Talk:2005 Venezuelan parliamentary election

Welcome to the Venezuelan parliamentary election discussion page

I definitely agree that current Venezuelan politics is a very polemic topic, surprisingly in other countries as well as Venezuela. I am pleased to see important changes made to the original article to improve its neutrality, thus maintining this wiki in my highest regards as a reliable source. [Note to Enano275: As we share a common contributor goal, I am willing to help you translate any reliable info to/from Spanish/Portuguese/English] Reynaldo Abreu

There has been some vandalism in the last few hours regarding this article, and since this article is listed on the front page, I thought it would be better to open some discussion. I built this article mostly on my own plus a few minors contributions, but if anyone thinks that something important should be fixed/change, don't hesitate on suggesting it. But please, don't make radical changes just because of your political preferences. Most of the information in this article is backed-up by articles from local and international sources (see References and external links). Suggestions are welcomed. Enano275

Individual facts need to be cited via these links, or else they should not be in the article. I haven't taken anything out though, to give people time to put these citations in. Tomorrow I will work on this myself if I have time. Dsol 20:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will try to work on this. Note that some facts are based on Spanish sources, but I will try to find most on English Enano275

How about finding them In spanish? The Spanish view on venezuelas government is mostly possitive, since they provide both Oil and Income from their weapons purchase, you should try getting info provided by the opposition, and compare the facts.P.S:the turnout has been far smaller.-MeDP

I added the New York Times link on the page. They are saying that the MVR won 114 seats. It will be interesting to see how many of the gains came at the expense of the opposition and how many of them came from MAS. Interestingly, even the opposition is dominated by leftists such as the MIR. This has to be the creation of one of the most leftist democratic congresses in world history. --Descendall 02:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

Coverage of events in Venezuela is generally highly polarized, and this article is no exception. The same criticisms made in the article of the lack of secrecy in the elections could be made about the British electoral system where electors are given numbered ballot papares and the number of the ballot paper is recorded against the name of the elector on the electoral role. The papers sighted as references in this article gave uncitical support to the attempted military coup in 2002.

I support the notion that this is indeed a highly POV article. The allegations of fraud in the 2004 referendum and the link to electoral fraud do not belong. However, it would be possible to balance it by mentioning that the 2004 referendum was audited by the Carter Center, which did not find evidence of fraud. --Hpj 21:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Its still stated wrong in the article that the fingerprint scanners "reveal" the decision of each voter. Its only that this would make it theoreticaly possible to identify a voters decision if you compare the sequence of voters to the sequence of votes, which are not recorded on the same device/place. Additionaly the official organs claim that the sequence are scrambled and that there is no possibilty to reconstruct it. Fairfis.

You should ready this Fairfis: http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200512021052 DamianFinol

And you should read the reports of the OAS and the Carter center. At least we have to state, that one side (the side which according to all polls would loose the election dramatically and therefore withdraw from the election even the CNE TOOK BACK THE FINGERPRINT-SCANNERS (not screaming, but marking)) claims that eventually the secrecy can be revealed when the other side states that this is not done and not possible Fairfis

This might be too off-topic, but the OAS and Carter Center won't always give the right report. In my opinion the OAS and Carter Center are becoming (as well as other international organizations) a bit obsolete. Look what happened in Ukraine, at first the international organizations said the government supporters had won, but then it was revealed that the opposition candidate had obtained more votes. Just to name a few more examples, the Bolivian crisis last year was influenced by the IMF. The Iraq's WMD were never found, the UN was never able to stop the U.S. from going to Iraq. Also, as DamianFinol says below, there was an issue with Carter and Nicaragua/Salvador a few decades ago. I know this won't change anything in this article, but I think it needs to be clear that Carter and OAS don't know everything that's going on in Venezuela. The CNE won't admit about the secrecy vulnerability because the press and OAS/Carter is looking, but it's clear that there's some vulnerability, because it was proved during the audit. Another thing to make clear is that the sequence of votes is stored permanently, so even today, more than a year after the recall referendum, the CNE (theoretically) can know who voted for whom. There's a lot of controversy about a "Lista Maisanta" that is supposed to say everyone's political decision. And we all remember the "Tascón list" that was once online.Enano275

Therefore state both sides. But to trust Parties like Justice First or Sumata (which told repeatedly in full knowledge lies about "fraud" during the recall (the "statistical evidence" brought out was a masterpiece of disinformation) more than the OAS or the Carter Centre would be very strange. The recall had a very clear outcome and the polls for this election had a very clear outcome: Chavez and his party have a strong support among the vast Majority of the persons entiteld to vote in Venezuela. This may be linked to the fact that he is redistributiong money from a few to a lot of people, an easy way to get political support in a democracy. So the flaws made here that this election are "fraud" are quite unplausible. The claims of both said should be mention and the statement of both sides should be mention an than the needed background information to give the wikipedia-readers the best oppurtinities to make their own conclusions from it.

