Cuban Elections: Slate and Selective Votes
by Arnold August
Havana, January 27, 2008

On January 25, in a special Round Table TV programme, Maria Esther Reus, President of the National Electoral Commission and the Minister of Justice announced the final results of the January 20 elections for delegates to the provincial assemblies and deputies to the National Assembly. Amongst other statistics, she announced that 91% of the valid votes were slate votes in response to a call from all the leaders including Fidel Castro and all mass organisations in Cuba to vote in this way to express, amongst other things, the unity the Cuban people. The 91% vote represents a massive confirmation of the Cuban people’s unity to continue on the path of socialism, revolution and sovereignty. The slate vote rate is very similar to the one of the previous general elections held in 2002/2003, when 91.35% of the valid votes were full slate votes. I will be dealing with the full significance of the slate vote in other articles but especially in my forthcoming book.

However, I cannot remain silent today in the face of a very specific recent attempt at disinformation regarding Cuban elections results.

Walter Lippmann`s CubaNews allows people to keep an eye on virtually all the “mainstream” news media reporting on Cuba, especially those based in the USA. He ran the full New York Times, January 21, 2008 article entitled Memo from Havana, by Marc Lacey. The following is a direct quote from this NYT article:

“...although no candidate has ever lost an election in Castro’s Cuba, that does not mean voters cannot send subtle messages at the polls. In the last election [2002/2003], more than a million voters submitted blank ballots, nullified their ballot in some way or voted for some but not all of the candidates, said Jorge I. Domínguez, a Harvard professor who follows developments in Cuba.

...Not everyone follows the leaders. One voter, puffing on a cigar and sipping a Bucanero beer in his living room — and speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid repercussions — explained how he had marked an X next to only those names he had never heard of before, his way of saying that the veterans have not done enough.”

By a sleight of hand, a Harvard professor turned magician contends that 1 million people voted against the Cuban system. He does so by including those who did not vote for the full slate as an expression of opposition against the system and especially the historic leaders alongside blank and spoiled ballots. The number of blank and spoiled ballots remains extremely low: blank 306,791 (3.73%) and spoiled 85,216) 1.04%. The number of selective votes was 713, 606 or 9% of valid votes. (I have already dealt with the issue of spoiled ballots in a previous article as one of the preferred but continuing failed policy of “dissidents” or those who oppose socialism and revolution. I will have some more on this soon.)

What does a reality check show us regarding slate and selective votes in the January 20 elections? Professor Dominguez adds the spoiled and blank votes to the selective votes, coming to a figure of about 1 million votes this year as in previous years. The hick is that the selective vote is not as he and the NYT article claim, a repudiation of the revolution and its historic leadership. The Cuban leadership, while calling for a united full slate vote, also indicates very clearly that people should vote according to their individual conscience for one or more candidates, not necessarily all candidates. Aside from this, how does selective voting show up in real numbers?

On January 20, in one of the polling stations where I observed the vote count after the polls closed in polling station # 3, municipal District # 12 in Plaza de la Revolución Municipality, the slate\selective vote count for National Assembly Deputies was as follows:

Slate: 162 votes

Selective: 32 votes

Of the 32 selective votes Ricardo Alarcón, President of the National Assembly and one of the historic figures in the Cuban revolution since his student days in the late 1950’s received 17 votes, while the other two candidates who are not as well known as Alarcón received 10 votes and 6 votes each respectively, less than Alarcón.

In polling station # 4

Slate: 196 votes

Selective: 33 votes

Of the 33 selective votes, once again Alarcón got more than the others, 13 votes, the others 10 each.

If one looks at the results for that section of the Plaza Municipality where Alarcón ran, here are the results which I garnered from the Plaza Municipal Electoral Committee. They coincide with what I had observed with my own eyes.

Slate: 33, 713 votes

Selective: 6,401 votes

Of the 6,401 selective votes, Alarcón garnished 3, 469 votes or 93.92% of valid votes, compared to 88.88% and 88.85% respectively for the two other candidates.

One can also looks at the figures of another section of Plaza de la Revolución municipality where another well know figure and revolutionary leader ran. Carlos Lage, the Vice President of the Council of State pooled 92.40% of the votes coming from both slate and selective votes, while the other lesser known candidates got a smaller percentage that is 91.72% and 89.32%

All of the above confirms that the contention of the Harvard professor and the NYT article quoted above regarding slate versus selective voting in Cuba is entirely false. The article and the quote from Professor Domiguez constitute however, a good example of deliberate disinformation. Figures are manipulated to serve political ends and are not based on facts.

I participated as a member in the last Latin American Studies Association (LASA) Congress held in Montreal, Canada last September 2007. It was an opportunity to meet and listen to academics from North American, Latin America and Europe. Many of them are experts on Cuba. What characterises virtually all of them is that whether they are sympathetic, neutral or even hesitant about the Cuban revolution, they base their work on facts. They even changed the venue of the Congress from US territory to Canada in order to allow the Cuban delegation to participate. In fact the largest delegation of Cuba ever to participate in a LASA Congress was present in order to give their views. I was very impressed with the academics specializing in Cuba especially those coming from the USA, Canada and the UK whom I had met, some for the first time, others a repeat.

However, it is very seldom, or not at all, that these serious professors are consulted by the monopoly media in the USA and Canada to give their views on Cuban elections. It is obvious that the big media have their own favourite “Cuba watchers”. It is a highly political decision.

I believe, in conclusion, that professors such as Jorge Dominguez and the NYT should not be allowed to spread their deliberate misinformation without facing the facts. In this context, it would be good if university students, professors and others contact Professor Dominguez and the NYT on this issue. Here is Professor Dominguez’s email:

jorge_dominguez @ harvard.edu

I will have more on this issue in the coming days.

.