“The international media has not always exercised due diligence in its reporting on polling data and elections in Venezuela,” said Weisbrot, who has authored papers on previous elections there.
“This opens up the possibility for the use of fake polling, as was done in the last (2004) referendum, to cast doubt on the results if the proposed constitutional reforms are approved,” he said.
In 2004, the influential U.S. polling firm Penn, Schoen, and Berland published fake exit polls on the day of the Presidential recall referendum, showing President Hugo Chávez losing by a 59-41 margin.[1] The actual results, which were certified by observer missions from the Organization of American States and the Atlanta-based Carter Center, showed the opposite, with Chávez winning by a margin of 58 to 41 percent.[2]
The fake exit polls were not the only dubious polls that plagued the last referendum. Most of the pre-election polls in 2004 showed the race “too close to call.” Although these were conducted by opposition pollsters, most of the international media accepted them in their reporting. As CEPR demonstrated at the time, it is extremely unlikely that a properly conducted poll could have shown a result that was “too close to call.”
The election’s credibility was also attacked by a widely-cited statistical paper[3] purporting to show evidence of fraud.[4] CEPR showed that this analysis was deeply flawed and provided no such evidence; the Carter Center later commissioned an independent panel of statisticians from U.S. universities, which confirmed CEPR’s finding and concluded that there was no statistical evidence of fraud. Nonetheless, the Wall Street Journal and some Latin American media outlets used this paper and the fake exit polls to claim that the referendum was actually stolen through a clever electronic fraud.[5]
On this basis of such analysis and fake exit polls, most of the opposition rejected the results of the 2004 referendum, and went on to boycott the 2005 national elections.
In the 2006 Presidential election, Penn, Schoen and Berland once again produced questionable polling data showing the race to be in a ” very close” just before the election. Other pollsters, including Zogby International, showed an 18-29 point spread favoring Chávez.[6] According to the Miami Herald, this led to the sudden departure of Doug Schoen – who was responsible for the Venezuela polling – on the eve of the election.[7] Chávez won the presidency by a margin of 63 to 37 percent.
“The international media’s reporting on the current referendum so far is not encouraging,” Weisbrot said. He noted that on November 7th, “almost all of the U.S. and international press reported that pro-Chávez gunmen had fired on a crowd of peaceful protesters returning from a demonstration against the reforms.[8] We now know that this is not at all what happened.”[9]
Weisbrot also noted that the media has given wide coverage to a poll by Datanalisis this week showing a defeat for the proposed reforms.[10] The firm’s longstanding ties to the opposition, and its serious polling errors in the last referendum, were not mentioned in the press.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people’s lives. CEPR’s Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University.
CEPR receives approximately 80% of its funding from foundations, and receives additional funds from a growing number of individual donors. We do not receive any funding from governments (with the exception of a small grant from Washington State in 2003). For more information, click here.
##
Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net
Show me please where the CIA gets involved in this. Reading this, one would think Third World referendums are spotless exercises in the mechanics of free and fair democracy, were it not for foreign meddling. Chavez is opposed by the middle and upper classes of Venezuela, as well as the Catholic Church. There’s plenty of mischief available from his own domestic opponents without dragging in the CIA on this.
<
p>Chavez is similar to Ahmadinejad of Iran in that their role as a prop in domestic politics is obscuring their role in their home countries. As much as Republicans like to wave their stubby little fingers at Hugo, fact remains that he is pumping out oil destined for our gas tanks as quickly as he can. If Chavez was at all serious about opposing the United States, interfering with said exports would be his first move. Till then, talk is talk. Booga booga.
Show me please where the CIA gets involved in this.
<
p>The CIA does have a history of undermining elected foreign governments. Most notably, Mossadegh in Iran, but that was in 1953. But I have not seen any suggestion that the CIA was involved in the attempted coup against Chavez a few years ago.
<
p>On a tangent, there was an article a number of months ago on Spiegel International to the effect that Chavez is not the populist that his public speeches makes him out to be. I’m not sure whether the article has been archived, but, if it has, it’s probably behind a pay-wall. Essentially, what the article mentioned is that his populist public speeches are for consumption by the rubes in Venezuela, but, with a wink and a nod, the upper crust is actually the beneficiary of his government’s rule.
…the same way Putin is a populist. The disaffected love him for taking out the anger they feel. And like Putin, Chavez has shown little interest in actually giving those people he supposedly represents the power to influence how he uses the power he’s accumulated.
I commend you for bringing it up in this way and on this forum. I also support wholeheartedly any mention in any “mainstream” venue alternative sources as commercial mainstream media in this country is pure propaganda.
Chavez will eventually get overthrown by his own people especially when socialism+protectionism=bankruptcy and inflation. Once the inevitably economic ruining of the nation happens and the massive social services fail then the lower classes will revolt and put in a moderate social democrat in the form of Lula or Schroeder.
<
p>That said there should not be any liberals supporting Hugo Chavez considering that a tenent of liberalism is the rule of law and that no longer exists in Venezuela.
<
p>Imagine if G Dubs asked for unlimited terms after 9/11 in a referendum how easily it wouldve passed, just cuase Chavez likes (flawed) socialist economics and hates G Dubs doesnt make him a liberal.
<
p>So frankly if a CIA sponsored coup could get the ball rolling on the end of Hugo id be down.
Why do you think there is no rule of law in Venezuela?
<
p>There is no evidenceof that. Quite the contrary.
<
p>The people of venezuela have more rights, more free speech, than ever before.
<
p>They now have more control over their companies with more rights for the workers.
<
p>The first mission of Chavez’s government was to make sure everyone could read – they succeded.
<
p>Chavez, unlike Bush, was democratically elected in an election that was overseen by many election observers from around the world.
<
p>His reforms were voted down yesterday in a clean election, and he graciously admitted defeat. Dictator? No.
<
p>Chavez was not just asking for unlimited terms, the referendum also gave even more power to the 26,000 local community councils that govern Venezuela – the referendum would have given even more power to the people – not less.
<
p>Our government already did fund a coup and kidnapping against Chavez in 2002, luckily they failed. And good for Chavez for not renewing the RCTV contract after that channel engaged in said illegal coup.
<
p>Imagine if Fox news or CNN used all their time to stir up trouble and worked together with another country to engage in an illegal coup of one of our presidents, you better believe that president would not renew their contract…. oh wait, our media is all corporately controlled to the point where we barely even have public airwaves anymore.
<
p>Chavez gave the television station back to the people who now control it locally and have more of a voice than ever. There is more opposition voices in Venezuela than ever, and they are heard loud and clear. Democracy is alive and well there, as seen by the election yesterday.
<
p>Don’t just believe CNN and Fox News when they tell you Chavez is an evivl dictator. There is a lot more goign on than that.
One, in a democracy, the electorate can choose to vote for any numbscull they want. I’d mention the US in 2000, but Bush was selected, not elected.
<
p>Two, you are indeed correct that Chavez’s proposed changes were voted down, and he has admitted as much.
<
p>Three, it is unclear the extent to which the US gov’t supported the 2002 attempted coup beforehand. It obviously supported the coup after the fact, to the consternation of the Organization of American States. That is what forced the US gov’t to withdraw the support from the attempted coup: it would have allienated most of the hemisphere. It may be counter-intuitive, but it was the US’s successes in fostering democracy in the hemisphere that made it essential that the US call off its support for the 2002 coup attempt.