Chavez’s party wins majority in Venezuelan vote

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Globe and Mail

Chavez’s party wins majority in Venezuelan vote
Ian James
Caracas— The Associated Press
Published Monday, Sep. 27, 2010 3:33AM EDT
Last updated Monday, Sep. 27, 2010 3:39AM EDT

President Hugo Chavez held on to a congressional majority in Venezuela's elections, but his opponents made gains that could help them challenge his grip on power.

With the vast majority of votes counted, Mr. Chavez's socialist party won at least 90 of the 165 seats in the National Assembly, while the opposition coalition won at least 59 seats, National Electoral Council president Tibisay Lucena said early Monday.

She said other seats either went to a small party or had not yet been determined. The initial count was announced eight hours after the close of Sunday's voting because there were a number of close races, Ms. Lucena said.

Ramon Guillermo Aveledo, leader of the opposition coalition, called the delayed results “inadmissible.” He said that according to the opposition's tally, anti-Chavez candidates had garnered more than half the popular vote.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/chavezs-party-wins-majority-in-venezuelan-vote/article1727197/

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. but but but but he's a left wing dicator aking to Stalin!

(Sorry, just referencing the US media's coverage of Venezuela, where the world's largest remaining oil reserves lie)

[era veteran]

12. The dirtiest oil in the world

Look it up...... Hugo is no Stalin but he is a dictator .. Can't get over the love for this murderer, I will never understand the Hugo lovers. Not going to participate in the resulting flames. Why don't you Hugo lovers move there and help him establish his version of workers paradise. Not for this Panamanian.

[irislake]

15. Or why not just stay in the U.S

and support your Democrat and Republican governments as they murder, plunder and upset democratic governments all over the world --- including that of
Iran which hasn't attacked another country for about a hundred years. And now you are gearing up to bomb the rat-shit out of that country too.

Is Chavez such a murderous ruler compared to any American president? Not only that but is he not democratically elected? Seems to me America's elections are less democratic.

Chavez gets such a bad press in the U.S. that he should be given the benefit of the doubt given how corrupt and deceitful your MSM is.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

21. Apparently the voters of Venezuela disagree with you.

lol

[era veteran]

26. Well, you and I will probably never agree on this

The LOL is on the misguided and misinformed. True social change will be fleeting in the Hugo Cult legacy. Have a great day. R

[EFerrari]

48. Your ridiculous claims disqualify you as any kind of critic of Venezuela. n/t

[era veteran]

130. You are wrong

[irislake]

22. I am horrified by the Alberta tar sands environmental

dangers and hope environmental groups can ban further damage there.

[BillH76]

83. Amen. n/t

[Vidar]

128. Very well put. Most of your points apply to Castro as well.

[molly77]

16. Hugo might be a dictator

but he gives away free heating oil where I live in Maine. Wish our home grown dictators did nice things for poor people.

[era veteran]

24. So, you are easily bought

[bitchkitty]

45. I know, right?

The nerve. He should just freeze to death! Damn people, thinking that they have the right to get live-saving fuel from just anyone. I mean, if our government doesn't provide for them, it must mean that they deserve to freeze to death!

[NoSheep]

85. Isn't that the truth....

Hey there...I found ya!

[pampango]

89. He's not, but it will be interesting to see how he reacts to increased checks on his power

in the legislature and the popular vote setback which portends a close presidential race in 2012. There have been plenty of leaders who weren't dictators at first but resorted to that at the prospect of losing power. I don't see evidence that Chavez will react in that way, but events could prove me wrong.

[quakerboy]

123. Now thats the most sensible comment

Ive heard regarding Chavez on this board as of yet. How dare you do something other than worship or despise a man (I assume) you have never met in a country you (I assume) don't live in.

[laughingliberal]

115. That's why people hate him. Easiest way to be destroyed in American politics: Speak for the poor. nm

[Billy Burnett]

18. "Not going to participate in the resulting flames."

The new form of RW DU debate on Ven.

Just toss a molotov cocktail into the crowd and run.

[era veteran]

35. ok, you are right except that RW bullshit

I have been in the fucking streets since 24 April 1971 fighting right wingers. It did start up a nice fire though. I think so many of you are so hungry for a successful socialist state ( I am) that you pick a ersatz socialist. I have regional ties to Latin America, I was born in Panama, and will always stand up to the Hugo Cult.

[EFerrari]

20. Murderer? LOL

[era veteran]

29. Failed coup

[Arctic Dave]

23. The only flame I have is that you are too big of a coward to defend your statements.

[era veteran]

33. Here I am, defend the Hugo cult for me, convince me

that Hugo is good for his country and is the only leader that can help them. Murderer? This is just Wiki, true #'s of deaths were estimated higher. That was his initial foray into the democratic process; Failed Coup: 14 soldiers were killed, and 50 soldiers and some 80 civilians injured in the ensuing violence. Coward is a word you can easily use through the anonymity of the internet Arctic Dave. So piss off.

[fascisthunter]

40. who the f are you to call people cultists

while you shovel shit on this thread? You got a lot of audacity for someone who has a pretty skewed view on the man that is UNFOUNDED. You can take your own advice.

[Arctic Dave]

84. Are you wrongly implying that Chavez was the leader of the coup?

If it was such a bad idea then, why did the country turn around elect him to be their President?

Chavez has done more to advance everyday Venezuelans lives then all the corporate thugs combined. Are things perfect, hardly, but I say that about our country too.

[Vidar]

129. Hear, Hear!!

[ChangoLoa]

134. Chavez was the leader of the 1992 coup. nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. "dirtiest... in the world"? "murderer"?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[fascisthunter]

39. look it up yourself... those are some RW lies

[Peace Patriot]

42. "Look it up"? I HAVE looked "it" up--but not at the Free Republic or Faux News.

I look for facts, not rightwing bullshit.

1. Chavez has harmed NO ONE.

2. Chavez has done nothing that he did not have a right--and in some cases, a duty--to do, under the constitution or by legislative mandate.

2. Chavez has been elected and re-elected by the Venezuelan people, in an election system that is far, FAR more transparent than our own. Honest, aboveboard, internationally monitored and certified. The election system is transparent on the face of the facts--an issue that I am very knowledgeable about. In ADDITION, it has been heavily scrutinized by thousands of election monitors from every reputable election monitoring group on earth at the invitation of the Chavez government. And these groups don't just drop in on election day. They study the system for months, sometimes for years. They help set it up. They make recommendations.

