3 ms·

If you read the addendum to the article they provide a perfectly plausible explanation: namely that (only) rounded percentages were provided to an intermediary

If you read the addendum to the article they provide a perfectly plausible explanation: namely that (only) rounded percentages were provided to an intermediary and from there they back-calculated the counts. Given that the US has claimed vote rigging in the past in Venezuela without evidence contrary to the determination of international observers (and has and is trying to overthrow the government to install a US-backed one) claims of vote rigging should be viewed with an enormous amount of skepticism.

tptacek 2y ago
They reported vote counts for both candidates that were fictitious. I don't understand how anybody can rationalize that. I'm no fan of Maduro but I care about the politics of the region a lot less than I do about the mathematics of the situation. It's alarming to see people try to back-rationalize how these numbers could have been legitimate because, for instance (elsewhere on this thread), "it would have been easy for them just make realistic numbers". Whatever else happened, these numbers are fictitious. If you want to come up with scenarios where the numbers don't matter, that's fine, you do you, I won't get in your way. But you can't rescue the numbers themselves.
- foobarqux 2y ago
  As I and others (including in the original article) have explained it is a plausible result to create legitimately. Given the context that unsubstantiated vote-rigging allegations have occurred in the past (and the dire consequences of destabilizing a government based on false claims) extreme skepticism is warranted.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    You can tell a story about a process that publishes these numbers in good faith, but not a story in which the vote counts reported are anything other than fictitious. It is not, in fact, an ordinary sequence of events to take true counts, work out their percentages, round them, discard the original counts, and work back new counts from the rounded percentages. Those new counts are a lie, no matter what the process was. The rest of this, I don't care.
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      The entire issue is whether it was a "good faith" mistake. If you concede that...
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I don't really think it's even a plausible mistake. Remember, to make the mistake, you have to retain the original raw vote total, but discard the original raw per-candidate totals, then recompute them from the rounded percentages and the retained original total. That doesn't make sense, for reasons having nothing to do with my level of trust in the election authority. It's several steps of extra effort for a result, read live on television by the election authority, that instantly destroys the credibility of the election.
        foobarqux 2y ago
        I explained in another comment that these are the two most important numbers in an election and the two numbers everyone cites. Moreover, you might naively assume that they capture all the information about the election because, especially if you are not a STEM major and maybe even then, you might think you can just multiply the numbers to get the per-candidate tallies. And actually for most purposes it might be fine, you rarely need to know the tally to a tenth of a percent accuracy.
        tptacek 2y ago
        Just to be clear: across the thread, you can watch the video of the election authority reading these specific numbers, with great ceremony; it's not like this is a number that bounced through reporters at news outlets or something.
        foobarqux 2y ago
        I don't know what to tell you except that typically the person doing the PR (in any country and field) often doesn't have a clue about the details of the process that generated the results they are reporting, despite any ceremony (in fact the ceremony is often intended to hide that fact). They usually have as much to do with producing the numbers as Jake Tapper does when he gets the numbers displayed on his teleprompter to read out. And even if they did it wouldn't be obvious why they would think to care about whether the tallies are accurate to a tenth of a percent if the difference between candidates was much larger than that. They would think you were mental if you started a fuss about whether the intermediate result was really or 212,345 or 212,399, given that the main point was to declare a clear winner.

tptacek 2y ago

They reported vote counts for both candidates that were fictitious. I don't understand how anybody can rationalize that. I'm no fan of Maduro but I care about the politics of the region a lot less than I do about the mathematics of the situation. It's alarming to see people try to back-rationalize how these numbers could have been legitimate because, for instance (elsewhere on this thread), "it would have been easy for them just make realistic numbers". Whatever else happened, these numbers are fictitious. If you want to come up with scenarios where the numbers don't matter, that's fine, you do you, I won't get in your way. But you can't rescue the numbers themselves.

foobarqux 2y ago
As I and others (including in the original article) have explained it is a plausible result to create legitimately. Given the context that unsubstantiated vote-rigging allegations have occurred in the past (and the dire consequences of destabilizing a government based on false claims) extreme skepticism is warranted.
- tptacek 2y ago
  You can tell a story about a process that publishes these numbers in good faith, but not a story in which the vote counts reported are anything other than fictitious. It is not, in fact, an ordinary sequence of events to take true counts, work out their percentages, round them, discard the original counts, and work back new counts from the rounded percentages. Those new counts are a lie, no matter what the process was. The rest of this, I don't care.
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    The entire issue is whether it was a "good faith" mistake. If you concede that...
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I don't really think it's even a plausible mistake. Remember, to make the mistake, you have to retain the original raw vote total, but discard the original raw per-candidate totals, then recompute them from the rounded percentages and the retained original total. That doesn't make sense, for reasons having nothing to do with my level of trust in the election authority. It's several steps of extra effort for a result, read live on television by the election authority, that instantly destroys the credibility of the election.
      - foobarqux 2y ago
        I explained in another comment that these are the two most important numbers in an election and the two numbers everyone cites. Moreover, you might naively assume that they capture all the information about the election because, especially if you are not a STEM major and maybe even then, you might think you can just multiply the numbers to get the per-candidate tallies. And actually for most purposes it might be fine, you rarely need to know the tally to a tenth of a percent accuracy.
        tptacek 2y ago
        Just to be clear: across the thread, you can watch the video of the election authority reading these specific numbers, with great ceremony; it's not like this is a number that bounced through reporters at news outlets or something.
        foobarqux 2y ago
        I don't know what to tell you except that typically the person doing the PR (in any country and field) often doesn't have a clue about the details of the process that generated the results they are reporting, despite any ceremony (in fact the ceremony is often intended to hide that fact). They usually have as much to do with producing the numbers as Jake Tapper does when he gets the numbers displayed on his teleprompter to read out. And even if they did it wouldn't be obvious why they would think to care about whether the tallies are accurate to a tenth of a percent if the difference between candidates was much larger than that. They would think you were mental if you started a fuss about whether the intermediate result was really or 212,345 or 212,399, given that the main point was to declare a clear winner.