Monday, September 27, 2010

Autopsy of a cheating

Before entering in the details of the results I wanted to make a simple and clear post that illustrates the extent of electoral cheating that has taken place in Venezuela Sunday 26 September.  In the slide above I have put together the results of Caracas, and the States of Carabobo and Miranda accounting among them for 32 of the 165 seats in play last Sunday (19.4% of the seats at stake).

I have added the vote list obtained by both the opposition and chavismo in the vote list, the total seats obtained and calculated the percentage.  That is right, between these three areas chavismo got ONLY 45.3% of the vote and yet got 59.4% of the seats.  Please, point out to me of any other electoral system in an alleged democratic country which is as unfair in its results as the Venezuelan one is.  We are talking here of 3 of the 4 most populated areas of the country, not a selective sample I have taken to make the regime look bad.  This is the exhibit A of how the CNE designed electoral laws and gerrymandering to screw the opposition and under-represent it dramatically.

10 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:20 PM

    This cheating exposed chavismo for what it is: a fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Charly10:25 PM

    Thanks Daniel, do you have the same table for Zulia?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Charly

    I have not included Zulia because that states behaves "normally" that it woudl behave in the US or Canada. That is, whoever wins gets more seats than whomever loses, and gets a bonus for winning.

    In the three cases I chose, EVERY TIME chavismo gets less votes and every time it gets equal or more seats than the other side.

    I have no problem with the winner taking more seats, I have no problem, even for on occasion a slight loser taking a slight advantage in seats, but this table is simply ridiculous, undemocratic and what not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Milonga8:49 AM

    Have you read our "friend" Weisbrot? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/27/venezuela-election-opposition-politics Laughable how they try to explain the unexplainable!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Charly9:01 AM

    Thanks Daniel, fully agree. Already, the Spanish papers are picking on this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thought this might provide a laugh!

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21109

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous2:32 PM

    Sorry to disappoint the Chavez bashers, but this sort of result happens anywhere that there are multiparty elections for representatives from districts. Look at the British elections just past (when you go nationwide, or by regions, you get numbers like those posted), or the Canadian one (being Canadian, I can tell you the results looked even more out of whack). And then, of course, there's the American 2000 Presidential race. But if you want to see horrifically skewed results betweeen what the popular vote was, and the seats won, look at the Lebanese election, where Hezbollah won the majority vote (they even won the majority Christian vote) and yet took fewer seats than their rivals. If Hezbollah can with good grace accept that, why can't you guys accept that this (PS, the popular vote overall went for PSUV, if the facts matter to anyone)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Last anonymous

    In your attempt at exculpating Chavez you only display your ignorance of electoral systems and their historical reasons for their existence. Amen of not understanding how they actually work.

    ...this sort of result happens anywhere that there are multiparty elections for representatives from districts.

    This is not true in situations of extreme polarization like in Venezuela. A multiaprty election is when at least three aprties ahve a chance of getting at least 10% each.

    Look at the British elections just past (when you go nationwide, or by regions, you get numbers like those posted), or the Canadian one (being Canadian, I can tell you the results looked even more out of whack).

    That is simply not true, not even merely misleading. Electoral systems in these countries are designed to crate a stable majority in parliament, THUS the winner is expected to get a bonus. But the winner in at least 95% of the cases won the popular vote. In addition to get the imbalance that we observe in Venezuela today, a winning party in these countries needs at least a 5 to 10 points margin in the popular vote, whereas the PSUV did get barely 1%

    In the US in addition there are strict rules about circuit design and it is today nearly impossible to observe the extreme gerrymandering that has taken place in Venezuela this year. Can't you have at least the intellectual honesty of acknowledging that fact which has been amply reported and discussed in this blog for over a year now?

    Besides how does that excuse that in three states chavismo loses, LOSES by as much as 25% and yet ALWAYS wins the representative count? We are not talking an occasional screwed up district....

    And then, of course, there's the American 2000 Presidential race.

    Very wrong choice of example. The US is a federal system and thus the historical intent of the constitution was that the president was elected by a majority of the states, not of votes. And it did happen in the past, before 2000. Besides we are discussing legislative elections, not presidential which is some countries are not even popular elections and yet these countries are not accused of being undemocratic.

    But if you want to see horrifically skewed results betweeen what the popular vote was, and the seats won, look at the Lebanese election, where Hezbollah won the majority vote (they even won the majority Christian vote) and yet took fewer seats than their rivals.

    Another totally irrelevant example. Multi confessional or multi ethnic states need to preserve the rights of the minorities and often have electoral clauses that will imply an underrepresented of the majority.

    (PS, the popular vote overall went for PSUV, if the facts matter to anyone)

    So you are aware of that fact, good. Then you should also be aware of that fact: with 1% advantage chavismo gets 50% more seats. Since you are so knowledgeable find me such an example elsewhere.

    Next time, besides putting at least a number in your anonymous flavor, know who you are facing on electoral matters.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So will you post Zulia and Anzoategui? Zulia is a very populous state and it'd be very important to see how fair the system was there. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  10. "this sort of result happens anywhere that there are multiparty elections for representatives from districts"

    Please, if this "happens anywhere," find one example for us all of another situation like Carabobo, where one party got a MAJORITY of votes and a MINORITY of seats, while someone else got a MAJORITY of seats.

    Just one example. Take your time.

    ReplyDelete

Comments policy:

1) Comments are moderated after the third day of publication. It may take up to a day or two for your note to appear then.

2) Your post will appear if you follow the following rules. I will be ruthless in erasing any comment that do not follow these rules, as well as those who replied to that off rule comment.

3)COMMENT RULES:
Do not be repetitive.
Do not bring grudges and fights from other blogs here (this is the strictest rule).
This is an anti Chavez blog, with more than 95% anti Chavez readers that have made up their minds long ago. Thus trying to prove us wrong is considered a troll. Still, you are welcome as a chavista to post,> in particular if you want to explain us coherently as to why chavismo does this or that. We are still waiting for that to happen once.
Insults and put downs are frowned upon and I will be sole judge on whether to publish them.

Followers