3. Far from harming "free speech" in Venezuela, Chavez has ENHANCED free speech and public participation. The public participation is deep--grass roots, community level. In fact, the leftist grass roots movement in Venezuela IS the story of Venezuela. Ordinary people put Chavez into power, and kept him there, by grass roots election organizing and by defending him during the U.S. supported rightwing coup d'etat. One of the corporate TV stations--RCTV--actively supported that coup, including the coup's suspension of the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights. They told outright lies and doctored video footage for the coup, and hosted coup meetings. During the coup, they refused to permit any Chavez government members to speak on TV. Chavez would have been within his rights to storm RCTV with police and shut them down, after the coup was defeated. Instead, he waited until their 20 year license to use the public airwaves was up, and did not renew it. Chavez then dedicated that PUBLIC airwave to independent producers, most especially to excluded groups--African-Venezuelans, women, the Indigenous. How does it "harm free speech" to get one fatcat corporate coupmonger off the air and put public voices on? You have to have a pretty screwed up ("Alice in Wonderland," upside out, inside out, backwards) view of the world to conclude, say, that de-licensing FAUX news and giving their channel to excluded American groups harms free speech. The broadcast airwaves are a limited resource BELONGING TO THE PUBLIC. Every government on earth REGULATES them--demands things, such as serving the common good--for the PRIVILEGE of broadcasting. (It is NOT a right.) And, though RCTV is deservedly off the air, Venezuelan TV remains dominated by rightwing, corporate, anti-Chavez stations.

4. The people of Venezuela VOTED--in a transparent, honest, aboveboard election system--to permit Chavez to run again, if he chooses to. Our own FDR ran for and won four terms in office. The parallel holds true in numerous significant ways. FDR offered the people a "New Deal." So has Chavez. FDR favored the poor majority. So has Chavez. FDR was socially progressive. So is Chavez (who favors equal rights for women and gays.) FDR took a country crushed by rightwing mismanagement and looted by the rich and put it back on its feet. So has Chavez. The rightwing press of the FDR era called FDR a "dictator." The corpo-fascist press of today does the same to Chavez. What corpo-fascists mean by "dictator" is someone who dictates to the likes of Exxon Mobil. I fervently wish that our president would do the same. The PEOPLE are sovereign, not the corporations.

5. The Venezuela government is, AT LONG LAST, serving the people of Venezuela--after a succession of rightwing governments characterized by mismanagement, neglect, corruption and brutal repression--and toadying to multinational corporations. The Chavez government's first priority has been reducing poverty. It has met all of its Millennium Goals, including reducing poverty by half, reducing extreme poverty by over 70%, greatly reducing infant mortality, greatly enhancing educational opportunities for the poor and providing free medical care to the poor, in easily accessible community clinics. It renegotiated the oil contracts to change the prior government's 10/90 giveaway of the oil profits to multinational corporations, to a fairer 50/50 split, favoring Venezuela and its social programs. (Exxon Mobil walked out of the talks, but numerous other corporations and countries agreed.) THAT's how you treat "organized money" (as FDR called it). You strongly assert the interests of the people whom you serve against greed-driven bullies and powermongers. On top of all this, the Chavez government oversaw a five year period of astonishing economic growth, 2003 to 2008, with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil). These measures gave Venezuela high cash reserves, good credit, low unemployment and other positives with which to face the Bushwhack-induced worldwide depression.

6. The rightwing misjudges STRENGTH on the left--strong, bold leadership--as "tyranny" because the rightwing serves multinational corporate interests, who want WEAK, PLIABLE governments, so they can rob everybody. Chavez (like FDR) is in fact the opposite of a "dictator." He has prevented the real tyrants of this earth from robbing the Venezuelan people of THEIR oil resource, and has instead put it to use on their behalf. He has prevented them from robbing "the commons" on every front, with their schemes of "privatizing" public services and inflicting onerous, blackmail-useful debt via the loan sharks at the World Bank/IMF. He has helped organize the region to assert collective strength against U.S. (corporate) economic domination and political interference. And he has enhanced the power of the Venezuelan majority to demand and to achieve government "of, by and for the people." He is a STRONG leader. He is NOT a "dictator."

7. Chavez has lost only one election--a proposal of 69 amendments to the Constitution put to a vote of the people in 2007. His side lost by a hair, but quickly acquiesced to the results. They will do the same now. The Chavistas won this election but not by as much as they would have liked. All the results are not yet in, but it will be a more contentious National Assembly, with the rightwing holding a potentially Newt Gingrich-like, obstructive minority. (The RW there is very like the RW here--they are the "party of No.") Venezuela's "New Deal" is so advanced that the RW probably can't undo it, although, long term, they might (as they have done here). It is a positive thing that they deigned to participate in the election. They boycotted by-elections before because they were going to get a drubbing. It's been eight years since their failed coup d'etat. They've apparently cleaned up their act a bit, since that time. It remains to be seen how they will handle themselves in the National Assembly. But their history of traitorous, anti-democratic actions is not a good omen for their being a "loyal opposition" now or worthy of governing in the future.

[bitchkitty]

44. When are you righties going to stop

with the dictator nonsense? He has been elected how many times now? And this makes him a dictator how?

Get a fucking dictionary, for God's sake.

[NoGOPZone]

88. What are you saying? That Chavez is responsible for the sulfur content of Venezuela's crude oil?

:crazy:

[roody]

106. Whom did he murder?

[w4rma]

120. I do not think you know what that word, "dictator", means, era veteran. (nt)

[booley]

126. Maybe it's a detail but...

..isn't a dictator by definition NOT someone who has to worry about whether he or his party get re-elected?

IF he's a murderous dictator, couldnt' he just have his political opposition killed off rather then have to worry about them gaining seats in parliament?

Not looking for a flame either but what you said makes no sense.

[bherrera]

34. I am a Socialist from Spain

My observation this Chavez is very far from modern socialism, he is more like a fascist leader using socialism/communism to reach absolute power. This has been pointed out even by people like Heinz Dietterich, the creator of the term Socialism of the 21st Century, who shows he is a true communist. Dr Dietterich is very upset because the Chavez government has turned into a corrupt system which he opines is going to collapse.

[fascisthunter]

41. surrrre

by your other posts, you ain't no socialist.

[bitchkitty]

46. I am a Queen from England.

[devilgrrl]

94. No you aren't!!!!!

I'm the Queen of England!!!!!

See?

