Person counting voting tallies in Ecuador. Photo: EFE.
By Atilio Boron – Apr 16, 2025
Last Sunday, the world witnessed an unprecedented miracle in global political history. The second round of the presidential election between the “candidate-president”—so-called because the arrogant millionaire Daniel Noboa violated the rule that prevents an Ecuadorian president from remaining in office if he runs for reelection—and Luisa González yielded an astonishing result. The Citizen Revolution candidate [González] obtained 44.35% of the vote, a figure almost identical to her first round of 44.0%. Noboa, meanwhile, garnered 55.65% of the vote, having finished with 44.17% in the first round, and was reelected president.
The turnout rate was in line with the usual rate in that country: 83.70% of the electorate. Contrary to all international experience in the runoff, González barely increased her vote by 0.35%, while her rival increased his vote by just over 11 points. How can such a huge discrepancy be explained?
Let us start by saying that the National Electoral Council, which the president controls at his whim, changed the polling places just days before the election. Furthermore, the government declared a state of emergency, severely restricting freedom of movement and assembly, in the last ten days of the campaign. Noboa also tirelessly handed out bonuses to young people, entrepreneurs, those affected by disasters, police officers, etc., totaling the equivalent of 0.5% of Ecuador’s GDP.
Additionally, an unprecedented presence of the armed forces was observed throughout the campaign, and the security team that was supposed to protect González was changed. Meanwhile, Erik Prince, founder and leader of the shadowy paramilitary group Blackwater, arrived in the country after being invited to “collaborate” in the fight against drug trafficking and eradicate violence in the country. In other words, the minimum conditions of predictability, freedom, and social tranquility were conspicuously absent in Ecuador last Sunday. Andrés Arauz, Secretary General of the Citizen Revolution party, like Luisa González, denounced the “planting of ballot papers” in different parts of the country and, as proof, published six electoral records on social media without the joint signatures of the president and secretary of the polling stations. All of them favored Noboa.
What is surprising and raises many questions is the fact that Luisa González achieved a number practically identical, save for a couple of decimal places, to what she had achieved in the first round. Is it reasonable for such a thing to happen in a runoff? The answer is a resounding no. If we analyze Latin American experiences in this area, we will see how the two contenders in any runoff invariably increase their electoral strength. In Argentina, the second round of the 2023 presidential election showed that Javier Milei, who had obtained 29.9% of the votes in the first round, jumped to 55.6% in the runoff, while Sergio Massa went from 36.6% to 44.3%. In Chile in 2021, Gabriel Boric, who had been defeated in the first round by José A. Kast (27.9% to 25.8% of the vote), managed to “turn around” that result and triumphed in the runoff with 55.9% to Kast’s 44.1%. As in Argentina, both candidates improved their electoral influence. The same occurred in the 2022 Colombian presidential elections: Gustavo Petro won in the first round with 40.3% of the vote, while the far-right Rodolfo Hernández finished far behind with 28.1%. In the runoff, Petro rose to 50.4%, while his rival grew by almost twenty points to 47.3%. In Uruguay in 2024, Broad Front candidate Yamandú Orsi won the first round with 43.8 % against 26.8% for Álvaro Delgado. In the runoff, Delgado gained over 20 points but failed to beat Orsi’s 52%. Staying in Ecuador, in the August 2023 election, Luisa Gonzalez obtained the first relative majority with 33.6% against 23.4% of Daniel Noboa. In the runoff, Noboa added almost thirty points more and ended up winning with 51.8%, prevailing over Luisa, who grew but not enough to win, reaching 48.1%. I repeat: in the runoffs, the two finalists increase their electoral flow.
Nicaragua Criticizes Presidential Election Process in Ecuador
However, we now face a more than suspicious anomaly because the Citizens’ Revolution candidate, who had obtained 44% of the vote in the first round (against Noboa’s 44.1%), repeats almost exactly the result in the runoff, obtaining 44.3%, while the illegal “presidential candidate” grew to 55.6%. Statistically speaking, the probability of a candidate obtaining a nearly identical result, with a difference of just two or three tenths of a percentage point, in two separate elections is almost zero. I am not saying it is impossible, but it is highly improbable considering that after the first round closed, an alliance was sealed with the Pachakutik indigenous movement, which had obtained just over 5% of the vote. Moreover, eleven polls from different consulting firms all predicted González to win by a margin of between 3 and 4% of the vote. It is imperative to review the vote-by-vote count, because that fateful 44% may be more the result of a mathematical equation than an expression of the Ecuadorian citizenry.
Let us think about it: what is the probability that millions of people, acting completely independently of one another and in a very different context from the previous one—death threat to Luisa González, new alliances, undecided votes, etc.—will repeat almost exactly the same percentage with a margin of a couple of tenths of one percent? Without being a mathematician but having taken several statistics courses, I risk saying that this number seems more like the result of a mathematical equation incorporated into the vote-counting system than a genuine account of the popular will. Polls are not infallible, but they do not usually fail by margins as wide as those emerging from this extremely rare election result. A one-by-one recount of the votes is imperative. Otherwise, the suspicion that Noboa stole the election will hang over his presidency until the last day of his term.
(Telesur)
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/JRE/SF
Atilio Borón
Atilio A. Borón is a Harvard Graduate professor of political theory at the University of Buenos Aires and was executive secretary of the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO). He has published widely in several languages a variety of books and articles on political theory and philosophy, social theory, and comparative studies on the capitalist development in the periphery. He is an international analyst, writer and journalist and profoundly Latinoamerican.
