Election fraud in 2020 is putting Dominion and Smartmatic in the spotlight.
Michigan resident Gustavo Delfino was a witness to Venezuela’s 2004 referendum. He recently testified that voting machine anomalies in the 2020 US election were similar to those he saw in Venezuela 20 years ago.
Mr. Delfino was a witness in the election integrity case in William Bailey v. Antrim County, Mich., and lawyers for the plaintiffs presented sworn testimony to the court.
“He learned about the Smartmatic technology used in the 2020 election and saw similarities with Venezuela,” Delfino said in his deposition.
Some of them caught his attention — the voting machines were connected to the Internet; The so-called “software glitch” was the change of votes (Trump ‘Trump’ votes were counted in Biden’s name); The voting software was updated the night before election Day. Mr. Delfino said the software update had to be audited, so it was unacceptable to update the software on election Day eve.
Mr. Delfino was a professor at the Universidad Central de Venezuela and attended the University of Michigan. He is also a former member of the USENIX Voting Technology and Voting Systems Magazine (USENIX JETS) editorial board.
Mr. Delfino wrote the paper after analyzing data from a referendum in 2004 on the recall of then-President Hugo Chavez.
In his testimony, Delfino said that before venezuela’s recall referendum in 2004, the election system was massively updated, with 57 percent of polling centers switching to Smartmatic touch-screen machines and the rest using manual counting.
There was also a subtle change – a 15 per cent increase in the number of voters, but the parties were unable to identify those voters or check their addresses. That was a violation of Venezuela’s electoral law at the time.
In 2004 Smartmatic introduced a “continuous satellite link” to polling centres in Venezuela. Delfino explained that it was supposed to be used only to check voter ID at the entrance to the polling center, but in fact its connected devices were close to the voting machines, and the command center probably illegally connected the machines to the Internet.
And after the referendum, a report from the Carter Center caught the attention of Mr. Delfino and Guillermo Salas, a relative of one of his physicists.
Under venezuela’s constitution, the first requirement for a recall referendum is 20 percent of voters’ signatures. In a pre-referendum campaign, the number of signatures agreeing to remove Mr Chavez exceeded the legal threshold of 20 per cent.
After the referendum, the Carter Center released a report saying, “The result: 59 percent for Chavez and 41 percent for Chavez. The number of votes in the referendum agreeing to oust Chavez (an opponent of Chavez) was “highly correlated” with the number of signatures before the referendum (0.988).
Delfino said the report is based on the accuracy of the results from its Smartmatic voting machines. But he and Mr Salas were well aware that the “correlation” figure (0.988) was too high, suggesting that something had been done to force the anti-Chavez vote into proportion to the number of signatures.
They also compared the different polling centers and found a large amount of data fraud in automated polling centers with voting machines.
They cited the evidence in a 2011 paper published in Statistical Science. Rodrigo Medina, a Venezuelan scientist who reviewed the paper before it was published, said after the review that “this voting pattern can only be interpreted as a manipulation of the results to correlate with the number of signatures.”
Smartmatic responded on Dec. 4 that it sold voting technology and services to Venezuela between 2004 and 2017. Smartmatic has also said its vote count is accurate and will only be used in Los Angeles, California, in the 2020 ELECTION.