5 ms·

There is a literal website posted by the opposition. 1. Aggregated reports: https://resultadosconvzla.com/ https://resultadosconvzla.com/ 2. Raw images of the

There is a literal website posted by the opposition. 1. Aggregated reports: https://resultadosconvzla.com/ https://resultadosconvzla.com/ 2. Raw images of the voting records: https://resultadospresidencialesvenezuela2024.com/ https://resultadospresidencialesvenezuela2024.com/ The second requires a Venezuelan ID as input as it will identify the specific voting record for the person. I gathered all the records and put them in an archive: https://public.akdev.xyz/ganovzla2024.tar.gz https://public.akdev.xyz/ganovzla2024.tar.gz The voting records are present, you can feel free to analyze them. Someone already did analyze the data here: https://x.com/rusosnith/status/1818457492893884814?t=BtVOVhDMajfutRMtMrkZ2A&s=19 https://x.com/rusosnith/status/1818457492893884814?t=BtVOVhD...

culi 2y ago
Exactly my point, thanks! This form of analysis has been used to verify the validity of past election results. All were within 2 points of forecasts based on this data. We still don't have enough results to do this type of analysis yet, but we surely will eventually. The group that did the analysis you're linking is AltaVista. They are linked with the opposition, but their same analysis validated past results. Their current analysis obviously doesn't but they also admit that their sample is biased towards anti-Maduro centers. My main point in responding to GP was to point out that it'd be impossible for Maduro to prevent this type of independent analysis
- berdario 2y ago
  https://resultadosconvzla.com/ https://resultadosconvzla.com/ Claims Actas digitalizadas: 24.576 (81,85%) > Their current analysis obviously doesn't but they also admit that their sample is biased towards anti-Maduro centers. If that's true, 81% of the total would already be quite representative (and less subject to be biased by anti-Maduro constituencies being overrrepresented)
  - culi 2y ago
    These are forecasts based on pictures of ballot tallies. And this website is made by the opposition. I'm not saying they're wrong, I just think it's silly to take their word for it instead of just waiting until we have more data and these results have been looked over by independent parties
    - akdev1l 2y ago
      Those are not “forecasts”. Those are actual counts based on the records they have (80% of all records). There is no forecasting being done, they simply counted the votes from the voting records.
      - culi 2y ago
        They have to forecast to make up for records they do not have. Otherwise they can just pick the 80% that are most likely to vote the way they want
        tptacek 2y ago
        It's very unclear what you're trying to say here. Nobody is talking about a forecasted 100%-of-returns outcome. They're talking about the 80%-of-returns number that the ECN announced.
        culi 2y ago
        I'm talking about the 81% that the opposition party claims to have in ballot receipts
berdario 2y ago
I was curious to understand what exactly are those raw images of the voting records. Apparently the ID of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_William_Saab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_William_Saab is publicly known ( 8.459.301 ) So, thanks to that I've been able to check the "acta de escrutinio" of the El Carmen paroquia... That indeed looks plausible, but do we have any Venezuelan here that can corroborate that this website shows the same "acta de escrutinio" that locals can request from their polling station? I mean, allegedly this is a grassroots effort with all of the acta painstakingly aggregated... But the website is controlled by the opposition, so they could've just been made up (just like the numbers from CNE could be made up)
- akdev1l 2y ago
  The locals probably can’t request shit because those records are in custody of the military. Many Venezuelan people have verified their records. Including the “witnesses” who have signed all the records. The signatures can be seen on the pictures. There’s nothing stopping anyone from doing OCR on the images to extract the count and just do the math. (Which is what I am doing but not as easy as it sounds)
  - berdario 2y ago
    > Many Venezuelan people have verified their records. Including the “witnesses” who have signed all the records. The signatures can be seen on the pictures The thing is that these witness signatures could be forged (together with the tallies) I assume that with "verified their records" you mean exactly what I'm asking for (but since I don't know any Venezuelan living in Venezuela, I haven't seen anyone verifying that stuff)
  - jose_zap 2y ago
    There is no need to do any difficult OCR, the QR code contains the tally in machine-readable format. You just need a phone and copy the result to a csv file
    - akdev1l 2y ago
key1234 2y ago
How did Astavista gather these records? If they are submitted by the voters and if the research group is opposition funded, it could very well be that more opposition voters submitted? Genuine question because this is such a huge discrepancy and surely if its true, Maduro can't get away with it and he must know.
- jose_zap 2y ago
  The electoral system in Venezuela mandates electronic voting. By law, each machine must print its results before sending the tally to a central server. Multiple copies are printed. One goes to the CNE, another goes to the military, and several others are given to witnesses representing different political parties. Each copy must be signed by all the witnesses, including the representative from the CNE. The opposition candidate gathered as much as 80% of the total printouts and made them available for everyone to see and analyze. Printouts can be validated because the result is digitally signed with a key that is known to the political parties and other organizations. The signature is at the end of each printout.
aspensmonster 2y ago
Long time no see, HN! As a techie-turned-communist I'm vested in this story, so I decided to follow along: https://x.com/aspensmonster/status/1818859550516129814 https://x.com/aspensmonster/status/1818859550516129814 I was able to follow their guide to scrape the resultadosconvzla.com website, and ended up with ~22,000 JPGs of receipts. A random sampling of them shows that, for the most part, they contain no actual inked signatures and/or fingerprints that would be present on the receipts signed by the poll workers. Some of the receipts do have signatures and/or fingerprints, but not most of them. Most of them look like this: https://octodon.social/deck/@aspensmonster/112884917622194467 https://octodon.social/deck/@aspensmonster/11288491762219446... I.e., it looks like they asked a voting machine to print out a receipt, and it did. Then, they scanned the receipt in and put it online. The important part though, where individual poll workers scattered across hundreds of stations all over the country all sign their receipts in ink, for comparison against the computerized signatures gathered beforehand, does not appear to have happened for most of the receipts that the opposition has in possession. I'm frustrated that the Maduro government has released highly improbable numbers. And I'm frustrated that it (certainly appears that) the opposition doesn't have nearly as much validated data as they claim to have. My gut tells me that the CNE got hacked, that the results are thus untrustworthy, and that they'll need to re-run the election, preferably by pen and paper. But the Maduro administration didn't want to face up to that fact and so, made up numbers instead -__-
- counterpointus 2y ago
  As is explained in detail here: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1YpKklRpzAyGj https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1YpKklRpzAyGj The signatures on the Actas are digital, not ink. The testigos sign on the voting machine's screen. The machine will print out the receipt once the witnesses agree to the electronic count against their tallies of the individual paper votes. After printing, the machine goes online to transmit the electronic results, which can always be audited by the physical results. What's more likely, that the opposition forged tens of thousands of receipts in less than a day, or a dictator reported fake results to remain in power? Receipts, mind you, copies of which are given to each witness from the top-three political parties, at any point now could have been called into question but not a single counter example has been shown. Please don't drink their "North Macedonia" hack kool-aid.

