnout for the National Consitutent Assembly, and the manual alteration of the results in Bolivar state cast a shadow over the performance of the automated voting system. This, on a much different level than before, where the main issue were the unfair advantages the government gave itself, not electronic fraud. 

Questions loom over Venezuela’s electronic voting system

The recent regional elections held on October 15 in Venezuela, have sparked a new wave of controversy around Venezuelan elections and the legitimacy of its results.

Andres Velasquez, who was the opposition candidate for the southern state of Bolivar, is crying foul and claims to have physical copies of all tally reports to back his claim. According to Velasquez, the printed machine tallying reports show thousands of more votes for him than the National Elections Council (CNE in Spanish) website shows.

As reported by Anatoly Kurmanaev for the Wall Street Journal, Luis Lander, director of the Venezuelan Electoral Observatory, a nonpartisan group in Caracas that tracks elections stated “There’s clear manipulation here,” after he examined voting-machine receipts that the opposition alliance posted online. “The results were altered to allow the losing candidate to be declared the winner,” he added.

Although the evidence presented seems conclusive, the truth is that fraud accusations should not come as a surprise. “Crying fraud is an extremely familiar routine to the Venezuelan opposition, and one that it has pursued at virtually every election since 1999,” wrote Rachael Boothroyd Rojas on venezuelanalysis.com.

David Smilde, a US scholar who has followed the political struggles in Venezuela, recently penned an article asking authorities and opposition parties come up with good answers to explain what has transpired through the press. He emphasized that “Both the CNE and the MUD have the ability to significantly clarify what happened and they should do so as soon as possible.”

Describing the electronic voting system used in Venezuela, and how easy could be to determine who is telling the truth, Smilde commented “Venezuela’s voting system has a solid system of audits and checks. Fantasies of secret tabulation rooms that alter the vote can be set aside. Each voter who votes, gets a paper receipt saying who she voted for, and then deposits it in a box. After the elections, the citizens who are working at the tables, representing all parties, count the ballots. Then they check their tabulation with the act that is printed out from the machine. They sign off on it and the parties’ witnesses get a copy of it. These acts can then be compared to the electoral tallies presented by the National Electoral Council (CNE) on their web page, and any fraud can be detected.”

Further complicating matters, during the National Constituency election held in August 2017, the CEO of Smartmatic, the company that had provided the electronic voting solution for all election since 2004, denounced that the turnout figures published by authorities had been manipulated by at least one million. Authorities disregarded the accusation as pure nonsense and proceeded to organize these latest elections with new technology providers.

Francisco Toro, from Caracas Chronicle, thinks “Venezuela’s machine-based electoral system has many, deep problems, but one key redeeming feature: it can be audited.” Questions are looming over Venezuela’s electronic voting system. It is time to act, and audit the tallying reports to find out what happened and clear all doubts. The future of a nation formerly regarded as a democracy beacon is at stake.