The numbers don't belong to Ipsos at all.
In the uncertain weeks before Peru's presidential runoff is officially confirmed, a viral Facebook graphic has quietly reassigned one polling firm's data to another, turning a statistical dead heat into a narrow lead and offering a small but consequential distortion to thousands of citizens trying to read the race. The Instituto de Estudios Peruanos found Sánchez ahead of Fujimori by a single point; Ipsos, whose name the graphic falsely carries, found them tied at 38 percent each. Numbers, stripped of their origins, become something else entirely — and in an election, that something else can matter.
- A Facebook graphic with over 1,100 reactions is actively misleading Peruvians about who leads the presidential race, attributing IEP poll data — showing Sánchez at 32% over Fujimori's 31% — to Ipsos, a firm that never produced those figures.
- The misattribution is not superficial: the viral image reproduces IEP's full methodological breakdown, including socioeconomic and ideological segmentation that Ipsos does not even conduct, making the fraud detectable to experts but invisible to casual scrollers.
- Ipsos's actual April 23–24 survey of 1,208 respondents tells a fundamentally different story — a dead heat at 38% each, with 17% blank votes and 7% undecided — a picture of deep electoral uncertainty rather than a clear frontrunner.
- The post continues to spread at a moment of maximum vulnerability: Peru's second-round candidates have not yet been officially confirmed, meaning public perception is still being formed and is especially susceptible to distortion.
- LaRepública's fact-checkers have confirmed the error against both firms' published data, but the correction must now chase a viral post that has already reached thousands and seeded a false narrative into the electoral conversation.
A false poll graphic circulating on Facebook in Peru is reshaping how some citizens understand their presidential race — by placing one polling firm's numbers under another firm's name. The image credits Ipsos with a survey showing Roberto Sánchez leading Keiko Fujimori 32% to 31% in a hypothetical runoff. It has gathered more than 1,100 reactions, 1,000 comments, and over 100 shares.
The data, however, belongs entirely to the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, which published its survey on April 29. The viral graphic reproduces not just the headline figures but IEP's full analytical breakdown — blank votes at 24%, undecided at 13%, and detailed segmentation by socioeconomic level and ideological identification. None of this is how Ipsos works. The firm does not segment by age, gender, income, or political identity, a methodological difference that makes the misattribution obvious to anyone familiar with either organization.
What Ipsos actually found is a different story altogether. Their most recent survey, conducted April 23–24 among 1,208 respondents, shows Sánchez and Fujimori in a precise dead heat at 38% each, with 17% blank or spoiled votes and 7% undecided — a portrait of a deeply unsettled electorate rather than a race with a clear leader.
The stakes are not abstract. Peru's second-round candidates have not yet been officially confirmed, and in that window of uncertainty, a graphic suggesting one candidate holds even a marginal edge can quietly tilt how people interpret the contest. LaRepública's fact-checking team verified the discrepancy against both firms' published results. Whether the original error was careless or deliberate remains unknown — but its reach is not.
A false poll graphic has been spreading across Facebook in Peru, and it's telling a story about how easily numbers can be misplaced in the noise of an election cycle. The image attributes to Ipsos a survey showing Roberto Sánchez leading with 32 percent support against Keiko Fujimori's 31 percent in a hypothetical runoff. The post has accumulated over 1,100 reactions, more than 1,000 comments, and 131 shares. But the numbers don't belong to Ipsos at all.
The actual data comes from the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, or IEP, which published its survey on April 29. The viral graphic includes not just the headline figures but also the IEP's breakdown of 24 percent blank or spoiled votes, 13 percent undecided respondents, and detailed segmentation by socioeconomic level and ideological identification. All of it is IEP work, none of it Ipsos.
When you look at what Ipsos actually found, the picture changes. Their most recent survey, conducted April 23 and 24 among 1,208 respondents, shows Sánchez and Fujimori locked in a dead heat at 38 percent each. Blank or spoiled votes account for 17 percent, with 7 percent of respondents unable or unwilling to state a preference. Ipsos does not segment its results by age, gender, income level, or political ideology—a methodological difference that makes the misattributed graphic even more obviously wrong to anyone who knows how these firms work.
The timing matters. Peru's presidential race remains unsettled; the candidates for the second round have not yet been officially confirmed. In that uncertainty, a graphic showing one candidate ahead of another, even by a single percentage point, can shape how people think about the race. The viral post is not a minor slip. It's a wholesale transplant of one firm's data onto another's name, complete with analytical details that Ipsos simply does not provide.
The fact-checking team at LaRepública verified the numbers against both firms' published results. The evidence is clear. What remains unclear is how the error occurred—whether it was careless, deliberate, or simply the result of someone grabbing an image without checking its source. What is certain is that 1,100 people reacted to it, and more than 1,000 commented, spreading the false attribution further into the information ecosystem at a moment when Peruvians are trying to understand their electoral options.
Notable Quotes
Ipsos does not present a breakdown of its results by variables such as age, sex, socioeconomic level, or ideological identification.— LaRepública Verificador
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter which polling firm is credited with which numbers? Aren't they all measuring the same thing?
Not quite. Different firms use different methodologies, sample sizes, and ways of presenting data. Ipsos doesn't break down results by income or ideology; IEP does. When you swap the numbers between them, you're not just moving digits around—you're implying a level of detail that one firm never provided.
So the 32 percent figure for Sánchez is real, just misattributed?
Exactly. The IEP found that number. But when it gets posted as Ipsos data, people might trust it differently, or think Ipsos confirmed something it didn't. In an election where candidates haven't even been officially named yet, that confusion can matter.
How did this graphic spread so widely if it's so obviously wrong?
Because most people scrolling Facebook don't cross-reference polling firms. They see a number, they see a name, and they move on. The graphic looks professional. It has the trappings of legitimate research. That's enough.
What does the actual Ipsos data tell us about the race?
A tie. Dead even at 38 percent each. No momentum for either candidate. But that's less dramatic than a one-point lead, so it travels less far.
Is there any way to know if this was intentional?
Not from the data alone. It could be carelessness, or it could be someone trying to make a narrative stick. Either way, the result is the same: misinformation in circulation at a critical moment.