culi 2y ago

Exactly my point, thanks! This form of analysis has been used to verify the validity of past election results. All were within 2 points of forecasts based on this data. We still don't have enough results to do this type of analysis yet, but we surely will eventually. The group that did the analysis you're linking is AltaVista. They are linked with the opposition, but their same analysis validated past results. Their current analysis obviously doesn't but they also admit that their sample is biased towards anti-Maduro centers. My main point in responding to GP was to point out that it'd be impossible for Maduro to prevent this type of independent analysis

berdario 2y ago
https://resultadosconvzla.com/ https://resultadosconvzla.com/ Claims Actas digitalizadas: 24.576 (81,85%) > Their current analysis obviously doesn't but they also admit that their sample is biased towards anti-Maduro centers. If that's true, 81% of the total would already be quite representative (and less subject to be biased by anti-Maduro constituencies being overrrepresented)
- culi 2y ago
  These are forecasts based on pictures of ballot tallies. And this website is made by the opposition. I'm not saying they're wrong, I just think it's silly to take their word for it instead of just waiting until we have more data and these results have been looked over by independent parties
  - akdev1l 2y ago
    Those are not “forecasts”. Those are actual counts based on the records they have (80% of all records). There is no forecasting being done, they simply counted the votes from the voting records.
    - culi 2y ago
      They have to forecast to make up for records they do not have. Otherwise they can just pick the 80% that are most likely to vote the way they want
      - tptacek 2y ago
        It's very unclear what you're trying to say here. Nobody is talking about a forecasted 100%-of-returns outcome. They're talking about the 80%-of-returns number that the ECN announced.
        culi 2y ago
        I'm talking about the 81% that the opposition party claims to have in ballot receipts

