tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4080946.post5286179959500604916..comments2024-03-26T00:37:34.943+01:00Comments on Venezuela News And Views: Panic at Ayacucho RanchDanielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12128609182544333477noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4080946.post-64227123995311970072011-06-09T18:10:38.071+02:002011-06-09T18:10:38.071+02:00Lula's attitude towards Chavez shows that his ...Lula's attitude towards Chavez shows that his own democratic values like many in LA are only skin deep as ex president of LA'S largest democracy he is uniquely qualified to condemn Chavez for his undemocratic practices.<br /><br />It makes you wonder if Lula himself would have liked to be more authoritarian in his own country if he could have gotten away with it.firepigettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17348890269608169297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4080946.post-7445212657604565802011-06-08T05:50:18.345+02:002011-06-08T05:50:18.345+02:00anonymous
sorry, but your numbers are meaningless...anonymous<br /><br />sorry, but your numbers are meaningless: people that cannot be bothered with voting do not count and reinforce whoever gets the "mandate" at the end.<br /><br />though i like the anti democratic nature of your argument becasue if you were right then we could extrapolate to the 10% that voted NO in 1999 as the genuine anti chavez and the only ones allowed to rule venezuela in a post chavez era.<br /><br />in other words your argument only holds in countries that do enforce mandatory voting, or those who at least accept the null or blank vote as a deliberate expression of protest. Venezuela is no such country and as such, except for 2005 when the boycott was a deliberate political message, Chavez got mandates because too many people could not be bothered to waste a Sunday to go and vote.<br /><br />sorry.....Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12128609182544333477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4080946.post-52212820096773380962011-06-07T01:22:39.397+02:002011-06-07T01:22:39.397+02:00"...not of the kind that rouses masses as Cha...<b>"...not of the kind that rouses masses as Chavez did in 1998 when he amply crossed the 50% mark at his first try. He had a mandate..."</b><br /><br />You should know better than to make such a silly claim. In 1998, Chavez got 3.673.685 votes and 3.757.773 votes in 2000. CAP got 3.868.843 votes in 1988 and Lusinchi got 3.773.731 in 83 with 4 million less people registered to vote than in 2000. Chavez got a higher percentage than either because abstention was 45% and 43% in his elections. The highest ever. And the abstention for the constituyente was way higher than that. You can't call it a mandate when the majority of the people are opposed to voting for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com