-
@AleVelascoNYU @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc My summary would be this… 1. Many Bolivians saw the electoral set-up (esp. Evo's re-election) as illegitimate before Oct 20. 2. The electoral authorities were not impartial. So no one would believe a close Morales victory.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite Mood -1 🙁
-
@AleVelascoNYU @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc 3. There were (in my view, somewhat typical) dispersed efforts to bias and bump up Morales' count, as detected by the audit. These feel like Florida and Georgia 2018, not Mexico 1988. Maybe enough to swing the 1st round outcome.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@AleVelascoNYU @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc 3a. Given 2 & 3, it was legitimate for the auditors decided not to certify the election.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@AleVelascoNYU @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc 4. There were abrupt decisions regarding servers & the TREP suspension that heightened the public feelings around 1 & 2. These decisions made it technically possible to hack the results, but there doesn't seem to be technical proof they were hacked.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@AleVelascoNYU @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc 5. If only there were neutral investigators/prosecutorial authorities, we might be able to trace the answer to 4.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@AleVelascoNYU @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc 6. The known procedural biases/interventions don't point to a Evo-ordered conspiracy to save him from a runoff, which he is now being investigated for by Bolivian prosecutors.On twitter.com