berdario 2y ago

I was curious to understand what exactly are those raw images of the voting records. Apparently the ID of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_William_Saab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_William_Saab is publicly known ( 8.459.301 ) So, thanks to that I've been able to check the "acta de escrutinio" of the El Carmen paroquia... That indeed looks plausible, but do we have any Venezuelan here that can corroborate that this website shows the same "acta de escrutinio" that locals can request from their polling station? I mean, allegedly this is a grassroots effort with all of the acta painstakingly aggregated... But the website is controlled by the opposition, so they could've just been made up (just like the numbers from CNE could be made up)

akdev1l 2y ago
The locals probably can’t request shit because those records are in custody of the military. Many Venezuelan people have verified their records. Including the “witnesses” who have signed all the records. The signatures can be seen on the pictures. There’s nothing stopping anyone from doing OCR on the images to extract the count and just do the math. (Which is what I am doing but not as easy as it sounds)
- berdario 2y ago
  > Many Venezuelan people have verified their records. Including the “witnesses” who have signed all the records. The signatures can be seen on the pictures The thing is that these witness signatures could be forged (together with the tallies) I assume that with "verified their records" you mean exactly what I'm asking for (but since I don't know any Venezuelan living in Venezuela, I haven't seen anyone verifying that stuff)
- jose_zap 2y ago
  There is no need to do any difficult OCR, the QR code contains the tally in machine-readable format. You just need a phone and copy the result to a csv file
  - akdev1l 2y ago

key1234 2y ago

How did Astavista gather these records? If they are submitted by the voters and if the research group is opposition funded, it could very well be that more opposition voters submitted? Genuine question because this is such a huge discrepancy and surely if its true, Maduro can't get away with it and he must know.

jose_zap 2y ago
The electoral system in Venezuela mandates electronic voting. By law, each machine must print its results before sending the tally to a central server. Multiple copies are printed. One goes to the CNE, another goes to the military, and several others are given to witnesses representing different political parties. Each copy must be signed by all the witnesses, including the representative from the CNE. The opposition candidate gathered as much as 80% of the total printouts and made them available for everyone to see and analyze. Printouts can be validated because the result is digitally signed with a key that is known to the political parties and other organizations. The signature is at the end of each printout.

aspensmonster 2y ago

Long time no see, HN! As a techie-turned-communist I'm vested in this story, so I decided to follow along: https://x.com/aspensmonster/status/1818859550516129814 https://x.com/aspensmonster/status/1818859550516129814 I was able to follow their guide to scrape the resultadosconvzla.com website, and ended up with ~22,000 JPGs of receipts. A random sampling of them shows that, for the most part, they contain no actual inked signatures and/or fingerprints that would be present on the receipts signed by the poll workers. Some of the receipts do have signatures and/or fingerprints, but not most of them. Most of them look like this: https://octodon.social/deck/@aspensmonster/112884917622194467 https://octodon.social/deck/@aspensmonster/11288491762219446... I.e., it looks like they asked a voting machine to print out a receipt, and it did. Then, they scanned the receipt in and put it online. The important part though, where individual poll workers scattered across hundreds of stations all over the country all sign their receipts in ink, for comparison against the computerized signatures gathered beforehand, does not appear to have happened for most of the receipts that the opposition has in possession. I'm frustrated that the Maduro government has released highly improbable numbers. And I'm frustrated that it (certainly appears that) the opposition doesn't have nearly as much validated data as they claim to have. My gut tells me that the CNE got hacked, that the results are thus untrustworthy, and that they'll need to re-run the election, preferably by pen and paper. But the Maduro administration didn't want to face up to that fact and so, made up numbers instead -__-

counterpointus 2y ago
As is explained in detail here: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1YpKklRpzAyGj https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1YpKklRpzAyGj The signatures on the Actas are digital, not ink. The testigos sign on the voting machine's screen. The machine will print out the receipt once the witnesses agree to the electronic count against their tallies of the individual paper votes. After printing, the machine goes online to transmit the electronic results, which can always be audited by the physical results. What's more likely, that the opposition forged tens of thousands of receipts in less than a day, or a dictator reported fake results to remain in power? Receipts, mind you, copies of which are given to each witness from the top-three political parties, at any point now could have been called into question but not a single counter example has been shown. Please don't drink their "North Macedonia" hack kool-aid.