[bitchkitty]

103. Oh, well, that proves it. You got me! LOL n/t

[laughingliberal]

116. He's been elected by the people more than once & there has never been a hint of election fraud.

Unlike our country.

[bitchkitty]

2. Viva Chavez! Thanks for the good news. n/t

[CJvR]

3. Well we will have to wait.

No need to rush election results, we are still not 100% sure about the outcome of last Sundays election here in Sweden. What is more intresting is if there are any obvious signs of irregularities.

[EFerrari]

5. What do you vote on? Venezuela has good voting systems

and they do a sizable audit to verify their totals.

[CJvR]

14. On or on?

General election to the national, regional and local parliments.

Election is by paper ballot in sealed envelopes checked off against the voter registry.

Normally a very smooth running system ( Except for the first time it was used where we ended up with a perfectly balanced parliment because some idiot though an even number of seats was a good idea! ) but it was designed for five parties and now we have eight so the rounding errors became rather extreme. We were 26 votes from a majority for the current center-right goverment despite them being some 200+ votes behind the opposition. A 200 vote swing should produce a single seat swing, but currently it is a swing of three...

Although the final count was completed on Wednesday some irregularities might cause a repeat election in one region and because the election was so close that could alter the outcome completly. Several seats were decided by a few votes, any irregularity in any such race will be a valid ground for a repeat election since it is so close this time.

[bherrera]

38. Venezuelan voting system is not good

When the opposition wins 52 % and the government party gains a large majority of seats, this means the system is corrupted, what they call the American gerrymander system is applied by the government, which leads to faulty results, and a national assembly which does not represent the popular will. This is similar to the situation in many American states, where the corrupt parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, use this gerrymander to ensure their victory against the popular will.

[Prometheus Bound]

108. That's ridiculous. It doesn't mean the system is corrupt at all.

Many countries use the same system.

[quakerboy]

124. Granted it is a system in use.

It still kinda sucks in a lot of ways. I wouldn't say that it is inherently corrupt, but it sure seems overly easily corruptible. Wyoming getting as many senators as California kinda causes an imbalance that seems to be allowing a lot of what might be considered corruption in our system.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. You've got your talking points misplaced again.

Go read the Official News. Big defeat for Chavez, lost his 2/3 majority.

[CJvR]

37. But surely?

That was to be expected in any election where the opposition actually bothered to show up.

[bherrera]

82. Good point

I wrote before that, when the economy is poor, the people vote agaisnt those in power. The Venezuela economy is sick, with negative GDP and hyperinflation. This creates a negativ climate against the government, therefore a government defeat is to be expected. But the defeat is symbolic, the people did vote by 52 % against the government, but the government keeps a broad majority of seats. This is a defeat for the government, but it also is a defeat for all of those guys in Venezuela who like the system to be fair. I am afraid that country is not going to do well, because they do have a poor economy, and they now have this conflict with the people feeling they were cheated in their votes.

[Judi Lynn]

91. Here's a statement from the government of Spain, published by a virulent anti-Chavez paper:

CARACAS, Monday September 27, 2010 | Update

It congratulated Chávez and the opposition
Spanish government praises Venezuela's commitment to democracy

The Spanish Foreign Ministry believes that the results of legislative elections “are a good basis for a more intense and fruitful dialogue in the National Assembly and other institutions”

Election 2010
The Spanish government congratulated on Monday President Hugo Chávez and the opposition parties on the electoral results, and encouraged them to use the legislative elections held on Sunday "as a basis for a more intense and fruitful dialogue."

In a statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Spanish government highly valued "the Venezuelan people's commitment to democratic values." Chávez won the parliament vote, but failed to obtain the qualified majority needed to control the National Assembly.

The statement added said that the Spanish government is pleased by the fact that the polls were carried out in "a peaceful climate and with a very high turnout," Efe reported.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/09/27/en_pol_esp_spanish-government-p_27A4527811.shtml
Opposition newspaper

[Judi Lynn]

4. Chavez's party wins majority of seats in Venezuelan elections

Chavez's party wins majority of seats in Venezuelan elections
By the CNN Wire Staff
September 27, 2010 4:03 a.m. EDT

Caracas, Venezuela (CNN) -- President Hugo Chavez's ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela won a majority of seats in the country's parliamentary elections, the National Electoral Council said early Monday.

The ruling party won at least 90 seats, while an opposition coalition won at least 59, said Tibisay Lucena, the council's president. Some races were still too close to call early Monday, she said.

Lucena made the announcement hours after the polls closed in the country's parliamentary elections. She said the delay in announcing the results was due to the closeness of the vote.

Voters in Venezuela went to the polls Sunday to decide 165 seats out of 167 in the country's National Assembly. Going into the election, Chavez's party held 137 seats.

More:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/09/27/venezuela.elections/index.html

[Judi Lynn]

6. Chávez Allies Win Legislative Majority, but Foes Make Gains

(It would have been impossible not to get more votes, since they boycotted the last election, placed no candidates.)

Chávez Allies Win Legislative Majority, but Foes Make Gains

By SIMON ROMERO
Published: September 27, 2010

CARACAS, Venezuela — Supporters of President Hugo Chávez won a majority in legislative elections held on Sunday, but the opposition secured at least one-third of the seats, giving it the ability to block critical legislation and top federal appointments, the National Electoral Council said here early Monday.

The results, which also revealed a popular vote across the country that was about evenly split, may open a new phase of negotiation and debate within Venezuela’s political system. The National Assembly had been almost tightly controlled by Mr. Chávez’s allies since 2005, when the opposition tactically erred by boycotting legislative elections that year.

Mr. Chávez’s United Socialist Party won at least 90 of the legislature’s 165 seats, while a coalition of opposition parties won at least 59 seats, said Tibisay Lucena, the president of the electoral council. She said several other seats went to a small unaligned leftist party and to indigenous groups, while the winners of some seats were yet to be determined because of close races in parts of the country.

Beyond Sunday’s results, the vote also reflected the capability of Mr. Chávez’s opponents to appeal to large blocs of the electorate, setting the stage for a potentially vibrant challenge by the opposition for the presidency in 2012, when the president’s current six-year term ends.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/world/americas/28venez.html?_r=1&ref=world

[EFerrari]

7. There is that!

And I cracked up at this, too:

"
LOL

[Judi Lynn]

8. Why should they let the facts get in the way of a great bit of disinformation?

An honest person would refuse to mislead people like that.

