Ecuador's right-wing presidential candidate, banker Guillermo Lasso (Credit:
Wikimedia Commons)
Corrupt firm funded by right-wing candidate will produce Ecuador election
exit polls
BEN NORTON·FEBRUARY 3, 2021 The Grayzone
Ecuadors top TV network will broadcast exit polls of the upcoming February
7 presidential election by a notoriously corrupt polling firm CEDATOS, which
was funded by the main right-wing candidate.
On the eve of the presidential election in Ecuador on February 7, observers
are warning of a series of anti-democratic actions targeting the countrys
left-wing Citizens Revolution movement.
Ecuadors most-watched TV network is relying on a notoriously corrupt and
politicized polling firm called CEDATOS, which works closely with right-wing
politicians, has been funded by the main conservative candidate, and was
even charged with publishing false documents. CEDATOS has been selected to
conduct the official exit poll for the national elections.
Exit polls have a decisive impact on public perception of elections, and can
sway popular opinion by giving the false impression that a candidate won,
when in fact that candidates lead was based on projections, not official
results.
If the exit polls prove inaccurate, which is likely given long record of
faulty projections by CEDATOS, another scenario like the aftermath of the
October 2019 election in Bolivia, which led to a US-backed military coup, is
entirely possible.
Ecuadors current President Lenín Moreno maintains just 8 percent of the
publics support and 91 percent disapproval inside the country. Leaked
documents like the INA Papers have shown that the leader, an important
regional ally of Washington, is knee-deep in corruption, having siphoned
millions of dollars of public money into offshore bank accounts.
Morenos administration has aggressively persecuted the leftist Citizens
Revolution movement founded by former President Rafael Correa, exiling and
imprisoning dozens of pro-Correa political leaders, known as Correístas.
In another anti-democratic crackdown, the Moreno government blocked Correa
from being a vice-presidential candidate, and even banned the the political
party of Correista presidential candidate Andrés Arauz, forcing the leftist
to instead use another little-known party in the election.
Despite the aggressive state persecution and anti-democratic tactics
targeting the Correísta movement, almost every poll shows that its candidate
Arauz will win the first round of the presidential election by a large
margin.
There is just one polling firm that consistently claims otherwise: CEDATOS.
And Ecuadors leading TV network Ecuavisa is relying on this infamously
biased and compromised firm to conduct the exit polls on the night of the
February 7 election.
A partisan, deeply politicized firm linked to neoliberal institutions
Ecuavisa is one of the oldest and most well-established news channels in the
South American nation. Its editorial line is staunchly against the left-wing
Correista movement, frequently demonizing former President Correa and his
allies.
Ecuavisas citation of CEDATOS grants the firm credibility that directly
contradicts its lengthy record of egregious inaccuracies.
In election after election, going back decades, CEDATOS has demonstrated a
clearly politicized and unscientific pattern: consistently downplaying
support for left-wing candidates like Correa while exaggerating support for
right-wing candidates.
CEDATOS has links to the World Bank and the US governments media arm Voice
of America. The founder of the firm, Ángel Polibio Córdova, has previously
worked with neoliberal governments in Ecuador and was a longtime advisor for
Ecuadors central bank, according to his publicly available LinkedIn
profile.
It is widely known in Ecuador that this firm works with conservative
political campaigns. CEDATOS is especially close to the main right-wing
presidential candidate Guillermo Lasso, a banker who was involved in a
disastrous financial crash in Ecuador in 1999.
Ironically, officials from Lenín Morenos own justice department exposed
CEDATOS corruption and role in spreading false materials.
In 2018, Ecuadors public prosecutor Cecilia Garzón charged Córdova with
having published a fraudulent document at CEDATOS in order to benefit
Guillermo Lassos 2017 presidential campaign.
The Ecuadorian prosecutors office obtained documents showing that Córdova
was paid by a company called Libecosta S.A., which Lasso partially owns.
The prosecutor also discovered an email that the CEDATOS owner sent to
Lasso, congratulating the banker on the new year, and telling him, we
believe in your victory and we will contribute in the best way possible to
make that a reality.
Unsurprisingly, given these suspicious ties, CEDATOS consistently puts
Guillermo Lasso at the top of its polls.
For months, every other polling firm showed leftist candidate Andrés Arauz
leading. CEDATOS was the only one that did not. It is always an outlier in
the list of results.
In interviews on major right-wing Latin American media outlets, Ángel
Córdova has repeatedly insisted Lasso will win the election, contradicting
all other polls.
In January, the more reputable pollster Perfiles de Opinión put Arauz
reported that Arauz had 43.22 percent support, with a massive lead over
Lasso, at 25.54 percent.
poll perfiles de opinion Ecuador Arauz Lasso
But CEDATOS claimed soon after that Lasso was actually in the lead, with the
support of 26 percent of Ecuadorians, while Arauz had just 24 percent. This
is far from just a statistical error; it is a nearly 20 percent difference.
While some firms have showed Arauz winning in the first round with an over
10 percent margin, CEDATOS has consistently insisted that the election will
go to a second round. Was this a projection, or wishful thinking?
A variety of credible polling firms exists Ecuador. CEDATOS is easily the
most biased and least respected among them, with a documented record of
unethical activities.
So why did Ecuadors top broadcast outlet ignore all alternatives and select
a firm accused of corruption by the countrys public prosecutor? The choice
has introduced the potential for nationwide chaos in an election where the
result seems clear-cut and fairly predictable. And perhaps that was the
point.