Academics from Harvard University have conducted statistical tests on the output of voting machines and concluded that there is less than a 1% chance that their results could have been generated in any way other than massive voting fraud.
Of course, we shouldn’t get too excited about this right now. For one thing, their work has been called into question. And for another thing, they were talking about the Venezuelan referendum. But I’m certainly not above using cheap shock tactics to draw attention to a really interesting piece of statistical argumentation.
It’s one of those cases where there are points on both sides, and both sides have, extraordinarily, managed to treat each other with respect and not throw around “Devastating Critiques” of each other. I think that Mark Weisbrot has the best of it; his analysis of the audited “clean” sample shows the same result as the allegedly “dirty” sample. The only way that one could have got that result fraudulently would rely on a level of compromise of the Carter Centre’s random selection apparatus that seems very implausible.
But Rigobon and Hausman are correct to say that it is troubling, to say the least, that the audit sample shows a very different relationship between polling station size and the “Si” vote; I’ve been thinking about it off and on for a month and I can’t come up with any reason why that might be. If you’ve got some spare time on your hands (and if you’re a Democrat, you do), both papers are worth a read, if only to clear your palate after the crap that’s been thrown around at the Lancet study (btw, on that subject, I will post more, but in the meantime, nice one, Chris Lightfoot).
(PS: I misspell Rigobon’s name out of ignorance of how to create accents in HTML rather than any other kind)
It doesn’t help that much to advance the case for fraud that the “academic” of Harvard is no other than Ricardo Hausmann, former Minister of Planning of Venezuela and member of the Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela during the years of the corrupt presidency of Carlos Andres Perez, tried and sentenced and presently a fugitive of justice (although I don’t know that Hausmann himself has anything to do with the corruption). This is the same guy who calls Chavez anti-democratic every few minutes while at the same time supporting every coup d’etat attempt that appears in front of his eyes. I heard him a few times and he seems pathologically consumed with hatred for Chavez.
I’m not too impressed with either the paper or the critique.
1. It seems to me that the government’s refusal to do a full recount is damning.
2. HR propose the following model for fraud:
a. Polling stations are divided at random into two categories: altered and unaltered.
b. Altered polling stations’ results are changed such that, when they are summed with the unaltered polling stations, No wins.
c. At audit time, only ballots from unaltered polling stations are used.
WRT correctly criticize this model on the grounds that results from the unaltered polling stations match the declared national result; if the declared result were in fact nearly 20 points off the actual result, we would not expect a random sample of unaltered polling stations to so closely match the declared result (it is much more likely that it would match the actual result).
But what if HR was sloppy? What if unaltered polling stations were not chosen at random? Instead, when polling stations reported in, a sample summing to the declared national result was chosen to be unaltered. This is possible if the distribution of Yes and No votes was not uniform (likely).
The US analogy (assuming the Republicans wanted to rig this election to produce a 59-41 result, and that we used electronic voting more-or-less everywhere) would be to choose unaltered results from mostly red areas.
Did this happen in Venezuela? I don’t know if politics is as divided by geography as it is in the US. So, I can’t evaluate this claim. But for HM to suggest that the unaltered stations were chosen at random was sloppy; for WRT to ignore this was uncharitable.
Unless I misunderstand both papers, which is always possible.
Oops, I’m an idiot. WRT do consider and reject that.
Oops, I’m an idiot. WRT do consider and reject that.
Oops, I’m an idiot. WRT do consider and reject that.
But what if HR was sloppy? What if unaltered polling stations were not chosen at random? Instead, when polling stations reported in, a sample summing to the declared national result was chosen to be unaltered.
Yeh, H&R suggested this in comments on the CEPR paper. But in order to do this, Chavez would have needed to know that the “correct” sample of clean stations would be produced by the Carter Centre’s random number generator. Even if they could have controlled the “seed” of the PRNG, selecting a seed to give a particular desired output from one of those things is a task about as difficult as cracking a triple-DES encryption (mainly because it’s a similar algorithm at work)
I’m not convinced that it’s as difficult as cracking 3DES. For one, the input to the PRNG is a 1-8 digit number, so at most, 30 bits. 3DES is, of course, equivalent to 112 bits.
And HR suggest that the government did choose the seed.
But I think the statistical argument of WRT suggests that unless those particular precincts were chosen extremely carefully, among populations which had had massive political shifts over the last four years, there’s no way that could have happened.
So, WRT probably have the best of it.
Pardon me, I haven’t seen the paper but from a statistical point of view it is hard to imagine a design that would allow you to conclude that the results reported by the machines had to be fraud. It’s just not that kind of a problem. Sounds like snake oil to me
Also, Chavez achieved what we didn’t: a landslide of popular support for his presidency in which the venezuelan people reaffirmed its democracy in the face of big media, the banks and the US government
I don’t understand the point about random-number generators. Note,
“In this sense, it has to be pointed out that the National Electoral Council refused to make use of the random numbers-generating program proposed by the Carter Center and insisted on the use of their own program installed in their own computer.”
If this is true, there’s no question of trying to find a seed which will produce a given sequence. If the RNG is under the control of the bad guys, they can design it to produce a sequence that they want.
The fact that the Carter center audited source code and an executable for a RNG doesn’t tell us anything about the program which was actually run to pick the sample (see this Ken Thompson paper if you don’t see the problem, though a much simpler deception could have served in this case).
Note, of course, that this is exactly the same problem as direct-recording electronic voting has itself.
I haven’t read the Hausmann/Rigabón paper in enough detail to give an opinion on whether they’re right or not, but if the question of fraud hinges on the particular configuration and design of the RNG used to pick the audited sample (as it would in the H&R model) and the program was under the control of the government, then the audit is not trustworthy.
Good point Chris; I had previously assumed that Chavez only had control over the RNG output through choice of seed.
Does anyone know if anyone is analyzing the election data along these lines, i.e., seeing whether counties with electronic voting have different patterns (oh, say, higher proportion of votes for B/Ch) than other similar counties? Does anyone else suspect that perhaps vote counts were adjusted? Or am I just a victim of blue-sate paranoia?
It may not be massive, but the cumulative effect of things like this: http://www.fatmixx.com/index.php?p=1412 are pretty wearing on prospective voters. Along with a new infrastructure for conveying a message to voters, we need to work on improving our election system itself.
Greg Palast has had a go, treating a perennial and known serious problem (the racial profile of spoiled ballots in the USA) with his usual combination of tact and nuance.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review