wiki143 - User contributions [en]

Súmate

2025-04-16T08:09:16Z

147.9.2.202:

{{Short description|Venezuelan election monitoring group}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2020}}
[[File:Súmate logo.jpg|thumb|Logo of Súmate]]
'''''Súmate''''' ([[Spanish language|Spanish]] for "Join Up") is a [[Venezuela]]n volunteer civil association founded in 2002 by [[María Corina Machado]] and [[Alejandro Plaz]]. ''Súmate'' describes itself as a vote-monitoring group;<ref>[http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/2/17/apworld/20060217075047&sec=apworld Rice calls Venezuela a big problem for Western Hemisphere.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121008061142/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F2%2F17%2Fapworld%2F20060217075047&sec=apworld |date=8 October 2012 }} ''The Star'', 17 February 2006.</ref> it has also been described as an election-monitoring group.<ref>Diehl, Jackson. [http://www.hacer.org/current/Vene057.php In Venezuela, Locking Up the Vote.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110106142913/http://www.hacer.org/current/Vene057.php |date=6 January 2011 }} ''Washington Post'', reprinted by Hispanic American Center.</ref>

==Mission and values==
''Súmate'' is a [[non-governmental organization]] (NGO) whose stated aim is to promote the free exercise of citizen's political rights, and the discussion of matters of public interest. The group's mission is to promote, defend, facilitate, and back the political rights accorded to citizens by the [[Constitution of Venezuela]].

''Súmate's'' espoused values are:
* The guarantee of civil and political freedom and rights
* Impartial and independent citizen participation in democratic processes
* Professional volunteerism with a high level of citizen participation
* Organizational transparency and efficacy

Other projects are the consolidation of a national network of volunteers; analysis of voter registration; planning and execution of parallel vote counts to strengthen confidence in electoral processes; and educational programs.

== History ==
[[Image:Maria Corina Machado.jpg|thumb|[[María Corina Machado]], a founder of ''Súmate'']]
[[Hugo Chávez]] [[1998 Venezuelan presidential election|was elected]] [[List of Presidents of Venezuela|President of Venezuela]] in 1998. Participation was 64%, with 36% of the electorate abstaining, resulting in a Chávez victory with 35% of the total electorate. In 1999, a new [[Constitution of Venezuela]] was approved, making Chávez eligible to run for president again in 2000, for a six-year term; and again in 2006, for another six years. This could result in a Chávez presidency of 14 years, compared to the previous presidential term limit of five years. He won the [[2000 Venezuelan presidential election|2000 election]] with 60% of the votes cast, 33% of the total electorate, and 44% abstention. These turnout levels are comparable with the prior [[1993 Venezuelan presidential election]], but were significantly lower than in [[1988 Venezuelan presidential election|1988]]. Turnout rose to 75% in the [[2006 Venezuelan presidential election|2006 election]], and became comparable with 1988 in [[2012 Venezuelan presidential election|2012]], with 80% turnout.

These changes were made to the Constitution and electoral processes based on elections with an overwhelmingly support for Chávez<ref name="gutkin"/> but unprecedented voter abstention<ref>[http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/07/25/2812187.htm Venezuela risk: Political stability risk.] ''Economist'' Intelligence Unit (25 July 2007). Retrieved 2 August 2007.</ref>—a "poor showing"<ref>Serge F. Kovaleski. Venezuelan Voters Make President More Powerful; ''The Washington Post''. Washington, D.C.: 16 December 1999. pg. A.30</ref> with most staying away from the polls.<ref name="gutkin">Gutkin, Steven. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19990426/ai_n10503023 Venezuelans back revising constitution.] ''The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'' (26 April 1999). Retrieved 2 August 2007.</ref><ref>Serge F. Kovaleski. Venezuelans Approve Plan For Assembly; Vote Favors Chavez Wish To Rewrite Constitution; ''The Washington Post''. Washington, D.C.: 26 April 1999. pg. A.11 "But the turnout today was a sharp contrast to the presidential election on 6 December when 65 percent of the country's registered voters cast ballots. In the capital, Caracas, where there were no reports of violence or voting irregularities, only short lines were seen at many balloting stations, where voters could pick 'yes' or 'no' on whether a constituent assembly was needed and on proposed guidelines for the election of its members."</ref>

{|
|- valign="top"
|
{| cellpadding="3" cellspacing=0 style="margin: 0em 0em 1em 1em; width: 200px; border: 1px #bbbbbb solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 85%; text-align: center; "
|- bgcolor="#E0E0FF"
! colspan="3" style="padding: 1px 1px 1px 1px;" | Hugo Chávez's [[Elections in Venezuela|Election]] Results
|- bgcolor="#F6F6FF"
! colspan="3" style="padding: 1px 1px 1px 1px;" | — [[Venezuelan Presidential Elections, 1998|1998 presidential election]] —
|-
! Candidate !! Votes !! %
|-
| Chávez: || 3,673,685 || 56%
|-
| Salas: || 2,613,161 || 40%
|-
| Valid votes: || 6,537,304 || —
|-
| Abstention: || 3,971,239 || 36%
|-
|}
|
{| cellpadding="3" cellspacing=0 style="margin: 0em 0em 1em 1em; width: 200px; border: 1px #bbbbbb solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 85%; text-align: center;"
|- bgcolor="#E0E0FF"
! colspan="3" style="padding: 1px 1px 1px 1px;" | Hugo Chávez's [[Elections in Venezuela|Election]] Results
|- bgcolor="#F6F6FF"
! colspan="3" style="padding: 1px 1px 1px 1px;" | — 1999 referendum — Enact the new constitution?
|-
! Option !! Votes !! %
|-
| Yes: || 3,301,475 || 72%
|-
| No: || 1,298,105 || 28%
|-
|| Abstention: || 6,041,743 || 56%
|-
|}
|
{| cellpadding="3" cellspacing=0 style="margin: 0em 0em 1em 1em; width: 200px; border: 1px #bbbbbb solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 85%; text-align: center; "
|- bgcolor="#E0E0FF"
! colspan="3" style="padding: 1px 1px 1px 1px;" | Hugo Chávez's [[Elections in Venezuela|Election]] Results
|- bgcolor="#F6F6FF"
! colspan="3" style="padding: 1px 1px 1px 1px;" | — [[2000 Venezuelan presidential election|2000 presidential election]] —
|-
! Candidate !! Votes !! %
|-
| Chávez: || 3,757,773 || 60%
|-
| [[Francisco Arias Cardenas|Arias]]: || 2,359,459 || 38%
|-
| Valid votes: || 6,288,578 || —
|-
| Abstention: || 5,120,464 || 44%
|-
|}
|}
{{clear}}

''Súmate'' was founded with an expressed goal of achieving a high level of citizen participation in Venezuelan elections. According to ''[[The Washington Post]]'', Machado and Plaz had a hurried encounter in a hotel lobby in 2001, where they shared their concern about the course that was being shaped for Venezuela. Machado said, "Something clicked. I had this unsettling feeling that I could not stay at home and watch the country get polarized and collapse.... We had to keep the electoral process but change the course, to give Venezuelans the chance to count ourselves, to dissipate tensions before they built up. It was a choice of ballots over bullets."<ref name=SignOn>Boustany, Nora. [https://archive.today/20120723064111/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/660702441.html?dids=660702441:660702441&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&fmac=&date=Jul+9,+2004&author=Nora+Boustany&desc=Signing+On+To+Challenge+Hugo+Chavez Signing On To Challenge Hugo Chavez.] The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: 9 July 2004. p. A.15</ref> According to Súmate, it is "not concerned with who governs but rather that those in power respect the rule of law."<ref name="Young">O'Grady, Mary A. [http://www.hacer.org/current/Vene009.php A Young Defender of Democracy Faces Chávez's Wrath.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060808180336/http://www.hacer.org/current/Vene009.php |date=8 August 2006 }} ''Wall Street Journal''. 10 June 2005; Page A9.</ref> ''Súmate'' was originally composed of a group of professionals, but by 2004 it grew to include 30,000 volunteers from across Venezuela and all walks of life.<ref name="SignOn" />

