Paper tally sheets will prove the winner of Venezuela’s election – so where are they?

After both President Nicolás Maduro and the main opposition claimed to have won Venezuela’s presidential election, Mr. Maduro was declared winner – but the national electoral authority has yet to release the tally sheets that would confirm the results.

|
Cristian Hernandez/AP
Venezuela opposition leader María Corina Machado (left) and opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez hold up vote tally sheets from the top of a truck to protest the official presidential election results in Caracas, Venezuela, on July 30, 2024.

Venezuela was tense on July 30 as incumbent President Nicolás Maduro and the country’s main opposition coalition both claimed that they had won the July 28 presidential election.

The national electoral authority proclaimed Mr. Maduro the winner. The opposition, represented by Edmundo González, said it has evidence to the contrary.

Electoral authorities installed more than 30,000 voting machines, and by law the opposition had the right to have representatives at all voting centers. But not all were allowed in July 28 or were ousted before polls closed.

After the polls close, Venezuela’s electronic voting machines can print sheets tallying all the votes each counted. Experts say the best way to clear up the dispute is to release those sheets. But the National Electoral Council has not done so.

Here’s a look at what has been said and what is known:

The tally sheets

The main discussion is coming down to the sheets. In case of any dispute, one way of solving it is by checking the tallies the government has against what the opposition parties have.

The electronic machines provide every voter a paper receipt that shows which candidate they chose. Voters are supposed to deposit their receipts at ballot boxes before exiting the polls.

After polls close, each machine prints a tally sheet showing the candidates’ names and the votes each received. Party representatives stationed at polling sites throughout election day get a copy of the tally sheet, and electoral authorities keep another one.

But the ruling party wields tight control over the voting system, both through a loyal five-member electoral council and a network of longtime local party coordinators who get near unrestricted access to voting centers. Those coordinators, some of whom are responsible for handing out government benefits including subsidized food, have blocked representatives of opposition parties from entering voting centers as allowed by law to witness the voting process, vote counting, and, crucially, to obtain a copy of the machines’ final tally sheets.

Which numbers have the electoral authorities released?

On its website, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council traditionally posts vote counts for every machine. It has never posted images of the tally sheets.

The president of the council, Elvis Amoroso, said July 29 that Mr. Maduro got 51.2% of the votes, or more than 5.1 million votes. Mr. González garnered 44%, or more than 4.4 million votes, he said.

Mr. Amoroso said the other eight presidential candidates got a combined total of 4% or more than 462,000 votes.

He said those numbers were based on a review of 80% of the tally sheets. He did not show the sheets.

Which numbers have the opposition shared?

Opposition leader María Corina Machado said on July 29 that Mr. González got more than 6.2 million votes and Mr. Maduro got more than 2.7 million votes.

Ms. Machado did not offer totals for the other eight candidates.

She said those numbers were based on a review of 73.2% of the tally sheets. She did not show any tally sheet but she directed voters to a website where they can use their ID number to look up an image of the sheet that corresponds to the machine where they voted.

Who has access to the tallies?

The National Electoral Council does not have the obligation to post the tally sheets on its website – which has been down since July 29. But the opposition, electoral experts and some foreign governments disputing the official results are urging the sheets’ release.

The Carter Center, based in Atlanta, said it was unable to verify the results of Venezuela’s presidential election, blaming authorities for a “complete lack of transparency” in declaring Nicolas Maduro the winner without providing any individual polling tallies.

The July 31 statement by the Carter Center is perhaps the harshest rebuke yet of Venezuela’s chaotic election process because it comes from one of just a handful of outside groups invited by the Maduro government to observe the vote.

“The electoral authority’s failure to announce disaggregated results by polling station constitutes a serious breach of electoral principles,” the Carter Center said. The group, which had a technical mission of 17 experts spread out in four cities across Venezuela, added that the election did not meet international standards and “cannot be considered democratic.”

On July 29, Ms. Machado announced the opposition had created a searchable website with images of every tally sheet that opposition poll representatives were able to obtain. Ms. Machado said the information was also being shared with the international community.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. AP writers Joshua Goodman, Gisela Salomon, Regina Garcia Cano, and Nancy Benac contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Paper tally sheets will prove the winner of Venezuela’s election – so where are they?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2024/0731/venezuela-tally-sheets-presidential-election
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe