Page 104 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

3. The third figure includes 3,890 precincts (99.69 % of the total) and
incorporates information on 145 additional precincts taken from
figures published by the UNADE, even though such figures have
systematically tended to cover up frauds favoring the pro-
government candidate. These fraudulent results also confirm Dr.
Arnulfo Arias’s victory:

ADO: 321,827 UNADE: 319,434 MARGINS: 2,393

It should be added, “Arias Calderón goes on to say, that the
remaining 12 precincts, on which no one has any information,
represent a maximum of 1,241 votes according to the Electoral
Tribunal. Impossible though it is, if all electors registered at these
precincts had voted and if all had voted for the pro-government
candidate, Dr. Arnulfo Arias would still be the winner”.

It is evident, thus, that Barletta’s commitment, as quoted in this section’s
heading, was no more than an empty promise, typical of demagogic politicians who
promise everything to everyone when campaigning.

It is possible that, initially, ADO’s margin of victory may seem narrower than
one had imagined. But it should be recalled that this victory was won over an adversary
who had the Defense Forces decided and unlawful support, abused government power
and influence, enjoyed a virtually absolute monopoly of the media, and outspent the
opposition at a rate of approximately ten to one. 47 In addition, some aspects of the
electoral fraud were part and parcel of the system, and its effects are already reflected
in the figures. Such is the case of the tampering with official voter lists, the existence
of “fictitious listings”, the “Special Listing” of 17,000 voters who could have voted at
least twice, the many forged cards and the massive and systematic buying of votes.
And despite all that… we won!

ADO: 321,827

UNADE: 319,434

Arias’s margin of victory: 2,393

47 It has been ascertained that part of the PRD’s funds came from the improper use of the Social
Security fund. On the front page of its issue of August 21, 1984, La Prensa published photocopies of
checks totaling $150,000, paid to the PRD by companies involved in this enormous scandal.
Presumably, these funds were used for campaign expenses. In addition, the AFL-CIO channeled at
least $20,000 from the U.S. Government’s Endowment for Democracy Fund. According to La Prensa,
June 18, 1984, page 1A, this contribution was exposed in The New York Times.