[bherrera]

36. Interesting fact: Opposition wins 52 %

This is reported in the Spanish newspaper El Pais, which is the newspaper supporting the socialist party here. Why does the Venezuelan government fail to refute this figure if it is not true? Instead, they have failed to report the total figures.

[pampango]

9. BBC: It seems Mr Chavez will now have to find some way to work with the opposition representatives."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11416238

Mr Chavez's United Socialist Party (PSUV) still won a majority of seats in Sunday's poll, but will now be unable to pass major legislation unaided.

However, the new parliament will not convene until early January, leaving Mr Chavez three months to push through any key reforms.

The MUD also claims that it actually won an overall majority - 52% - of votes cast, but that changes to electoral districts and voting rules prevented that being translated into parliamentary seats. However, the breakdown of the popular vote has not been confirmed by the National Electoral Council.

The results were only announced several hours after polls closed, despite an automated voting system supposed to supply results quickly - prompting the opposition to accuse electoral officials of stalling. But election officials - who put turnout for the poll at 66% - put the delay down to a number of tight races.

Will be interesting to see the official popular vote totals when they are released. In the NY Times story Chavez candidates won the popular vote 46.6% to 45.1%, so the opposition claim to have won 52% is suspect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/world/americas/28venez.html?_r=2&ref=world

"In a proxy for the popular vote, an official count of votes for candidates to represent Venezuela in the Latin American Parliament showed Mr. Chávez’s candidates with 46.6 percent against 45.1 percent for the opposition."

Could potentially be an interesting three months leading up to the new parliament. Eerily similar to the two months the Democratic Party may have between the November 2 election and the new Congress in January? :) Sounds possible that we might win the congressional popular vote but lose in the terms of the number of representatives elected.

[bherrera]

32. Interesting technology they have

They can report the popular vote for the Latin American parliament but they can not report the total for the national parliament? In does smell like the communists lost, and they are ashamed to report this loss of the popular support.

[happyslug]

138. Happens in the US all the time

In non-presidential elections the key is NOT the total vote for one party of another, but who won what seat. Thus no need to count total votes for members of Congress. Furthermore, it is while known that the South will always vote 10-15 percentage points less then the rest of the country. Thus a person can win in the South with a vote count that would lose anywhere else. For this reason I have never seen anyone in the US cite a voting total by party in any non-presidential elections. In fact I have never seen such results in a Presidential election, except for the president itself (i.e. NO one uses who won the most votes in Congressional elections in 2008, what is counted is the total votes for the President AND then the total number of seats won by each party NOT the total number of votes each party gets. I suspect that on Congressional elections the Democrats have won most votes, even when the GOP won more seats. This is do to lower voter turnout in the South AND the tendency for one Congressional districts state to go GOP (Under the US Constitution each state gets at least one Congressmen, even if the number of citizens in that state is below what an average district is suppose to have).

Thus votes differ between regions, and voting districts. A party can win 52% of the vote for it had more voters come out in marginal races, while the other party had so many "safe seats' that it supporters did NOT come out to vote (on the simple grounds their candidate will win given the huge support for that candidate). In such districts vote counts tend to be low. It is also low in districts where the opposition posts no candidate, i.e. the candidate wins for they is no one else to vote for. This occurs in "safe districts" and also tend to keep the vote down in those districts.

Just pointing out that people often do NOT vote when they believe the election they are most concerned with is already settled. That happens in many districts, even in the US. On the other hand when there is a National election voter turn out is heavier and more uniform throughout the US. This occurs even in safe districts for other positions are often up to vote (For example, in the US every state elects a Senator every six years, but during that term three elections occur and there are only TWO Senators per state. Thus in every One out of Three Congressional elections, no Senator is up for election. This tends to hold down voter participation in safe districts. In the two of three elections where Senators are up for elections, voter participation is up, do to the fact not only do their vote for their Congress person but their Senator. Also every one of two elections people get to vote for President.

My point is even if the opposition won 52% of the vote, does that reflect 52% of the people? In a Presidential elections we can connect the two, for the President is the top of the ticket and the main draw for voters. In by elections, the main draw may be just the local congressman, and it is common for most such Congressional districts, even in the US, to be "safe districts" for one party or another. If this had been a NATIONAL election for a NATIONAL Candidate then we can assume 52% Vote for a party represent 52% of the people, but when we are looking at LOCAL ELECTIONS, all that 52% means is that the opposition parties received more votes based on LOCAL ISSUES in the country as a whole, but NOT that 52% of the voters would have voted for that party.

52% of votes on the national level in an elections where LOCAL ISSUES DOMINATE each local election does NOT mean 52% of the people support the party that received 52% of those votes. That 52% is a meaningless statistics, it represents nothing except that the opposition has substantial supports in many districts. It also may represent that the number of safe seats for the Government is so large no one ran in them against the seating politician and thus many people did not see a need to vote for their man or woman was going to get elected no matter what. The 52% is a meaningless number is this type of election.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Already being spun as a defeat.

Because the opposition, which shouldn't even exist in a dictatorship, won more than 1/3 of the seats.

[Dr.Phool]

13. You mean he doesn't have 60 votes?

[bherrera]

27. Opposition did win 52 % of popular votes

There is a lot of information in this figure. What do you derive from a system in which the popular vote is for the opposition, yet the government says they have almost 2/3 of the seats? I think this is smelly, don't you think?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

Source.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bherrera]

49. I am socialist from Spain, not communist

it should be clear, I am a socialist from Spain. We are pragmatic socialists. I think Chavez is very close to a fascist, and gives a poor reputation to socialists when he says he is socialist. Why? Because there are too many signs the government is full of people who are corrupt, and they do not believe in the feedback or cybernetic information system which is required for good governance. Instead I observe a cult of personality. Also, do you deny this result of the election in Venezuela is not reasonable? If the opposition wins 52 %, and they fail to have a majority of the seats (I expect at least 48 to 50 % in a reasonable system), then the system they have is corrupted.

[Peace Patriot]

105. You are the one CALLING people "communists" as well as comparing Chavez to Adolph Hitler.

That's your phrase: "...your communist friends." Are you being deliberately dense? Or do you even know when you are name-calling and making hideous and offensive comparisons in the case of Chavez?

Name calling and disinformation and NO FACTS. Now you're saying that Chaviz is "very close to a fascist" because, as you assert, "there are too many signs the government is full of people who are corrupt." What has corruption to do with fascism? ANYBODY can be corrupt--Democrats, Republicans, Social Democrats, Laborites, Socialists, Communists, presidents, mayors, dictators, business people. This makes no sense. And you present no FACTS. WHAT are you talking about?

