-
#BoliviaEnCrisis Analyses by @JohnCuriel14 & @Master0fNull at @MITelectionlab and @ceprdc all presume that any #FraudeElectoral in the 2019 Bolivian election only took the form of manipulated vote totals between one count and another… Not what the OAS & EU alleged.
-
@JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc A primary concern of the OAS auditors was the opening of an electoral server backdoor that would have allowed the possibility for undetectable manipulation. There were red flags for them.
-
@JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc But the actual statistical claims made by the OAS audit were three levels down from red flags. Not orange irregularities, nor yellow errors, but blue "indices" of problems.
-
@JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc Instead, most of the analysis is devoted to asking whether "irregularities" and "errors" were large enough to swing the vote across the 10% threshold.
-
@JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc Critically, for the statistical analysis that CEPR and the MIT report propose, these irregularities were not in the electronic count, but prior to it. These included overvotes, mistabulated results at the precinct level, and 100% MAS tally sheets.
-
@JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc The OAS survey of highly pro-Evo voting tally sheets showed evidence of miscounts and improprieties. The very pro-Evo out-of-country Argentine votes had unauthorized numbers of votes (more than registered).
-
None of these problems would be detected by the statistical methods used in the analysis just published.
-
So people who are reading the Washington Post and concluding "no electoral fraud in Evo Morales' victory" are being misinformed about the kinds of alleged fraud involved. @chrislhayes @thomascfield @OVargas52 @SanhoTree
-
@chrislhayes @thomascfield @OVargas52 @SanhoTree The OAS has responded in a letter… oas.org/documents/eng/press/OSG-110-Editors-at-The-Monkey-Cage.pdf