===Recall referendum, 2004===
[[Image:Anti-chavez march.jpg|thumb|300px|A rally in favor of the [[Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004|2004 Venezuelan referendum]] to recall [[Hugo Chávez]] in the capital, [[Caracas]].]]
{{Further|2004 Venezuelan recall referendum}}
In 2003, ''Súmate'' organized a campaign to force a recall referendum revoking the remainder of the term in office of President Chávez, as provided for under Article 72 of the [[Constitution of Venezuela]], which permits citizens to request a recall if signatures are collected from 20% of the electorate.

The recall vote was held on 15 August 2004. A record number of voters turned out but the recall was defeated with a 59% "no" vote.<ref>''BBC News''. (''BBC'', 21 September 2004). [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3587184.stm "Venezuelan Audit Confirms Victory"]. Retrieved 5 November 2005.</ref> The [[Carter Center]] concluded the results were accurate,<ref>Carter Center (2005). [http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/2020.pdf Observing the Venezuela Presidential Recall Referendum: Comprehensive Report.] Retrieved 25 January 2006.</ref> but [[European Union]] observers did not oversee the referendum, saying too many restrictions were put on their participation by the government.<ref name=Cordoba>de Cordoba, Jose and Luhnow, David. "Venezuelans Rush to Vote on Chavez: Polarized Nation Decides Whether to Recall President After Years of Political Rifts". ''The Wall Street Journal''. (Eastern edition). New York, NY: 16 August 2004. pg. A11.</ref>

An exit poll by US company [[Penn, Schoen & Berland]] Associates (PSB) predicted that Chávez would lose by 20%, whereas the election results showed him to have won by 20%. Schoen commented, "I think it was a massive fraud".<ref name=Barone>Barone, M. [https://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm "Exit polls in Venezuela".] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120716183631/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm |date=16 July 2012 }} ''U.S. News & World Report.'' 20 August 2004.</ref> PSB used ''Súmate'' personnel as fieldworkers. Publication or broadcast of exit polls was banned by electoral authorities, but results of the PSB poll went out to media outlets and opposition offices several hours before polls closed.<ref name=USPoll>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040820102645/http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040819_91.html U.S. Poll Firm in Hot Water in Venezuela.] ''Associated Press''. Retrieved 9 June 2006.</ref> [[Jimmy Carter]] said that Súmate "deliberately distributed this erroneous exit poll data in order to build up, not only the expectation of victory, but also to influence the people still standing in line".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004c/090304/090304a.php|title=Venezuela: Divisions harden after Chávez victory|last=Jones|first=Bart|date=3 September 2004|publisher=[[National Catholic Reporter]]|accessdate=14 March 2009}}</ref>

Following the recall vote, ''Súmate'' requested that [[Ricardo Hausmann]] of [[Harvard University]] and Roberto Rigobón of [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] perform a statistical analysis analyzing how fraud could have occurred during the referendum. They concluded that the vote samples audited by the government were not a random representation of all precincts and that opposition witnesses and international observers were not allowed near the computer hub on election day.<ref name=Cordoba/><ref name=UniversalElectionFraud>Juan Francisco Alonso (6 September 2004). [http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/09/06/en_pol_art_06A489963.shtml Súmate: There is a 99% probability of fraud in referendum.] ''El Universal''. Retrieved 6 August 2006.</ref><ref name="CEPRBlackSwan">[[Weisbrot]] M, Rosnick D, Tucker T (20 September 2004). [https://web.archive.org/web/20080227012901/http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2004_09.pdf Black Swans, Conspiracy Theories, and the Quixotic Search for Fraud: A Look at Hausmann and Rigobón's Analysis of Venezuela's Referendum Vote.] CEPR: [[Center for Economic and Policy Research]]. Retrieved 30 June 2006.</ref> [[Center for Economic and Policy Research|CEPR]], a left-leaning think tank<ref>Dorell, O. (4/12/2005). [https://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2005-04-12-benefits-calculators_x.htm Benefit estimates depend on who calculates them.] ''USA Today''.Retrieved 30 June 2006.</ref> based in Washington, reports that other economists have called the Harvard/MIT assumptions about how fraud was conducted unlikely.<ref name=CEPRBlackSwan/>

Chávez branded the leaders of Súmate as "conspirators", "coup plotters" and "lackeys of the U.S. government".<ref name="CBSWatchdog">[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/03/ap/world/mainD8E8MNGO6.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories Chavez Calls Watchdog Group a Top Enemy.]{{dead link|date=August 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} ''CBS News'' (3 December 2005).</ref> After the referendum, members of ''Súmate'' were charged with treason and conspiracy, under Article 132 of the Venezuelan Penal Code,<ref>[https://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/07/07/venezuela-court-orders-trial-civil-society-leaders Venezuela: Court Orders Trial of Civil Society Leaders.] Human Rights Watch, 7 July 2005.</ref> accused of receiving financial support for their activities from the NED. The trial has been postponed several times.{{Update inline|date=June 2021}}

The criminal charges triggered concern from [[Human Rights Watch]]<ref name="HRWSumate">Human Rights Watch. [http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm Venezuela: Court Orders Trial of Civil Society Leaders.] Retrieved 8 June 2006.</ref> and the [[World Movement for Democracy]]. The latter accused the government of Venezuela of illegally "withholding case files from the defendants, using depositions of the defendants that were made before the charges against them were known, and refusing to accede to requests of the Supreme Court in the case."<ref>World Movement for Democracy. [http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html Democracy Activists in Venezuela Threatened.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060330020217/http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html|date=30 March 2006}} (16 July 2004) Retrieved 8 June 2006.</ref> [[Tom Casey (diplomat)|Tom Casey]], acting spokesman for the State Department, expressed disappointment about the court's decision to try the founders and said the charges were "without merit."<ref>Embassy of the United States, Venezuela (8 July 2005). [http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2678.html "Súmate Trial Decision".] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070310164342/http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2678.html|date=10 March 2007}} Retrieved 18 June 2006.</ref>

Over 70 individuals, including prominent world leaders, wrote to Chávez on 11 November 2004, pointing out that "proceeding against nongovernmental organizations for receiving democratic assistance is a violation of both the [[Inter-American Democratic Charter]] and the Warsaw Declaration of the [[Community of Democracies]], a document your government signed along with over 100 others four years ago." The letter indicated that the prosecution, "as well as the proposal to criminalize democracy assistance from abroad" are both "clearly inconsistent with international democratic norms and constitute a grave threat to democracy." Signatories of the letter included Czech President [[Václav Havel]], former U.S. Secretary of State [[Madeleine Albright]], U.S. Senator [[John McCain]], former Canadian Prime Minister [[Kim Campbell]], former Nicaraguan President [[Violeta Chamorro]], former Prime Minister of Bulgaria [[Filip Dimitrov|Philip Dimitrov]], and [[Richard Goldstone]], former prosecutor of the [[International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]].<ref name="Coalition">National Endowment for Democracy. [https://web.archive.org/web/20050310172138/http://www.ned.org/press/pr111104.html International Coalition Expresses Concern for Democracy in Venezuela: Havel, Albright, McCain among signatories of letter to Chavez.] (11 November 2004). Retrieved 16 August 2006.</ref>

