What documented irregularities occurred in Venezuela's 2018 and 2024 presidential elections?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Venezuela’s 2018 and 2024 presidential votes were repeatedly described in sources as marred by systemic and on-the-ground irregularities: the 2018 poll saw opposition parties and candidates effectively blocked or pressured and a rushed timetable that NGOs said denied normal electoral procedures [1], while the 2024 election drew widespread allegations that the National Electoral Council (CNE) withheld disaggregated tallies, restricted observers and impeded voters abroad — prompting international bodies and civil-society groups to call the result untrustworthy [2] [3] [4].
1. How the rules were changed before voting: rushed timetables and legal gymnastics
In 2018 critics flagged that the Constituent Assembly and other pro-government organs set a sudden election schedule and took competences to call an early vote — steps that Venezuelan NGOs and election-observation networks described as violating legal norms and compressing time for routine electoral functions such as registry updates, board selection and technical audits [1]. That same pattern—using institutional levers to shape the playing field—was treated as historical context for 2024, where longstanding co-optation of institutions was said to have left the opposition disadvantaged [5].
2. Candidate exclusion, arrest and intimidation
Both elections involved the effective sidelining of major opponents. In 2018 key opposition figures and parties were banned or boycotted the vote, which opposition leaders and observers said made credible competition impossible [1]. In coverage of 2024 sources document that prominent contenders were blocked from running, opposition members were detained during the campaign, and the government’s actions were described as part of a pattern of repression that impeded meaningful opposition participation [6] [4].
3. Voter access problems — especially for Venezuelans abroad
Observers and analysts emphasize that the 2024 process made voting from abroad “virtually impossible” for millions of Venezuelans living overseas, a restriction repeatedly cited as a decisive irregularity given the large diaspora [6] [7]. The Carter Center and other missions pointed to obstacles that prevented the majority of potential expatriate voters from participating, undermining claims of broad-based participation [7].
4. Election day conduct: moved polling places, alleged intimidation and witness substitution
Reports from both elections describe chaotic or coercive conduct on voting days: in 2018 and again in 2024 there were accounts of polling stations being moved at the last minute, armed authorities present at stations, and allegations that state forces tried to replace official witnesses with regime-aligned personnel — incidents observers said undermined a free and secret vote [2] [6].
5. The central tally dispute in 2024: withheld data and interrupted reporting
The most salient documented irregularity in 2024 concerned the CNE’s handling of results. Multiple sources say the CNE did not publish disaggregated vote tallies as normally required and reported interrupted processing before declaring a Maduro victory — a refusal to release the underlying tallies produced a credibility crisis and led organizations such as the Carter Center and UN panels to say the official result could not be verified [2] [7] [4]. Opposition groups collected and published many paper tally sheets and argued they showed a different outcome; international bodies asked for preservation of the tallies amid legal complaints [8] [9].
6. International reactions and competing narratives
States, international organizations and civil-society actors split in their responses. The EU and many countries labeled earlier Maduro victories as illegitimate and several international observers or missions said the 2024 process “did not meet international standards,” while regime-friendly declarations maintained the official count; the divergence reflects geopolitical and institutional fractures over what constitutes acceptable evidence and which actors are trusted [10] [7] [4].
7. Continuity and difference: 2018 set patterns, 2024 intensified the crisis
Analysts argue 2018 established a playbook — disqualify opponents, control institutions, and limit independent observation — and 2024 intensified those tactics with the added wrinkle of withholding or interrupting electronic reporting and not publishing disaggregated tallies, producing what many sources call an unprecedented rupture of electoral accountability [1] [2] [11].
Limitations: Available sources document many concrete irregularities and widespread denunciations, but they also present competing claims about the magnitude and mechanics of fraud; some sources emphasize physical intimidation and candidate bans [1] [6], while others focus on statistical and procedural anomalies around tallies [2] [11]. Sources do not, in the provided set, supply a single, authoritative forensic audit accepted by all parties; the Carter Center and UN missions reported they could not verify official results because access to records was restricted [7] [4].