Your OTHER bit of jabberwocky as to why Chavez is "a fascist: is that "they do not believe in the feedback or cybernetic information system which is required for good governance." Whatever the hell you are talking about, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH fascism. "Feedback"? "Cybernetic information system"? You post something nasty on Twitter and Hugo didn't answer you? What? What does this mean? Lack of "good governance" is "fascism"? Well, then there are a whole lot of fascists in the world, in your view--millions of them--elected officials, cabinet members, government bureaucrats, presidents, governors, state legislators, county registrars, city councilpersons, etc., who are failing at some aspect of "good governance." This makes them "fascists"?

As for gerrymandering in Venezuela, if that's what you are talking about, the rightwing opposition in Venezuela HAS ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME for boycotting the last elections and thereby REMOVING THEMSELVES from the "table" where districts were drawn. You go off in a snit, like they did, and refuse to play, you don't get to make the rules. They were trying to DE-LEGITIMIZE an honest, transparent, internationally monitored and certified election system, by boycotting it. It was one of their many efforts to OVERTHROW the government, which included a failed coup d'etat, a failed oil bosses' lockout, a failed recall election, a failed plot to publish false polls in 2006 and involve the military in another coup attempt, and God knows what else--all with the favor and funding and "training" of the U.S. government. And the Chavistas are supposed to give these jerkwads a break? They're supposed to map districts to TO THE LIKING OF THE RIGHTWING WHO BOYCOTTED THE ELECTION?

That's the kind of upside down, inside out, backwards, "Alice in Wonderland" thinking that turns Hugo Chavez into Adolph Hitler. Twisted, unreal, Rumsfeldian thinking.

[laughingliberal]

117. Oh, a 'pragmatic' socialist. So, that should clear up a lot. LOL. nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

125. He doesn't soud like someone that likes the PSOE better than the PP, that's for sure. -nt

[fascisthunter]

100. exactly...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

127. I like seeing "[0 replies]" in the My Posts page. It's cathartic. -nt

[Judi Lynn]

92. As I posted a moment ago, Spain's government congratulates Chavez & Venezuelans

on their successful vote:

CARACAS, Monday September 27, 2010 | Update

It congratulated Chávez and the opposition
Spanish government praises Venezuela's commitment to democracy

The Spanish Foreign Ministry believes that the results of legislative elections “are a good basis for a more intense and fruitful dialogue in the National Assembly and other institutions”

Election 2010
The Spanish government congratulated on Monday President Hugo Chávez and the opposition parties on the electoral results, and encouraged them to use the legislative elections held on Sunday "as a basis for a more intense and fruitful dialogue."

In a statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Spanish government highly valued "the Venezuelan people's commitment to democratic values." Chávez won the parliament vote, but failed to obtain the qualified majority needed to control the National Assembly.

The statement added said that the Spanish government is pleased by the fact that the polls were carried out in "a peaceful climate and with a very high turnout," Efe reported.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/09/27/en_pol_esp_spanish-government-p_27A4527811.shtml
Opposition newspaper

[Judi Lynn]

98. Would you be good enough to post a link to that El Pais article? Thanks. n/t

[naaman fletcher]

19. Opposition won 52% of the vote, but only a third of the seats. It's rigged against the popular vote

Much like how W "won" the vote in 2000.

[JackRiddler]

25. This is the opposition claim, not the announced final result.

It also seems to be the "plant it early" propaganda point.

[bherrera]

30. There is no official announced final result

This interesting position is discussed here in Spain, where newspapers point out to this curiosity, the total vote can be found by adding the total in all the districts. But the national election authorities refuse to state this figure to the people. The figure is there, the opposition had representatives in the room where the numbers were summed, and the government has not made any comments about the opposition claim they added the numbers and they have the majority. Only silence. Therefore the Spanish paper El Pais has reported the opposition figure as valid. El Pais, which is the socialist newspaper in Spain, is very professional. I read it every morning, and their website can be read if you read Spanish.

[fascisthunter]

43. Oh no... puncturing the RW bubble? My oh my...

I'm sooo suprised!!! :applause:

[bherrera]

50. What is a RW Bubble?

I do not uderstand the term.

[fascisthunter]

101. not doing so well are ya

usually people know when the gig is up. Too facts on this discussion board for ya... better luck next time.

[naaman fletcher]

51. Setback for Chavez in Venezuela vote (52% vote for opposition, but stymied in results)

Source: Yahoo

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela's opposition won a third of the seats in parliament and claimed a majority of the popular vote in elections on Sunday, boosting its hopes of defeating President Hugo Chavez at the next presidential poll in 2012.

Although Chavez's Socialist Party retained a majority in the 165-seat National Assembly, it fell short of its goal of keeping at least the two thirds it needs to pass major laws or make appointments to the Supreme Court and electoral authorities without the support of its political foes.
As results came through early on Monday, the newly-united opposition Democratic Unity umbrella group said it had won 52 percent of the overall vote.

An electoral council source backed the opposition's claim of winning 52 percent of the popular vote, and the outcome was welcomed by investors in Venezuela's popular bonds.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100927/wl_nm/us_venezuela_election

---

A bizarre democracy when 52% of the votes leads to only 1/3rd of the seats in parliament.

[paulk]

52. there was a reason Chavez got rid of the bicameral congress...

just sayin'

[marmar]

53. Bizarre democracy that calls corporations people and lets them control elections.....

[naaman fletcher]

57. Yes it is,

Whats your point?

[sofa king]

59. Maybe the point is that we're not too different after all.

For example, a 52% turnout in favor of the Republicans this fall, properly distributed, would be a virtual godsend for the Democrats. It could lead to a turnover of less than one third of the one third of the Senate which is up for reelection, and we Democrats could maintain control of the Senate.

Chavez, of course, was put in place thanks to decades of ruthless exploitation by corporations and wealthy conservatives in Venezuela, and their first choice for removing Chavez from office was not through the democratic process, but by a Bush-backed coup.

That makes Hugo Chavez and his socialist coalition the defender of democracy in Venezuela, unlikely as the American press would make that seem, just as the left wing in the United States is the defender of our political process, while our conservatives also prefer to steal high office when they can.

[naaman fletcher]

61. Bizarre

So it doesn't matter that Chavez has gerrymandered the elections so that 52% of the vote is 33% of the seats, and he is a defender of democracy. I see.