A 2008 [[Human Rights Watch]] report expressed concern at the gravity of the charges sought by the prosecution against Súmate, saying that the sought a conviction for the crime of “conspiracy to destroy the nation’s republican form of government,” for a maximum 16-year prison sentence. The report explained that both Súmate and the NED insisted that the funds, a total of $53 400 US dollars, were not used for electoral activities but rather to educate people about the recall referendum, and arguing that even if it supported electoral activity, "the recall referendum was itself a legal process envisaged in the 1999 Constitution" and "not an act of subversion". The report continues saying that in July 2005 a court in Caracas ordered a trial for its Vice President María Corina Machado, her colleague [[Alejandro Plaz]], as well as Luis Enrique Palacios and [[Ricardo Estévez]].<ref name=HRWSumate/> In February 2006, the report says, the process was suspended, after the court of appeals ruled that the trial judge had committed due process violations, including refusing to empanel a jury or to allow key defense witnesses to testify, including the NED directors. The report concludes saying that the appeals court ordered a new jury trial, but that it had been postponed repeatedly and that by 2008, after three years, the process against the NGO was still open.<ref>Human Rights Watch (September 2008). [https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/venezuela0908web.pdf A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela] (PDF), p. 218. Accessed 24 January 2010</ref>

===Presidential elections, 2006===
{{See also|2006 Venezuelan presidential election}}
''Súmate'' recommended procedures for a [[Partisan primary|primary]], to be held on 13 August 2006, to choose the opposition candidate for the 3 December 2006 [[2006 Venezuelan presidential election|presidential elections.]]<ref>{{in lang|es}} [http://www.eluniversal.com/2006/07/07/pol_ava_07A740687.shtml Súmate: Las primarias se realizarán el 13 de agosto.] ''El Universal'' (7 July 2006).</ref> [[Teodoro Petkoff]], a Chávez critic, said that ''Súmate's'' procedure was [[authoritarian]], comparing it to the [[Carmona Decree]].<ref>{{in lang|es}} [http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=32388 Teodoro Petkoff: "No me inscribiré ni participaré en ese proceso."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060718120902/http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=32388 |date=18 July 2006 }} ''Globovision'' (7 July 2006).</ref> Nine other candidates agreed to the terms for holding a primary, confirming their desire to allow the citizens to choose the opposition candidate. Another candidate condemned Petkoff's remarks against ''Súmate'', saying that Petkoff's statements didn't help the country, and explaining that the conditions for holding a primary had been previously discussed between all of the candidates, including Petkoff.<ref>{{in lang|es}} [http://www.eluniversal.com/2006/07/07/pol_ava_07A740449.shtml Froilán Barrios condenó expresiones de Petkoff.] ''El Universal'' (7 July 2006).</ref><ref name="english.eluniversal.com">[http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/07/08/en_pol_art_08A740643.shtml Súmate announced primaries for August 13th.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060715075704/http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/07/08/en_pol_art_08A740643.shtml |date=15 July 2006 }} ''El Universal'' (8 July 2006).</ref> On 9 August, Súmate announced that the 13 August primary election would not be held, since the candidates had decided to back [[Manuel Rosales]] as the single opposition candidate. Machado said that the primary "initiative accomplished its goal and that Súmate would continue working to ensure clean elections and respect for citizens' rights."<ref>[http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/08/09/en_pol_art_09A762463.shtml Súmate: there will be no primary elections.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081201202705/http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/08/09/en_pol_art_09A762463.shtml |date=1 December 2008 }} ''El Universal'' (8 August 2006).</ref>

On 8 December 2006, Súmate announced that their count and audits of the final election results matched the official count of the [[National Electoral Council (Venezuela)|Venezuelan National Electoral Council]], that showed a landslide victory for Hugo Chávez, highlighting that "balloting was not clean, transparent or reliable."<ref name=Castillo>Castillo, Vivian. [http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/12/08/en_pol_art_08A813237.shtml "We will know the truth when we have clean elections".] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110525130205/http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/12/08/en_pol_art_08A813237.shtml |date=25 May 2011 }} ''El Universal'' (8 December 2006). Retrieved 10 December 2006.</ref> Machado said the government had stacked the odds against the opposition in the pre-election period, including "a climate of collective intimidation" due to the use of fingerprint-reading machines and an unaudited register of voters, and that if irregularities had been corrected, they could have impacted the final result. She clarified that the impact could not be assessed, saying "We will know only the truth about what Venezuelans really feel, the day when clean elections are held in Venezuela."<ref name=Castillo/>

==Personnel==
Plaz is a Venezuelan engineer and [[management consultant]], who holds three master's degrees (two from [[Stanford University]]), and was a Senior partner for [[McKinsey & Company]] in [[Latin America]], before taking a leave of absence to co-found ''Súmate''. Machado was hailed as "the best of womankind and the difficult times many women face around the globe" on a list of ''Women the World Should Know'' for International Women's Day.<ref name="WomenWorld">[http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/symposium200603080944.asp Women the World Should Know.] ''National Review Online'' (8 March 2006).</ref>

Ricardo Estévez is one of the founders of Súmate. In 2012 he withdrew from Súmate in order to run for the position of rector of the [[National Electoral Council of Venezuela|Consejo Nacional Electoral]] as an independent.<ref>[https://elpitazo.net/politica/perfil-quien-es-ricardo-estevez-el-tecnico-electoral-detenido-arbitrariamente/ ¿Quién es Ricardo Estévez, el técnico electoral detenido arbitrariamente?]</ref><ref>[https://efectococuyo.com/politica/detienen-en-caracas-a-dirigente-de-vente-venezuela-ricardo-estevez/#google_vignette Detienen en Caracas a dirigente de Vente Venezuela Ricardo Estévez]</ref>

==See also==
* [[Voto Joven]]

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.sumate.org/ Official Súmate website]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20060820042925/http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/08/04/en_pol_art_04A759853.shtml "NGO Súmate rebuts claims of illicit fundraising".] ''[[El Universal (Caracas)|El Universal]]'' (4 August 2006). Accessed 24 February 2010.
*[http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm Human Rights Watch statement on trial of Súmate founders]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20060330020217/http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html Democracy Activists in Venezuela Threatened]
*[https://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2004/hrg040624p.html The State of Democracy in Venezuela], [[United States Senate]] hearing before the [[Committee on foreign relations]].
*U.S. Department of State, [https://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/57714.pdf The State of Democracy in Venezuela], 1 December 2005.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070310164342/http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2678.html US Embassy statement on "conspiracy" charges against Súmate founders]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/12/08/venezuela.hunger.strike/index.html CNN article]

{{Topics related to Hugo Chávez}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Sumate}}
[[Category:Civic and political organizations of Venezuela]]
[[Category:Referendums in Venezuela]]
[[Category:Organizations established in 2002]]
[[Category:2002 establishments in Venezuela]]

2004 Venezuelan recall referendum

2025-04-16T07:57:42Z

147.9.2.202: Portion of the Introduction regarding Statistical Evaluations had POV bias, positioning a contested claim, elaborated upon as such in the article, as fact. I added a few words to make this statement consistent with later elaboration.

