[rad-green]

*http://cepr.net/press-center/press-releases/no-evidence-that-bolivian-election-results-were-affected-by-irregularities-or-fraud-statistical-analysis-shows
<http://cepr.net/press-center/press-releases/no-evidence-that-bolivian-election-results-were-affected-by-irregularities-or-fraud-statistical-analysis-shows>*

*Center for Economic and Policy Research     *
No Evidence That Bolivian Election Results Were Affected by Irregularities
or Fraud, Statistical Analysis Shows

*Examination Finds Tally Sheets Consistent with Evo Morales’s First-Round
Victory*

For Immediate Release: November 8, 2019
Contact: Dan Beeton, 202-239-1460

Washington, DC ― Statistical analysis
<http://cepr.net/publications/reports/bolivia-elections-2019-11> of
election returns and tally sheets from Bolivia’s October 20 elections shows
no evidence that irregularities or fraud affected the official result that
gave President Evo Morales a first-round victory, researchers and analysts
at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) say. Contrary to a
postelection narrative that was supported, without evidence, by the OAS
Electoral Observation Mission, statistical analysis shows that it was
predictable that Morales would obtain a first-round win, based on the
results of the first 83.85 percent of votes in a rapid count that showed
Morales leading runner-up Carlos Mesa by less than 10 points.

The new paper, “What Happened in Bolivia’s 2019 Vote Count? The Role of the
OAS Electoral Observation Mission
<http://cepr.net/publications/reports/bolivia-elections-2019-11>,” presents
a step-by-step breakdown of what happened with Bolivia’s vote counts (both
the unofficial quick count, and the slower official count), seeking to
dispel confusion over the process. The report includes the results of 500
simulations that show that Morales’s first-round victory was not just
possible, but probable, based on the results of the initial 83.85 percent
of votes in the quick count.

“There is simply no statistical or evidentiary basis to dispute the vote
count results showing that Evo Morales won in the first round,” CEPR Senior
Policy Analyst, and coauthor of the paper, Guillaume Long
<http://cepr.net/about-us/staff/> said. “In the end, the official count,
which is legally binding and completely transparent, with the tally sheets
available online, closely matched the rapid count results.”

Mark Weisbrot <http://cepr.net/about-us/staff/mark-weisbrot>, Co-Director
of CEPR, noted that it was very unusual, and highly questionable, for the
OAS to issue a press statement questioning election results without
providing any evidence for doing so. He noted that the OAS preliminary
report on the election also provided no evidence that anything was wrong
with the vote count.

“The OAS press statement of October 21 and its preliminary report on the
Bolivian elections raise disturbing questions about the organization’s
commitment to impartial, professional, electoral observation,” said
Weisbrot. “The OAS should investigate to find out how such statements,
which may have contributed to political conflict in Bolivia, were made
without any evidence whatsoever.”

The paper verifies that historic voting tendencies favoring Morales in
later-reporting polling areas explain why the gap between Morales and Mesa
widened as votes were counted, ending with an official result that put
Morales ahead of Mesa by 10.57 points.

The paper also shows that the respective voting trends for Morales and Mesa
were consistent, contrary to the OAS’s early postelection statements:
“Neither the quick count nor the official count exhibit sudden changes in
trends in the final results, and the same well-known trend, explainable by
geography, is evident in both counts.”

“We encourage anyone interested in what happened in Bolivia’s elections to
do their own examination of the tally sheets and their own statistical
analysis,” Long said. “Hopefully, the OAS electoral mission will do that.
But we also need to remember that an OAS electoral mission overturned
election results in Haiti in 2011 with no statistical or other basis for
doing so.”

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sid-l/CACKppcwPBk_5499j%3Duy5NN9zFysu6SzqKsKDs2Eo97wZWrCLSw%40mail.gmail.com.

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>