Election closed

A note to all contributor: The elections have ended, meaning that only data transmission is left. Most events should now be written in past tense. If you see anything in a wrong tense, please fix it. Enano275

Biased

The article is clearly Biased, saying "the elections are fraud free" when there are clearly objections from a big side stating that it isn't, plus there are many articles around the web and news that clearly demonstrate it isn't. So in the meantime let's not assume that they are 'free' and not assume they aren't, it's called NPOV.DamianFinol

We can't state whether it's a fraud or not, because there's no way we can backup any of those position by a news source. On other topic, someone rewrote the first paragraph of the "secrecy of the voters" section removing the part about the audit, which IMO is very important and backs up the withdrawal of the opposition. Besides, that was cited by several news sources, the current one is not. There's also some speculation in the "Results" section about the opposition withdrawing because they knew they were going to lose, which is only said by the vice-president and other Chávez supporters, but is never said by the opposition. And it's irrelevant in that section anyway . I'm going to fix all those issues. Enano275

My point exactly, we cannot insert text saying they were FRAUD free or fraud because BOTH sides and media will keep their positions. Also, just because the Carter group said they were fraud free doesn't necessarily make it so (Remember Carter and Nicaragua/Salvador some decades ago?), let's keep the NPOV I know it's going to be tough because it's a political article but we need to keep it that wayDamianFinol

Let me clarify my statement about the Carter institute. I don't think a statement from such an organization should necessarily change how the event is reported on Wikipedia, but I do believe that if we report that one side alleges fraud, then we also need to report any credible evidence to the contrary -- and despite past mistakes, independent auditing organizations are the best tools we have. They have insight into the election mechanism and conduct their own polls. We should include this information and let the reader decide whether he/she trusts their investigation or not. --Hpj 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, however the way it was put before was that just one side (Government side) was present in the page, with references to the Carter group to say they where fraud free; that text should be reinstated only when other text (News, blogs, etc) regarding fraud in the elections can be linked. DamianFinol

I would also say it gives a biased aquisition that the Fifth Republic party would want to change the constitution that they proposed!--Acai Yule 19:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added that information, but I will remove it or fix it.

Edit: I added a "Some suggest" and a "could" in the bottom paragraph of the results to make it more neutral Enano275

Boy, this article is really spinning fast. It sounds to me like there are some sore loosers on the right. It sucks when your side looses, doesn't it? But nobody should stand for this kind of ginned up "dispute" nonsense after they (the conservatives) were so quick to write the questioners of the 2004 US elections off as "moonbats" and crazy leftist commies. Fair is fair, and what comes around goes around. You guys had your chance in South America and you blew it, now suck it up and move on. Also, I think it is a tad "revisionist" history to sit here and so quickly brush off what the Carter center does. Many people who really thought he was a horrible President have since praised him for his tireless work in monitoring elections. I do believe that both Regan and Bush 41 have said so themselves. That being said, where is your evidence of fraud? Do you have any reliable, verifiable sources who have no "sour grapes" or a personal axe to grind against Chavez? And no, the opposition parties acting like spoiled children is not evidence enough. If not, then this nonsense about a fraudulent election should be dropped, in other words - just the facts ma'am.--130.127.121.232 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Latin American Parliament?

This "Latin American Parliament" sounds interesting, I'd love to know more. Anyone willing to start the article? Is it anything to do with the South American Community of Nations? Seabhcán 11:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the low turnout?

Something that's been lacking in all reports of the election is a quote from the Fifth Republic offical on why the turnout was so low. Also what is a typical turnout in an election of this sort and how effective was the boycott?

How soon did information on the opposition boycotts and survey results get disseminated? It only makes sense for people to abstain if the election has a very much a foregone conclusion. This sounds bad, but at the end of the day, if everyone else gives up, the one who stays is not necessarily to blame.