{{short description|Refendum in Venezuela to recall President Hugo Chávez}}
{{Multiple issues|
{{more citations needed|date=March 2009}}
{{lead improve|date=January 2024}}
}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2020}}
{{Infobox referendum
| title = Do you agree to annul the popular mandate granted through legitimate democratic elections to the citizen Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías as president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for the current presidential term?
| location = Venezuela
| flag_image = Flag of Venezuela (1930–2006).svg
| date = 15 August 2004
| yes = 3,989,008
| no = 5,800,629
| invalid = 25,994
| electorate = 14,037,900
| map = Referéndum_presidencial_de_Venezuela_de_2004_-_Resultados_por_Estado.svg
| map_caption = Results by state
}}{{Politics of Venezuela}}

The '''Venezuelan recall referendum''' of 15 August 2004 was a [[referendum]] to determine whether [[Hugo Chávez]], then [[President of Venezuela]], should be [[Recall election|recalled]] from office. The recall referendum was announced on 8 June 2004 by the [[National Electoral Council (Venezuela)|National Electoral Council]] (CNE) after the Venezuelan opposition succeeded in collecting the number of signatures required by the [[Constitution of Venezuela|1999 Constitution]] to effect a recall. The result of the referendum was not to recall Chávez (59% no).

The opposition [[Coordinadora Democrática (Venezuela)|Coordinadora Democrática]] declared that fraud had taken place and published a preliminary report supporting the conclusions.<ref name=":0" /> The [[Carter Center]], the electoral observers and other analysts denied fraud, saying the referendum was performed in a free and fair manner.<ref name="observers">{{cite web |date=16 August 2004 |title=Observer teams endorse Venezuela vote results |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5710814 |access-date=6 July 2013 |website=[[NBC News]]}}</ref><ref name="carter_accept">{{cite news |title=CNN.com - Observers endorse Venezuela vote results - Aug 16, 2004 |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/08/16/venezuela.recall.ap/index.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040905004646/http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/08/16/venezuela.recall.ap/index.html |archive-date=5 September 2004 |work=CNN}}</ref><ref name="carter_report">Carter Center (2005). [http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/2020.pdf Observing the Venezuela Presidential Recall Referendum: Comprehensive Report.] Accessed 25 January 2006.</ref><ref name="carter_accuse_opposition">{{cite web |last=Jones |first=Bart |date=3 September 2004 |title=Venezuela: Divisions harden after Chávez victory |url=http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004c/090304/090304a.php |access-date=14 March 2009 |work=[[National Catholic Reporter]]}}</ref><ref name="CEPRBlackSwan">Weisbrot M, Rosnick D, Tucker T (20 September 2004). [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/black-swans-conspiracy-theories-and-the-quixotic-search-for-fraud/ Black Swans, Conspiracy Theories, and the Quixotic Search for Fraud: A Look at Hausmann and Rigobón's Analysis of Venezuela's Referendum Vote] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140724001829/http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/black-swans-conspiracy-theories-and-the-quixotic-search-for-fraud/|date=24 July 2014}}. ''CEPR: Center for Economic and Policy Research''. Retrieved 7 July 2012.</ref> The Carter Center released a paper and statistical analysis at the request of the NGO [[Súmate]] to evaluate a study by [[Ricardo Hausmann]] and Roberto Rigobon, reaffirming the center's original conclusions.<ref name="carter_center_analysis">''Carter Center'', 17 September 2004, [http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/1834.pdf Report on an Analysis of the Representativeness of the Second Audit Sample, and the Correlation between Petition Signers and the Yes Vote in the 15 August 2004 Presidential Recall Referendum in Venezuela]. Retrieved 20 February 2010</ref>

Statistical evaluations published in 2006 and 2011 have argued that fraud was committed, but this is contested by organizations that observed the election, such as the Carter Center.<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2006.tb00301.x/abstract | doi=10.1111/j.1751-5823.2006.tb00301.x | title=A Statistical Approach to Assess Referendum Results: The Venezuelan Recall Referendum 2004 | date=2006 | last1=Cordero | first1=Maria M. Febres | last2=Márquez | first2=Bernardo | journal=International Statistical Review | volume=74 | issue=3 | pages=379–389 | s2cid=10856599 }}</ref><ref name="specialsection">[http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&page=toc&handle=euclid.ss/1330437927 Special Section: Revisiting the 2004 Venezuelan Referendum] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120728043017/http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&page=toc&handle=euclid.ss%2F1330437927|date=28 July 2012}}, ''Statistical Science'', 26(4), November 2011</ref>

==Petition==
The recall mechanism was introduced into Venezuelan law in 1999 under the new Constitution drafted by the National [[Constituent Assembly]] and sanctioned by the electorate in a referendum. Under its provisions, an elected official can be subjected to a recall referendum if a petition gathers signatures from 20% of the corresponding electorate. Thus, to order a presidential recall vote in 2004, 2.4 million signatures were needed - 20% of the national electorate.

===Constitutional basis===
The recall referendum is provided for in two articles of the 1999 Constitution:

:Article 72: All <nowiki>[...]</nowiki> offices filled by popular vote are subject to revocation.
:Once one-half of the term of office to which an official has been elected has elapsed, a number of voters representing at least 20% of the registered voters in the affected constituency may petition for the calling of a referendum to revoke that official's mandate.
:When a number of voters equal to or greater than the number of those who elected the official vote in favour of the recall, provided that a number of voters equal to or greater than 25% of the total number of registered voters vote in the recall referendum, the official's mandate shall be deemed revoked and immediate action shall be taken to fill the permanent vacancy as provided for by this Constitution and by law.

:Article 233: The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; <nowiki>[...]</nowiki> recall by popular vote.
:<nowiki>[...]</nowiki> When the President of the Republic becomes permanently unavailable to serve during the first four years of his constitutional term of office, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 calendar days. Pending the election and inauguration of the new President, the Executive Vice President shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.
:In the cases described above, the new President shall complete the current constitutional term of office. If the President becomes permanently unavailable to serve during the last two years of his constitutional term of office, the Executive Vice President shall take over the Presidency of the Republic until the term is completed.

=== Protests ===
{{Main|2004 Venezuelan protests}}
In February 2003, the [[National Electoral Council (Venezuela)|National Electoral Council]] announced that the signatures presented to request the recall referendum had to be examined a second time.<ref name=":02">{{cite news |date=9 May 2004 |title=Capturan "paramilitares" en Venezuela |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_3698000/3698989.stm |accessdate=22 April 2010 |publisher=BBC News}}</ref><ref name=":14">{{Cite news |last=Zeitlin |first=Janine |date=11 October 2007 |title=War on Hugo Chávez |url=http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2007-10-11/news/war-on-hugo-ch-aacute-vez/full |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080720043302/http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2007-10-11/news/war-on-hugo-ch-aacute-vez/full |archive-date=20 July 2008 |work=[[Miami New Times]]}}</ref> Protests against the decision began on 27 February 2004 in Caracas and fifteen other cities of the country, lasting five consecutive days.<ref name=":23">{{cite book |author=[[PROVEA]] |url=https://provea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/001_contexto.pdf |title=Contexto y Balance de Situación |date=September 2004 |pages=11, 16 |access-date=30 December 2023}}</ref> Negotiations between the opposition and government agreeing on signatures led to the end of the protests.<ref name=":142">{{Cite news |last=Zeitlin |first=Janine |date=11 October 2007 |title=War on Hugo Chávez |url=http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2007-10-11/news/war-on-hugo-ch-aacute-vez/full |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080720043302/http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2007-10-11/news/war-on-hugo-ch-aacute-vez/full |archive-date=20 July 2008 |work=[[Miami New Times]]}}</ref> During the protests, 9 people were killed, of which at least 4 were due to the response of security officials,<ref name=":232">{{cite book |author=[[PROVEA]] |url=https://provea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/001_contexto.pdf |title=Contexto y Balance de Situación |date=September 2004 |pages=11, 16 |access-date=30 December 2023}}</ref> hundreds were injured and 300 were arrested.<ref name=":142" />