[sofa king]

68. That's not what I said at all.

But if what you say about gerrymandering is actually the case, doesn't that make Venezuela even more like the United States? Elbridge Gerry, for whom the term was named, was a Vice President of the United States.

[denverbill]

70. If only 1/3 of legislators are up for election, and you get 52% of the vote,

who in their right mind would blame gerrymandering. If Republicans win 100% of the vote this year and only end up with 59 Senate seats, is it because of gerrymandering? Or is it because 2/3 of the legislators aren't up for election?

[bherrera]

78. That is a giant if, my friend

100 % of the legislators were up for election. The opposition received 52 % of the popular vote. This is what happened in Venezuela. They don't have a Senate, they have a single chamber called the National Assembly. I hope this helps you understand.

[dipsydoodle]

54. Deja vu

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4554664

[COLGATE4]

55. Perhaps the bloom is off Hugo's rose?

[Judi Lynn]

90. The opposition opted to BOYCOTT the last election.

D.U.'ers discussed it at length at the time as being intensely stupid.

If they had received even one vote this time it would have been a tremendous gain over LAST TIME, when they OFFERED NO CANDIDATES.

[Downwinder]

56. Put on a happy face. n/t

[bherrera]

58. El Pais newspaper reports opposition won the popular vote

Interesting, the government of Chavez fixed the discricts and voting system, which allows them to have a large majority in the Venezuelan assembly, at the same time they lose the popular vote. The analysts will have a lot of work understanding how this 'gerry mander", which they copied from the USA, was carried out to work so contrary to the popular will.

[JackRiddler]

77. "Opposition" includes a party to the LEFT of Chavez...

In all the reporting on European elections, the corporate media always report something like, "Christian Democrats triumph in Germany," even though the CDU never gets an absolute majority. This is because there are many parties in Germany, but the one with the most votes almost always gets to form the government.

The same thing just happened in Venezuela - the winning party didn't get a majority of all votes, but that is also the case in most other elections in the world. It may happen in the 2010 electionsn -- i.e., if you add up all votes in all districts, one party may come out ahead and yet lose most of the district-by-district elections. Each district vote will yield only one representative, regardless of whether the result is a landslide or a close shave.

Also, turnout will usually be much higher in close races than in expected safe seats. (I'll be voting in New York, but damned if it will matter in my own Congressional district, where the incumbent will be getting 80 percent no matter what.)

Thus "52 percent voted against Chavez" is a talking point that could be applied to almost any other governing party in the world, but isn't -- except for Venezuela, of course. For those who remember, the same bogus attack was used on Clinton after the 1992 election -- that only 42 percent voted for him, and therefore 58 percent were in the "opposition."

Right wing math will always lie. And you could be certain that it wouldn't have mattered what happened in VZ yesterday -- the corporate press would have come up with a way of attacking Chavez as a dictator!

[bherrera]

79. as reported by the newspaper in Spain

The opposition, as reflected in the article here, is what is called the united opposition. They united to oppose the Chavista regime, which they see as a threat to Venezuela. This may include some leftists. So what? I am leftist, and I don't like a regime which is based on personality worship, or carries out some very perverse economic policies. They make socialists get bad reputations.

[Judi Lynn]

99. Here's a quote from El Pais as reported by anti-Chavez paper, El Universal:

Spanish newspaper El País said that "66.45 percent of the 17 million eligible voters decided that Hugo Chávez will retain majority in parliament, but he no longer has a blank check that during the last five years allowed him to pass laws as he wished."

Foreign press highlights Chávez's setback in Congress

http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/09/27/en_pol_esp_foreign-press-highli_27A4526415.shtml
Opposition newspaper

[Arctic Dave]

60. Not bizarre at all when the majority of the vote

comes from large districts. The same thing happens in US elections too.

This should shut the pie holes of the "Chavez is a dictator" crowd now. They will have to find something new to peepee themselves about.

[naaman fletcher]

62. huh?

you mean the majority voting for the opposition yet only getting 1/3rd of the seats should shut the pie holes of the "Chavez is dictator" crowd?

[Arctic Dave]

63. Wow, did you miss the other half of my post?

[naaman fletcher]

67. Yes.

[MARALE]

64. Were all seats up for election?

If it is like here, not all of the seats were up for re-election at the same time. So if the opposition won 52% of the votes, they may have only gotten a smaller section of the parliament. It makes perfect sense to me.

[naaman fletcher]

66. Yes they were. nt.

[JackRiddler]

65. You have changed the article headline.

You have added your (likely false) claim to the article.

52 percent for the opposition is not the result of the election, which are not final. That is what the opposition is claiming.

[naaman fletcher]

69. Yes I added to it, happens all the time here.

True, it is not official, but then by that standard it is not official that Chavez has held most seats either. Yet, you have not objected to every article that claims he has held most seats. Therefore, you are being disingenuous and really you just don't want any information posted that is negative about Chavez.

[murdoch]

71. "Happens all the time here" - the cheater complains about cheating

When posting a news article, it very prominently and clearly says to post the original news article heading only.

I have posted news articles here and felt their would be better article names (sometimes more for clarity even then an axe to grind), but I have followed the rules.

You don't. Your excuse is it "happens all the time here". You've seen some other people get past the moderators and break the rules, so you will as well.

And amidst your cheating and gaming of the rules, what are you complaining about? How the vote in Venezuela was supposedly "52% vote for opposition, but stymied in results".

First of all, you are stating the 52% vote as a fact. But the source of it was no independent source, but from the political party that wishes to win.

Secondly, they did not say they got 52% of the vote. They said they had 52% of early poll results, which came from major urban centers. They have never claimed they got 52% of the overall vote.

Take a look at where candidates won. Where did the opposition win the most seats? Major urban centers. The same place the opposition said early polls got them 52% of the vote. In the second largest and most urban state, Miranda, MUD and the PSUV won the same number of seats. In the federal district, Caracas, 3 seats were won by MUD, 7 by PSUV. MUD probably got more than 30% of the vote in the federal district, but PSUV was over 50% in 7 districts while MUD was only over 50% in 3. So they only get 3. It works the same in the USA.

[naaman fletcher]

72. Where is this rule that you are talking about?

Please post it.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

76. Use the EXACT TITLE of the article you are posting, without additional comment. If there is no title

yet, be descriptive.

