Electoral Mission to Haiti, November 2010

The Célestin Vote Dissected

Chart 1

Source: Table 5


Quarantined: Set aside by electoral commission and not counted because of unrealistically high vote per polling place for single candidate

Nonquarantined: Equally disproportionate vote allowed by electoral commission


Summary of finding

The Provisional Electoral Council quarantined 38,337 votes claimed by ruling-party candidate Jude Célestin on grounds of suspiciously high votes for a single candidate per polling place.

Applying the same method to the non-quarantined vote, there are 14,408 more Célestin votes that should have been quarantined.

Contents of report

1. Examples of the quarantined returns, drawn randomly from the database. (Only the three leading candidates are listed.)

2. Brief explanation of the problems leading them to be disqualified

3. Complete list of the non-quarantined but equally suspect returns that the CEP counted in Célestin's favor

4. Chart and graph showing disproportions of quarantined returns (the reason they were quarantined)

5. Chart and graph showing disproportions of non-quarantined returns (the reason they should be quarantined)

6. Chart giving global view of Célestin vote

7. Graph of Célestin vote and database queries

8. Notes and description of method



Table 1


1. First return, Centre, Savanette: Pulled by CEP because too many votes for a single candidate (Baker, 238, not listed)

2. Next six returns: Pulled by CEP because too many votes for single candidate (Célestin)

3. Next two returns: Too many votes for single polling place

4. Next return: Too many votes for single candidate (Célestin)

5. Next return: Too many votes for single candidate (Manigat). The return is from the Artibonite, where Sen. Youri Latortue managed her campaign.

6. Next return: Too many votes for single candidate (Célestin)

7. Next two returns: Too many votes for single candidate (Manigat). See note above

8. Next return, Nord, Dondon: Ballot control, too many votes per polling place

9. Next return: Too many votes for single candidate (Manigat)

10. Next return: Too many votes for single candidate (Célestin) and more votes than valid ballots

11. Next return: Ballot control

12. Last two returns: Too many votes for single candidate (Célestin)

Now the complete list of votes let through by the electoral commission bearing the same characteristics as the ones above:



Table 2




Chart 2

Table 3



Chart 3

Table 4



The voting centers at these schools suffered a serious assault as falsifiers amassed a huge, onesided vote for Célestin. The Tabulation Center quarantined some of the most disproportionate returns but let others through.

Chart 4

Table 5

Note: By listing the 227,080 votes Célestin allegedly received in BVs where he received less than 164 votes, the Haiti Democracy Project makes no statement on the validity of these votes. It is likely that a great many of these are fraudulent as well.

The above charts and graphs are illustrative samples taken from the database Complete.dbf, both the quarantined and non-quarantined sections. A total of 312 polling places were quarantined out of 11,171. An analysis of the entire non-quarantined database indicates that the pattern of disproportion shown above held true down to a cutoff point of 164 votes per polling place, after which it began to flatten out. There are 14,408 Célestin votes in the band that begins with this cutoff point and extends up to the quarantined section, which has 38,337 Célestin votes.

If the same calculation is done on the Michel Martelly votes, there are 5,138 more of his votes that would move into quarantine.

If these 14,408 votes of Célestin and 5,138 of Martelly are moved into quarantine, Célestin would move into third place with 227,054 votes, as against Martelly with 229,474.

In a subsequent communication, the head of the OAS observation mission, Amb. Colin Granderson, has proposed lowering the cutoff point below 150 "in view of the low voter turnout and the probability of results manipulation at levels lower than gross ballot stuffing."

The Haiti Democracy Project used the conservatively high figure of 164 to be scrupulous about its calculation and minimize the risk of designating votes a candidate might actually have received.