===Signature collection drive===
In August 2003, about 3.2 million signatures were presented by ''[[Súmate]]'', a Venezuelan volunteer civil association, founded in 2002. These signatures were rejected by the National Electoral Council (CNE) on the grounds that they had been collected prematurely; i.e., before the midpoint of the presidential term.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}

In September 2003, that the government used a "rapid reaction" squad to raid the offices of CNE, the government body overseeing the petition drive, where the petitions were stored.<ref>''The Economist'', 11 September 2003, [http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_NDVQQSQ Venezuela's referendum]</ref>

In November 2003, the opposition collected a new set of signatures, with 3.6 million names produced in four days. The CNE rejected the petition, saying that only 1.9 million were valid, while 1.1 million were dubious and 460,000 completely invalid.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}} Reaction to the decision to reject the petition (for the second time) resulted in riots that led to nine dead, 339 arrested, and 1,200 injured.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}

The petitioners appealed to the Electoral Chamber of the [[Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice|Venezuelan Supreme Court]]. The court reinstated over 800,000 of the disputed signatures, bringing the total to 2.7 million{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}, above the 2.4 million needed to authorise the referendum. However, about a week later, the Constitutional chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the Electoral chamber's ruling alleging that the latter did not have jurisdiction for that ruling.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}

The list of signatories was subsequently collected by the government.<ref name="Aló Presidente N°180">{{citation|author=Hugo Chavez|year=2004|title =Official transcript 'Aló Presidente' N°180, 1 February 2004|journal=Venezuelan State Television|url=http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/misc-view/sharedfiles/Alo_Presidente_180.pdf|access-date=9 June 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070628091726/http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/misc-view/sharedfiles/Alo_Presidente_180.pdf|archive-date=28 June 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The names of petition signers were posted publicly online in what became known as the [[Tascón List]]. The president of the [[Venezuelan Workers Confederation]] was quoted by the [[Associated Press]] as claiming that the Chávez government had begun dismissing petition signers from government ministries, the state oil company, the state water company, the [[Caracas Metro]], and [[public hospital]]s and municipal governments controlled by Chávez's party.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}} The Associated Press also quoted Venezuela's [[Health Minister]] as justifying petition related layoffs by saying "all those who have signed to activate the recall referendum against President Chávez should be fired from the Health Ministry". He retracted these remarks several days later by saying that they were his own personal opinions and not a matter of public policy.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}

The CNE later admitted that 15,863 signatures of those signatures that were verified in May 2004 belonged to people who had died in 2003.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}

===Timing===
The date chosen for the recall referendum was significant: had the recall vote been held on 19 August or later, Chávez would have been into the fifth year of his six-year term and had he been voted out, Vice President [[José Vicente Rangel]] would have taken over and served out the rest of Chávez's presidency (in accordance with Article 233 of the Constitution, above). With the vote called for 15 August, Chávez was not yet into the last two years of his term in office; an unfavourable result would therefore have meant the calling of fresh presidential elections within the following 30 days. Chávez had expressed his clear intention to stand in the election, had he been recalled; the opposition factions, however, maintained that he would have been disqualified from doing so.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}

==Campaign==
{{Expand section|date=January 2009}}
[[Image:Anti-chavez march.jpg|thumb|300px|A rally in favor of the recall referendum in the capital, [[Caracas]].]]

Between late May 2004, when the CNE set the referendum date, and 15 August, the date chosen, a contentious campaign took place, with both sides convinced of victory.{{citation needed|date=September 2020}}

==Opinion polls==
Although support for Chávez had been low in 2003 and early 2004, polling data showed a shift as the campaign got under way. Most polls, including those by firms linked to the opposition which had shown low support for Chávez in 2003 and early 2004, predicted a rejection of the recall in the weeks before the referendum.<ref name=HellingerLAP328>Hellinger, Daniel (2005), "When 'No' Means 'Yes to Revolution': Electoral Politics in Bolivarian Venezuela", ''Latin American Perspectives'', 32(8)</ref><ref>"Several polls in the run-up to the referendum showed Chavez to be the likely winner; the most recent ( 4–8 August) and comprehensive was the poll by Evans/McDonough Company, Inc., with Varianzas Opinion. With a nationwide sample of 2000 and a margin of error of 2.2 percent, it showed Chavez ahead by 50 to 38 percentage points among registered voters (up from 49–41 in July)."[http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2004_08.pdf "Polling and the Ballot: The Venezuelan Referendum"] ''CEPR: Center for Economic and Policy Research''. Accessed 30 June 2006]</ref>

Pre-referendum polls, both by opposition and by pro-Chávez groups, during the previous months and weeks predicted the ''No'' vote to win by a margin of between 5% and 31%. For example, [[Stan Greenberg|Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (GQR)]] Inc. and [[DATOS]], both commissioned by the opposition, found margins in favour of ''No'' by 5% and 12% respectively in June 2004;<ref>''[[El Universal (Caracas)|El Universal]]'', 2 July 2004, {{in lang|es}} [http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/07/02/pol_art_02104D.shtml Chávez ganará revocatorio según encuesta de EEUU]</ref> [[Datanálisis]] found a margin of 14% in favour of Chávez in June.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/8/1/185820/8839 |title=Are the Polls Credible in Venezuela? Vote NO |publisher=Narcosphere.narconews.com |access-date=17 August 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040810073025/http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/8/1/185820/8839 |archive-date=10 August 2004 |url-status=dead }} View full user profile.</ref> On 11 August, [[Robert W. Jensen|Robert Jensen]] wrote that recent polls ranged from 8% to 31% for margins in favour of the ''No'' vote.<ref>Robert Jensen, 11 August 2004, [http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-08/11jensen.cfm "U.S. Supports Anti-democratic Forces In Venezuela Recall"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051116060439/http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-08/11jensen.cfm |date=16 November 2005 }}, ''Zmag''</ref>

==Ballot==
{{Unreferenced section|date=March 2010}}
The following question was put to the Venezuelan electorate:
:''¿Está usted de acuerdo con dejar sin efecto el mandato popular otorgado mediante elecciones democráticas legítimas al ciudadano Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías como presidente de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela para el actual período presidencial? ¿NO o SÍ?''
Translated into English:
:''Do you agree to revoke, for the current term, the popular mandate as President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela conferred on citizen Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías through democratic and legitimate elections? NO or YES?''

For the recall to be successful, there were three conditions:
* A turnout of at least 25% of the country's 14.25 million registered voters.
* More votes against Chávez than the number who voted for him in the [[2000 Venezuelan presidential election|2000 presidential election]] (3.76 million).
* More "yes" votes cast than "no" votes.

