Now that a highly detailed database tracking Venezuela’s July 28 presidential election has been made available to the public, five key pieces of evidence provide a clearer picture of the results published by the opposition:
- First, as has already been observed, according to the published records, Edmundo González Urrutia (EGU) would be leading in the vote count against Nicolás Maduro Moros (NMM) by 37.15 percentage points. This difference is the largest electoral gap in the history of Venezuela’s presidential elections since the country’s return to democracy in 1958 (2018 does not count, as the ruling party participated alone).
- Second, as has also already been highlighted, given the number of records counted (82%), this result would be mathematically impossible to reverse.
- Third, a geographic analysis of the data suggests that EGU’s victory has erased any geographical differences; blue versus red is no longer a visible pattern across the country. According to available records, EGU would win across all Venezuelan states.
Additionally, according to available records, EGU would win in 90% of the country’s municipalities, proportionally.
- A socioeconomic analysis of the changes observed in electoral preferences indicates that the percentage of votes received by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (USPV) fell to a much greater extent in socioeconomically vulnerable areas and in more rural regions. As an example, we see a sort of llanero (South American herder) rebellion in Barinas (-24pp), Portuguesa (-23pp), and Cojedes (-22pp) – all highly rural municipalities – where the official vote for the USPV fell the most compared to 2013.
- Whether at a socioeconomic- or geographic-level, EGU’s victory is clear. In fact, the evidence points to a visible shift in the political pendulum across all population and socioeconomic segments of the country. Namely:
-EGU would win both in urban areas (69.5%) and rural areas (63.0%) of Venezuela.
-He would also win both in the Metropolitan Area of Caracas (72.2%) and in the country’s other regions (67.6%).
-More importantly, for the first time in 25 years, there would be no segmentation of the vote in relation to socioeconomic status. EGU’s would win across all of the country’s socioeconomic status categories, including in areas with the greatest levels of social vulnerability and incidence of multidimensional poverty, which have not been taken by the opposition since 1998.
The opposition vote has shown incredibly strong penetration in municipalities with the highest levels of poverty and rurality. For example, the margin of votes obtained in places like Dabajuro, Upata, and Santa Barbara de Barinas, which can be described as having greater levels of poverty and rurality, is equal to that obtained in Chacao, Pampatar, or Lechería, which can be described as wealthier municipalities.
The takeaway from these findings regarding the results of Venezuela’s July 28 election is evident: political polarization seems to no longer exist in Venezuela. EGU’s victory demonstrates a desire for change that is uniform and transversal across all areas, territories, and social classes in the country. It is representative of a new context, a new reality. Whatever happens, happens.