[naaman fletcher]

110. The actual rules

If you read in more detail, say that description in parenthesis are ok. Of course, you are dishonest. You don't actually care that I added to the headline, or you would be posting the same thing 50 times per day. You just don't like anyone who doesn't like chavez.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

112. You don't know jack shit about me. So calm the fuck down. You asked for the

rule I posted it. Just like I would have posted it for anyone who asked the question. Because I've been asked to correct my own headlines in the past.

Where are these "actual rules"? I pasted the only ones I could find.

[naaman fletcher]

113. I apologize..

I thought you were the guy I was originally responding to. my mistake. I apologize.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

114. OK, I didn't realize that. nt

[naaman fletcher]

75. Are you man enough to apologize?

You have called me a cheater based on false information " it very prominently and clearly says to post the original news article heading only". It does not say that. Are you going to apologize?

[bherrera]

80. Don't answer the guy

They indulge in personal attacks and try to change the subject. "Propaganda", "anti this", "corpo fascist". They have their slogans, and their mantras. I think it is better to ignore these guys when they start doing this trickery. No tienen manera de discutir el caso, ni modales, porque no saben que decir.

[ChangoLoa]

133. Official results in the Electoral Council page

http://www.cne.gob.ve/divulgacion_parlamentarias_2010 /

Take a look at Caracas, Miranda and Carabobo where the heavy gerrymandering took place last year. The result is a 9-10 point lead by the opposition, who won in the 3 states, but only gets 13 seats out of 32.

The contrary never happened. There's no state with a chavista majority where the opposition gets more deputies. Not even close.

The centralized* gerrymandering causes nice coincidences for the party in power. Completely one-sided.


------------

*In Venezuela, the reconfiguration of the electoral areas can only be done by the National Assembly. A whole reconfiguration especially adressed to this election was voted last year.

http://www.france24.com/en/20090801-new-electoral-law-favours-chavez-say-critics-

[OnlinePoker]

73. They use a similar system to Canada's

Here, we use a system called first past the post (the party with the largest number of votes in a district, even if they don't have a majority is the winner). This is the same for 110 of the seats in the Venezuelan parliament. If you have 6 opposition partys in a district and they all get 10% of the vote and Chavez's party gets 40%, his is still the victor. If you compare this election to the last one, Chavez's party lost 44-49 seats and can't rule by decree. If he was a true dictator, as has been posted in this thread, he would have ensured the ballot boxes were stuffed and kept himself in near absolute power. I think parliamentary democracy is working fine in Venezuela. They even reserve 3 seats specifically for the indigenous population so their voice isn't stifled, either.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

74. This is the correct answer. -nt

[bherrera]

81. System where 52 % of the people receive 40 % of the seats is corrupt

I don't know if you Canadians have this type of result, if you do, then maybe you should say you don't have a very good democracy. When a system has this result, where 52 % of the people vote for one side, and this side receives about 40 % of the seats, it can be said the system is corrupted.

I should also point out in Canada the system has a decentralized power, in Venezuela, the power has been centralized under the Chavez central government. Therefore the partition of power becomes more critical. If the system works properly, then the opposition should receive at least one half plus one seat, and this yields a balance which reflects the will of the population. Now, no such thing is possible. Which means the government lacks the ability to govern with confidence. It is a bad outcome.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

86. Any first-past-the-post system is subject to that.

Britain is another egregious example.

[OnlinePoker]

87. So when Clinton got elected in 92 with 43% of the popular vote and...

...49% in '96, his election was done under a corrupt system? Do you think the Democrats should hand over 28 seats in the House of Representatives because they only got 53.8% of the popular vote and that should equate to only 231 seats, not the 259 they received? Canada has rarely had a party take a majority of the popular vote in the last 100 years, but has had numerous majority parliaments. To say that Canada doesn't have a good democracy is ignoring the success the country has had in looking after its citizens. I wish I could say the same for the States, but from my vantage point there are a hell of a lot of people being dropped through the crevices there.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

95. Britain is even worse in that regard.

The Lib Dems, in particular, get screwed by the system all the time.

I guess that makes the UK a dictatorship.

[devilgrrl]

93. Bet the election was rigged by Diebold!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Judi Lynn]

97. But this year the opposition fielded candidates, after withholding them last election.

Then, they spun the truth for the following years that Chavez had SEIZED POWER, when the whole world of people who READ the damned news knew they had kept their candidates out of the election, had conspicuously BOYCOTTED the Venenezuelan election.

[Judi Lynn]

96. Socialists hold on to parliamentary majority

Socialists hold on to parliamentary majority

Monday 27 September 2010 Printable Email Venezuelan election officials announced on Monday that the ruling United Socialist Party won a majority in congressional elections - but failed to win a key two-thirds majority of seats.

National Electoral Council president Tibisay Lucena said that with most votes counted President Hugo Chavez's (above) party had won at least 90 of the 165 seats, while the opposition coalition won at least 59 seats.

This means that the opposition achieved its goal of preventing the United Socialist Party, or PSUV, from obtaining at least a two-thirds majority.

Passing that threshold would have enabled progressive MPs to rewrite laws unopposed and unilaterally appoint officials including Supreme Court justices and members of the electoral council.

More:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/95750

[fascisthunter]

102. Good (nt)

[epppie]

104. It's hard to take the measure of this election,

without an overall popular count, though I assume that even if we had an overall count, it wouldn't NECESSARILY mean that much, since it was not a national election in the sense that a presidential election is national, right? It's not like everyone was voting for one national office. MUD's candidates could win by larger percentages in their particular districts, I assume, as an example, thus giving MUD larger numbers overall, without it being an indication that they won an overall national election. That said, no doubt, MUD appeared to be more motivated to make a point in this election, and if they won 52% of the overall vote, well they may indeed have made a resounding point.

The fact that PSUV isn't reported as challenging MUD's claim to have 'won' the overall count suggests that MUD did indeed win, but then again, any claims by MUD are suspicious, and one certainly doesn't trust western establishment media to report honestly; quite the opposite, one can count on them to spin this election like mad, and to get their spin in early. That way, with the 'opposition' spin established early, if the government comes out with a claim that PSUV won the 'popular vote' as well as the count of legislators, everyone can claim that obviously it must be fraud.

I was glad to see that the NYT reported that Chavaz' party seems to have won the election for the Latin American Parliament, something I knew nothing about before. That bolsters the likelihood that MUD may be trying to get in quick with propaganda when it claims an overall count victory.