==Referendum day==
Polling stations opened at 6 am Venezuelan time on 15 August 2004. Later in the day, faced with a 70% turnout, lengthy queues of waiting voters, and delays exacerbated by the use of novel electronic voting equipment and fingerprint scanners, the electoral authorities agreed to extend the close of voting twice: a four-hour extension of the deadline that took it to 8 p.m., followed by an additional four hours announced later in the evening, which took it to midnight.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}

A record number of voters turned out to defeat the recall attempt with a 59% "no" vote.<ref>{{cite news | last = Staff writer | title = Venezuelan audit confirms victory | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3587184.stm | work = [[BBC News]] | publisher = [[BBC]] | date = 21 September 2004 | access-date = 5 November 2005 }}</ref> Former U.S. president [[Jimmy Carter]], who was in Venezuela to observe the electoral process, said of the patiently waiting Venezuelan electors, "This is the largest turnout I have ever seen." In previous presidential elections, turnout figures were at an average 55%.<ref name="Galeano">{{Cite journal | last = Galeano | first = Eduardo | author-link = Eduardo Galeano | title = Nothingland—or Venezuela? | journal = [[New Left Review]] | volume = II | issue = 29 | date = September–October 2004 | url = http://newleftreview.org/II/29/eduardo-galeano-nothingland-or-venezuela }}</ref>

All Venezuelans aged 18 and up whose names appear on the electoral roll were eligible to vote, including those residing abroad: polling stations were set up in Venezuelan embassies and consulates abroad.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}

===Parody recording===
At 3:50pm local time on 15 August, CNE rector [[Jorge Rodríguez (Venezuelan politician)|Jorge Rodríguez]] and CNE president Francisco Carrasquero announced on national television that they had found an audio CD where an imitation voice of Carrasquero declared that the opposition had won the referendum with a total of 11,436,086 "yes" votes, and that Chávez's mandate was thereby revoked. Since this was several hours before the closing of the polling booths, and since Carrasquero declared the recording to be fake, this appeared to be a case of attempted sabotage of the referendum. The attorney-general was called on to conduct a full inquiry into the incident and to locate and arrest those responsible for the spurious audio recording.<ref>{{cite web|title=Independent Media Center |url=http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2004/08/808090.shtml |date=August 2004 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050313204850/http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2004/08/808090.shtml |archive-date=13 March 2005 }}</ref>

Journalist Fausto Malavé declared in an interview in RCR that the recording was an evident parody that had been circulating in city streets for at least two months, claiming that it was surprising that it was only brought to public attention then. He also expressed concern at the significance that was attributed to it by the CNE.<ref>{{cite web|title=Referéndum Revocatorio |url=http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/08/15/revo_ava_15A483829.shtml |website=eluniversal.com |publisher=El Universal |date=15 August 2004 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120717020928/http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/08/15/revo_ava_15A483829.shtml |archive-date=17 July 2012}}</ref>

===Exit polling===
[[Coordinadora Democrática (Venezuela)|Coordinadora Democrática]] commissioned an exit poll from the American firm of [[Penn, Schoen & Berland]], which showed Chávez losing by a 60–40 margin. PSB used volunteers from [[Súmate]], a NGO which was the primary organizer of the recall referendum, and involved around 200 polling places<ref name = Barone/> out of 8500. With over 20,000 responses the exit poll produced a much larger amount of data than most opinion polls (typically around 1000 responses), leading to an extremely low [[sampling error]]. However, the [[Center for Economic and Policy Research]] suggested that since the chance of sample error in the exit poll was so low and observers did not find any signs of fraud, it may have been the survey's methodology that led to the discrepancy in results.<ref>{{cite web | title = Polling and the Ballot: The Venezuelan Referendum | url = http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2004_08.pdf | publisher = Center for Economic and Policy Research | date = August 2004 | access-date = 30 June 2006 }}</ref> PSB was criticized in the press for how the poll was carried out considering the Súmate group had been involved in organizing the recall and was considered anti-Chávez by the Venezuelan government.<ref name=ref36>{{cite news |title=Pollsters predicting recall under fire
|url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4D4J-M3V0-01TH-803J&csi=270093&oc=00240&perma=true |newspaper=Inland Valley Daily Bulletin |date=20 August 2004 |access-date=11 June 2012}}</ref>

Publication or broadcast of exit polls was banned by electoral authorities, but results of the PSB poll went out to media outlets and opposition offices several hours before polls closed.<ref>{{cite web | last = Associated Press | author-link = Associated Press | title = U.S. poll firm in hot water in Venezuela | url = http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296520.html | website = indymedia.org.uk | publisher = Indy Media UK | date = August 2004 | access-date = 9 June 2006 }}</ref> [[Jimmy Carter]] said that Súmate "deliberately distributed this erroneous exit poll data in order to build up, not only the expectation of victory, but also to influence the people still standing in line".<ref name="carter_accuse_opposition" />

==Result==
The preliminary result was announced on 16 August 2004 on national television and radio after 94% of the vote had been counted,<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://rnv.gov.ve/noticias/?act=ST&f=2&t=7761 |title=Radio Nacional de Venezuela -> Presidente Chávez gana con casi 5 millones de votos |access-date=16 August 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040824181355/http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/?act=ST&f=2&t=7761 |archive-date=24 August 2004 |url-status=dead}}</ref> with 58% having voted no and 42% voted yes..<ref>Consejo Nacional Electoral. {{in lang|es}} [http://www.cne.gov.ve/referendum_presidencial2004/ Chávez Ratificado Con el 58 Por Ciento de los votos] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100527022017/http://www.cne.gov.ve/referendum_presidencial2004/ |date=27 May 2010 }}, 16 August 2004.</ref> According to these early-morning results, the first condition (a quorum of 25% of the electorate) had been satisfied. The second condition (more votes against Chávez than he received in 2000) would probably be satisfied. However, the third condition (a simple majority: more people voting "yes" than "no") had clearly failed.

The final results showed 59% had voted no.

{{Referendum results
|for=3989008
|against=5800629
|invalid=25994
|electorate=14037900
|source=[https://web.archive.org/web/20050217074928/http://www.cne.gov.ve/referendum_presidencial2004/ CNE]
}}

==Disputes==
===Electoral fraud complaints===
After the preliminary results were broadcast, the opposition Coordinadora Democrática declared that fraud had taken place, stating that its own data (the [[Penn, Schoen & Berland]] exit poll, which was performed by volunteers from Súmate, the NGO which had organized the referendum) put the "Yes" vote at 59% and the "No" vote at 40%.<ref name=eluniv983/> Their exit poll showed the opposite result to the official voting data, predicting that Chávez would lose by 20%, whereas the election results showed him to have won by 20%. A poll company representative, Schoen commented, "I think it was a massive fraud".<ref name=Barone>Barone, M. [https://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm "Exit polls in Venezuela".] ''U.S. News & World Report.'' 20 August 2004.</ref> Coordinadora Democrática also told the press that no opposition representation was present when the votes were counted and that the physical ballots had not yet been taken into account.<ref name="eluniv983">{{in lang|es}}''El Universal'', 16 August 2004, [http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/08/16/revo_ava_16A483983.shtml Coordinadora Democrática rechaza resultados oficiales del CNE]</ref>