You assume that the forgone conclusion is that Chavez would get all the votes. While for others the forgone conclusion is that the elections will not be fair. Regardless of how you cut it, the turnout was 25%. In other parliamentary elections it was 50 to 60%. It's hard to claim that the Parliament, whose whole function is to proportionally represent the people, indeed represents the electorate when only 25% voted. - Spaceriqui 17:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The parlament reflects the will of the voters, thats the rule and everyone knows it. No one said, that there was any vote miscounted or whatever, so everyone who would have liked to have seats for.... lets say "justice first" could have gone and vote for them. Chavez won 3 elections with vast majorities, the MVR got an overhelming Majority in the election for the constitutional assembly, the exit polls before this election were very very very clear.... so I guess a lot of voters decided that there is no sense to go out in that stormy wheater to participate in a decision which is already clear. Many of them obviously thought. "Justice first" is not worth to go out and vote for them (you still could do that, actually, only 10% of candidates dropped out officially. In Switzerland where I'm coming from Election turnouts ar between 40% and 50% on the national level (no party is boycotting this elections, btw). Is this already undemocratic for you (less then half of the votes) Should we maybe condemn switzerland as a dictatorship? Fairfis

I don't know. Is the Swiss parliament dominated by one party? Or is it more or less representative of the different views of the people they are supposed to represent? If voter turnout is historically 60% in Switzerland, and only 25% show up, wouldn't that raise any questions?

In Switzerland does not one party control most of the seats, but it was for a long time the case (the Liberals dominated the country for decades). In some of its powerful regional entities only one party is having the majority of the legislative and executive positions for more then one and half century (for example the Christian democrats in the catholic canton of Wallis). If voters turnout would drop to 25% this would raise a lot of question, but the answer: All important opposition party gave up the race before it started would satisfy most of the questioners (at least about the turnout, are you gonna vote if the result is already clear?). And what do you think about the election in Venezuela? Do you get the impression that the persons elected to not represent proportional the voters electing them? There was clearly no vote-manipulation, the results were according to the polls, the opposition-supporters choosed (free and by them self) not to go vote (as reported were in most of the "upper-class" quarters the voting places empty). In Bavaria the party of the "Ministerpräsident" (Edmund Stoiber)has a 2/3 Majority, is this undemocratic? In Great Britain Labour Party got 356 seats of the 646 seats parliament (55% of all seats) witg only 35% of all votes... the conservatives, having 32% of all votes got 30% of the parliamentary seats and the liberals representing 22% of all votes got... 9% of the seats! Are you now going out to call Great Britain a dictatorship with Tony Blair as its "charismatic leader" (which even wants to serve a next turn) or raise doubts about "fraud"? The election for the constitutional assembly was a clear sign, the not functioning "Putsch" of oppostion was a very clear sign, the lost recall was a totally clear sign, now having the oil prices raising to the stars and because of Chavez State-ownership policiy the Oil-money redistributed to the voters, this was a very predictable outcome. The Venezuelans behave just rational, to create rumors about fraud elections is in this case just weak. Fairfis

I'm not calling anyone anything, as you seem to insist. All I am saying is we shouldn't assume that the abstention rate is due to, IMHO, weak arguments of inclement weather or bad results at the polls. Venezuela is deeply divided (maybe you can agree with that). The election results do in no way reflect this. Thus, the fact that a lot of people heeded the call to boycott the elections seem to suggest that there is no trust in the system... and this should raise a lot of questions. Your idea to explain the 50%+ drop in voter turnout is because the opposition party just *gave up* seems rather simplistic. - Spaceriqui

UPPI

Can someone tell me what the party acronym UPPI stands for? The party elected one Deputy (Zark Lara) in Portuguesa state. Adam 09:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Seat Totals By Party

I found the seat totals for the other parties from "Defeat and victory sow dissent" (Daily Journal, Venezuela, December 16, 2005). The only one it didn't mention was the People's Electoral Movement (Movimiento Electoral del Pueblo), so I had to calculate how many it had (i.e. 167 minus 156). Does the National Assembly have 167 or 165 seats? metzerly 07:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Official Results

As far as I can tell, CNE has not released official results. They should have been posted here or here before January 3rd 2006 according to this timeline. If they have been officially released, please point me to a CNE link. I will make a note of it on the main article. Spaceriqui 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've had trouble finding official results, as well. I know the Communist Party's numbers are right, because they list their deputies on their website. I'll guess we'll have to play the waiting game for those parties without websites. metzerly 00:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I bet most of the seats are right. I don't doubt anyone on that point. But I'm also interested in the exact numbers of voters, etc. from an official document such as this. Let's keep an eye out for it. Spaceriqui 04:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Secrecy of the Votes

I removed a few segments of this section, which showed an extreme bias, and placed a hyper-skeptical slant on the claims of venezuelan opposition, concerning the secrecy of the voting machines.

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:01102r1 copia.jpg, found on Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2005, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact ST47. STBotI (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)