Some of the RW comments have been sickeningly humorous. I mean, wow, calling Chavez a "dictator" when he has bested the opposition in election after election and has survived a coup, and - just to put it all into perspective - when what is effectively a Military Dictatorship is right next door in Colombia, and - just to add more perspective - US recognition for Honduras was supersonic after the Honduras coup and the subsequent 'election' that was blatantly foul and amidst a massive Ruling Regime crackdown .... really one's mind truly spins at all the spin!!! But then one remembers that Establishmentarian Talk Agents don't concern themselves with such things as truth. They never have to mean what they say. They just have to think of something, or read it off a talking points sheet, that they think will confuse the issues and leave things on a 'he said she said' level where the establishment point of view 'wins' by sheer dominance of the public space.

One RW point about Chavez that does strike home some is the point about possibly a 52% popular vote garnering just over 1/3 of the seats being perhaps not very democratic. That does seem to be some pretty severe gerrymandering, even if some of it has to do with rural-urban weighting that may be valid under some circumstances. But, on the other hand, no one who is complaining about the apparent gerrymandering seems to be terribly concerned about the requirement for 2/3 majority to pass any legislation, which - as I understand it - is the very point the opposition is relying on in order to claim victory. Yes, apparently, a party that has just over a third of the seats can pretty much lock down the Assembly, as I understand it, and prevent the vast majority from accomplishing anything. Now that's not exactly democratic either, is it? It's like the US Senate filibuster, but if the filibuster were actual law. Yet the MUD and its backers don't seem to be worried about that at all. They don't seem to be complaining about that math at all. So their 'concern' for democracy seems pretty situational, one might say.

It was very interesting last night to watch the tweets about the election rolling by on Twitter. The supporters of MUD constantly talked about diversity, but they seemed to be almost uniformly young, urban, rich and shallow. I mean, of course, that's a lot to pick up from Twitter, but it was really hard to miss after a while that the opposition doesn't seem very diverse, and seems very class-based. Chavez' appearance was mocked a lot. He was called a communist and dictator a lot. Crime was referenced a lot. A lot of that came off as code for rich folks not liking poor folks, but mostly, folks didn't seem to like his wart. It all made me think that if Chavez responds effectively to the challenges he faces, he may well be able to triumph in 2012 against an opposition that may be very bitter, very rank, but maybe not very deep.

Also impossible to miss was the purple finger symbol that the MUDders were using on Twitter. And for anyone who has been following the global activities of US global democracy assistance programs (which apparently really means covert programs for overthrowing regimes that Uncle Sam doesn't like), it's pretty much impossible not to recognize in this election the Venezuela analogue to the Tulip Revolution, Orange Revolution, Cedar Revolution, Green Revolution, etc., etc.. This is the factor no one seems to be talking about: if the MUD did in fact 'win' this election via the popular vote, it was surely a great 'win' for the use of US 'soft power' to overthrow or attempt to overthrow a government that the US doesn't like. This factor was discussed in alternative media in the runup to the election - that US government funded 'pro-democracy' groups have massively supported and funded the Venezuela opposition - and it needs to be remembered now. We need to recognize that a coup by other means is still a coup. If Chavez poured millions and millions into funding a third party in the US, you can be sure that the US government would treat this as a hostile act. Only Israel, it seems, is welcome to manipulate US elections. The Imperial Double Standard is in play, as usual. When Chavez wins elections, it's dictatorship. When US proxies win elections IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, such as Venezuela it's Democracy in its purest and most glorious form!!!

If the PSUV has managed to hold onto most of the Assembly AND the popular vote against a massively US backed opposition that controls most of the media in Venezuela, in the midst of a global economic disaster created by the US, that will be a very impressive achievement. Very impressive indeed.

Someone mentioned the electronic machines, very snarkily. Ok. But in fact, whenever electronic voting machines are used, we should be concerned. Someone else said that Venezuela audits heavily. Depending on all the technical details, that sounds very encouraging as to the accuracy of the election. Maybe auditing is the reason for delays in further information, such as overall vote counts. As regards possible fraud, I'm interested to hear about how voting went in urban slums. Since MUD runs the larger urban areas, as I understand it, I would assume that they control elections in those areas as well? If all that's true, I'd be very surprised if they were failing to game the results from poor urban areas, where MUD would seem likely to lose. That would be one way of ensuring their chokehold on governing urban areas, while gaming the national numbers.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laughingliberal]

122. Thank you for posting that. It's obvious the oiligarchs (sic) would love to be rid of Chavez.

I'm glad he's been able to survive against their (and our) attempts to remove him. The Gucci protesters lost again!

[laughingliberal]

121. +1000 nt

[laughingliberal]

118. Very good post! eom

[Francesca9]

107. Venezuelans' votes do no elect the same

Based on the results of the election by list, the parties to the Unified Democratic Panel earned 5,448,864 valid votes (48 percent), whereas the alliance formed by ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and the Communist Party was favored with 5,259,998 personas (46.4 percent). Dissenting political Patria Para Todos (PPT) party got 330,260 votes (2.91 percent)

http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/09/27/en_pol_esp_over-representation_27A4528653.shtml

[laughingliberal]

119. K & R nt

[era veteran]

131. Lots of useful fools on the Hugo bus.

[ChangoLoa]

132. Official results in the Electoral Council page

http://www.cne.gob.ve/divulgacion_parlamentarias_2010 /

Take a look at Caracas, Miranda and Carabobo where the heavy gerrymandering took place last year. The result is a 9-10 point lead by the opposition, who won in the 3 states, but only gets 13 seats out of 32.

The contrary never happened. There's no state with a chavista majority where the opposition gets more deputies. Not even close.

The centralized* gerrymandering causes nice coincidences for the party in power. Completely one-sided.


------------

*In Venezuela, the reconfiguration of the electoral areas can only be done by the National Assembly. A whole reconfiguration especially adressed to this election was voted last year.

http://www.france24.com/en/20090801-new-electoral-law-favours-chavez-say-critics-

[SocialistJan]

135. Half victory, half defeat. They lost the qualified majority for voting the most important laws. nt

[spanza]

136. Chavistas are very depressed right now in Venezuela

They know it's not a victory at all because 1) They can't pass important laws 2) They can't appoint the Supreme Court nor the National Electoral Council anymore and, most important, 3) They've become a minority of the electorate (46%).

The actual result is a bit confusing because they won 59% of the seats. It's because of the 2010 reform of the electoral rules. Gerrymandering, mal-apportionment and reduction of the proportionality. Otherwise, they would have won the same number of seats than the opposition.

[Bacchus39]

137. chavistas on DU too n/t

s