Constitutional lawyer [[Tulio Álvarez]], representative of the Coordinadora Democrática, published a preliminary report entitled "Fraud to Democracy", the result of the work of 40 professionals diversified in 14 thematic areas, concluding that "qualitative, continued, selective, massive fraud" occurred in the manual and automated procedures, for which the coalition decided to challenge the process. The report explains that it was detected that in Venezuela the scheme of the electoral population averages was broken and in two months it went from 48 points to 53 points of proportion in the electoral population, meaning that close to 1.8 million people who never voted were accounted for, a mobilization of a non-existent population was made to commit fraud in the manual voting according to the report. The study states that mostnew registrants were oriented to rural centers or urban areas of manual voting, in an attempt to disguise the electronic fraud with a voting trend in favor of the "No" option. In the automated process, a collective manipulation of 28% of the vote was detected, which "compromises officials of the National Electoral Council and of the company in charge of the automation". Likewise, evidence of "bidirectionality of communication" was found, since according to the data obtained from [[CANTV]] there was traffic to and from the machines before printing the ballots, and it is indicated that there was "a pattern of communications intervention. At certain hours, traffic was concentrated to receive information, send and manipulate it", transmissions "outside the allowed hours, since 7:00 a.m.", when it was established that "the machine would not be connected until the closing of the process".<ref name=":0">{{cite news|access-date=11 July 2018|language=es|periodical=Venelogía|title=Tulio Álvarez: Resultados preliminares sobre fraude electoral|url=http://www.venelogia.com/archivos/239/}}</ref>

Some individuals have disputed the center's endorsement of the electoral process in the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004.<ref name="auto">J. Michael Waller, {{cite web |title=What to Do about Venezuela? |url=http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/modules/newsmanager/center%20publication%20pdfs/ocwhat_to_dovenezuela.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070630013004/http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/modules/newsmanager/center%20publication%20pdfs/ocwhat_to_dovenezuela.pdf |archive-date=30 June 2007}}  {{small|(75.0 [[Kibibyte|KiB]])}} Occasional Papers 6 [[Center for Security Policy]] May 2005, accessed 19 December 2008.</ref> Fox News' [[Doug Schoen]] told Michael Barone at ''U.S. News & World Report'', "Our internal sourcing tells us that there was fraud in the Venezuelan central commission. There are widespread reports of irregularities and evidence of fraud, many of them ably recorded by Mary Anastasia O'Grady in ''The Wall Street Journal'' last week. Carter is untroubled by any of this, and declares that Chavez won 'fair and square.'"<ref>[https://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm USNews.com: The National Interest: Exit polls in Venezuela (8/20/04)]</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005586|title=Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal|website=WSJ}}</ref> The Carter Center looked into the allegations and released a paper and statistical analysis reaffirming their original conclusions.<ref name=":1">Carter Center, 17 September 2004, [http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/1834.pdf Report on an Analysis of the Representativeness of the Second Audit Sample, and the Correlation between Petition Signers and the Yes Vote in the Aug. 15, 2004 Presidential Recall Referendum in Venezuela], accessed 20 February 2010</ref>

===Process endorsements===


The day before the polling, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter expressed confidence that the vote would proceed in a calm and orderly fashion. Carter commented that, "I might project results that will be much more satisfactory than they were in 2000 in Florida".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.yahoo.com/|title=Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines|website=news.yahoo.com}}</ref>

On the afternoon of 16 August 2004, Carter and OAS Secretary General [[César Gaviria]] gave a joint press conference in which they endorsed the preliminary results announced by the CNE. The monitors' findings "coincided with the partial returns announced today by the National Elections Council" said Carter, while Gaviria added that the OAS electoral observation mission's members had "found no element of fraud in the process". Directing his remarks at opposition figures who made claims of "widespread fraud" in the voting, Carter called on all Venezuelans to "accept the results and work together for the future".<ref name="carter_accept" /> The [[Carter Center]] "concluded the results were accurate."<ref name="carter_report" />

The [[U.S. Department of State]] accepted that the results of the subsequent audit were "consistent with the results announced by (Venezuela's) National Electoral Council."<ref>Pravda. [http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/25-08-2004/6685-chavez-0 Venezuelan opposition seeks revenge as audits confirm Chavez’s victory] Retrieved 5 August 2006</ref><ref>U.S. Department of State [https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/35296.htm Daily Press Briefing for August 17– Transcript] Retrieved 5 August 2006</ref> [[John Maisto]], U.S. Permanent Representative to the [[Organization of American States]], added that the results of the referendum "speak for themselves", saying that the quest for Venezuelan democracy "does not end with a single electoral process or referendum" and urging the "democratically elected government of Venezuela to address and recognize the legitimate concerns, rights, and aspirations of all of its citizens".<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/wh/Archive/2004/Sep/14-795264.html U.S. Urges Venezuela to Choose "Peaceful Path" to Democracy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060816172946/https://usinfo.state.gov/wh/Archive/2004/Sep/14-795264.html |date=16 August 2006 }} Retrieved 6 August 2006</ref> Regarding the recall effort, in testimony before the U.S. Senate, Maisto also pointed out that Carter had said that " 'expression of the citizen must be privileged over excessive technicalities' in resolving issues surrounding the tabulation of the signatures".<ref>Maisto, John F. (24 June 2004). [https://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2004/MaistoTestimony040624.pdf STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR JOHN F. MAISTO.] United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations.</ref>

European Union observers did not oversee the elections, saying too many restrictions were put on their participation by the Chávez administration.<ref>de Cordoba, Jose and Luhnow, David. "Venezuelans Rush to Vote on Chavez: Polarized Nation Decides Whether to Recall President After Years of Political Rifts". ''Wall Street Journal''. (Eastern edition). New York, NY: 16 August 2004. pg. A11.</ref>

===Analyses===
Economists [[Ricardo Hausmann]] of [[Harvard University]] and Roberto Rigobón of the [[MIT Sloan School of Management]] performed a statistical analysis at Súmate's request, analyzing how fraud could have occurred during the referendum. They concluded that the vote samples audited by the government were not a random representation of all precincts, noting that the Chávez-backed [[National Electoral Council (Venezuela)|CNE]] had "refused to use the random number generating program offered by the Carter Center for the 18 August audit and instead used its own program installed in its own computer and initialed with their own seed." They also noted that opposition witnesses and international observers were not allowed near the computer hub on election day.<ref name=UniversalElectionFraud>Juan Francisco Alonso (6 September 2004). [http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/09/06/en_pol_art_06A489963.shtml Súmate: There is a 99% probability of fraud in referendum]. ''El Universal''. Retrieved 6 August 2006.</ref> According to ''[[the Wall Street Journal]]'', a computer-science professor at [[Johns Hopkins University]] said, "The Hausmann/Rigobon study is more credible than many of the other allegations being thrown around."<ref>Luhnow, David. Academics' Study Backs Fraud Claim in Chavez Election. ''The Wall Street Journal'' (7 September 2004) pg. A18.</ref> The Carter Center looked into the allegations and released a paper with a statistical analysis in response; this stated that the audit sample data, in particular the statistical [[correlation]] between the number of "Yes" voters and the number of petition signatories in each audited voting centre, were consistent with nationwide results, and reaffirmed the Carter Center's earlier conclusions.<ref name="carter_center_analysis" />

The [[Center for Economic and Policy Research]] drew on the Carter Center analysis and elaborated on the issue, criticising Hausmann and Rigobón's statistical model.<ref name=CEPRBlackSwan /> Furthermore, the CEPR analysis noted that "although Hausmann and Rigobón's analysis does not require this data to be accurate, it does require that its errors be uncorrelated with those of the signatures, something that cannot be assumed without any verifiable knowledge or observation of where the data came from.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Weisbrot|first1=Mark|last2=Rosnick|first2=David|last3=Tucker|first3=Todd|date=20 September 2004|title=Black Swans, Conspiracy Theories, and the Quixotic Search for Fraud: A Look at Hausmann and Rigobón's 1 Analysis of Venezuela's Referendum Vote|url=https://cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2004_09.pdf|url-status=live|website=cepr.net|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080227012901/http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2004_09.pdf |archive-date=27 February 2008 }}</ref>

Javier Corrales wrote in the [[Foreign Policy Magazine]] that the opposition was "shocked not so much by the results as by the ease with which international observers condoned the Electoral Council's flimsy audit of the results."<ref name=HugoBoss>Corrales, Javier. [https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/19/hugo-boss/ Hugo Boss.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161122061831/https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/19/hugo-boss/ |date=22 November 2016 }} ''Foreign Policy'' (19 October 2009).</ref> The sample for the audit was selected by the government controlled National Electoral Council and, according to the opposition, was not of sufficient size to be statistically reliable.<ref>[http://web.sumate.org/documentos/PrelimRRP1-2%20main%20text2.pdf Preliminary Report: The Presidential Recall Referendum.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060904232252/http://web.sumate.org/documentos/PrelimRRP1-2%20main%20text2.pdf |date=4 September 2006 }} ''Súmate'' (7 September 2004). Retrieved 8 August 2006.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=July 2023}}

Election observers insisted that no fraud had taken place,<ref name="CEPRBlackSwan" /><ref name="observers" /> but scholarly analyses published over the years to come disagreed. A statistical study by Maria M. Febres Cordero and Bernardo Márquez was published in 2006 in a peer-reviewed academic statistics journal.<ref name="corderomarquez">Maria M. Febres Cordero and Bernardo Márquez (2006), "A Statistical Approach to Assess Referendum Results: the Venezuelan Recall Referendum 2004", ''International Statistical Review'', 74(3); [http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?verb=Display&version=1.0&service=UI&handle=euclid.isr/1165245390&page=record abstract] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607174857/http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?verb=Display&version=1.0&service=UI&handle=euclid.isr%2F1165245390&page=record|date=7 June 2011}}</ref> The study used [[cluster analysis]] to review differences in vote patterns between voting certificates on the basis that voters were randomly assigned to certificates (each voting center had on average 2 or 3 certificates, typically for computerised and manual voting systems). It concluded: "[The] Venezuelan opposition has statistical evidence to reject the official results given by the CNE. The irregularities detected were observed consistently in numerous voting centers and the magnitude of the irregularities imply that the official results do not reflect the intention of voters with statistical confidence."<ref name="corderomarquez" /> They estimated that 56.4% had voted yes to recall Chavez, as opposed to the official result of 41%.

The presence of systemic election fraud was also supported by six analyses in a special section in the November 2011 issue of ''Statistical Science''. [[Raquel Prado]] and Bruno Sansó examined the exit polls;<ref>[[Raquel Prado]] and Bruno Sansó (2011), [[arxiv:1205.3320|The 2004 Venezuelan Presidential Recall Referendum: Discrepancies Between Two Exit Polls and Official Results]], ''Statistical Science'' 26(4)</ref> Luis Raul Pericchi and David A Torres examined the no-votes against the [[Benford's law|Newcomb-Benford law]];<ref>Luis Raul Pericchi and David A Torres (2011), [[arxiv:1205.3290|Quick Anomaly Detection by the Newcomb–Benford Law, with Applications to Electoral Processes Data from the USA, Puerto Rico and Venezuela]], ''Statistical Science'' 26(4)</ref> Isbelia Martin discovered anomalous patterns in telecommunications;<ref>Isbelia Martin (2011), [[arxiv:1205.3564|2004 Venezuelan Presidential Recall Referendum (2004 PRR): A Statistical Analysis from the Point of View of Electronic Voting Data Transmissions]], ''Statistical Science'' 26(4)</ref> Ricardo Hausmann and Roberto I. Rigobón analyzed patterns related to exit polls; Raúl Jiménez examined the distribution of valid votes, null votes, and abstentions in each precinct;<ref>Raúl Jiménez (2011), [[arxiv:1205.3645|Forensic Analysis of the Venezuelan Recall Referendum]], ''Statistical Science'' 26(4)</ref> while Gustavo Delfino and Guillermo Salas reported on the anomalous relation between signatures requesting the recall, and the yes-votes.<ref>Gustavo Delfino and Guillermo Salas (2011), [[arxiv:1205.5108|Analysis of the 2004 Venezuela Referendum: The Official Results Versus the Petition Signatures]], ''Statistical Science'' 26(4)</ref> The section is introduced by an article written by [[Alicia L. Carriquiry]].<ref name="specialsection" /><ref>[[Alicia L. Carriquiry]]. (2011), [[arxiv:1205.3009|Election Forensics and the 2004 Venezuelan Presidential Recall Referendum as a Case Study]], ''Statistical Science'' 26(4)</ref> One of the papers, by Hausmann and Rigobón, was a later version of a paper disputed by the Carter Center, and contains a response to that criticism.<ref>[[Ricardo Hausmann]] and Roberto I. Rigobón (2011), "[http://web.mit.edu/rigobon/www/Robertos_Web_Page/oth_-_blackswan_files/Black%20Swan%20FINAL.pdf In Search of the Black Swan: Analysis of the Statistical Evidence of Electoral Fraud in Venezuela]", ''Statistical Science'' 26(4)</ref>

==See also==
* [[2004 Venezuelan protests]]
* [[Plaza Altamira military]]
* [[2016 Venezuelan recall referendum project]]
* [[2022 Venezuelan recall referendum project]]

==Notes==

{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3247816.stm Recall Referendum Q&A] (BBC)
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3479113.stm Head-to-head: Should Chávez leave power?] (BBC)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20050313204850/http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2004/08/808090.shtml indymedia global newswire] claims of electoral fraud by CNE
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20040824181355/http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/?act=ST&f=2&t=7761 referendum result] announced on national radio and television
* [http://analitica.com/ Venezuela Analitica]
* [http://www.cne.gov.ve/referendum_presidencial2004 CNE's Official Results for Recall Referendum] ([[National Electoral Council (Venezuela)]])
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160107211505/http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1837.htm Carter Center's Executive Summary of Comprehensive Report: 2004 Venezuela Elections] ([[Carter Center]])
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160107211505/http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1820.htm Carter Center's Audit of the Results of the Presidential Recall Referendum in Venezuela] ([[Carter Center]])
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160107211505/http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1834.htm Carter Center's Report on an Analysis of the Representativeness of the Second Audit Sample, and the Correlation between Petition Signers and the Yes Vote in the August 15, 2004, Presidential Recall Referendum] ([[Carter Center]])
* [https://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm Exit polls in Venezuela] an analysis by Michael Barone of ''[[U.S. News & World Report]]''.
* [http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2004_09.pdf Black Swans, Conspiracy Theories, and the Quixotic Search for Fraud: A Look at Hausmann and Rigobon's Analysis of Venezuela's Referendum Vote], from the [[Center for Economic and Policy Research]], September 2004

{{Venezuelan elections}}
{{Venezuela topics}}
{{Hugo Chávez}}
{{Chávez presidency}}

[[Category:2004 in Venezuela|Recall referendum]]
[[Category:Recall elections]]
[[Category:2004 referendums|Venezuela]]
[[Category:Referendums in Venezuela]]
[[Category:August 2004 in South America|Venezuela]]
[[Category:Opposition to Hugo Chávez]]