Talk:2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election

Hinterlaces

Hinterlaces is often described as being "a pollster linked to the chavismo" (PanAm Post). We previously had issues with including the GIS XXI and ICS surveys since they also used highly slanted data. The Bolivarian government has often used the strategy of fake polls.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: i just added back Hinterlaces after an anon removed it, their reason was basically that Maduro's govt is "DICTATORIAL and GENOCIDAL", i'm sure their edit violates some rule somewhere.

on a related note, is it correct to include the Venezuelan referendum, 2017 in the graph? as this was an opposition referendum, not a poll and effectively only opposition supporters voted. It seems misleading to include it in the graph, and possibly the table too. --SirKeplan (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, we messaged each other at the same time. I think it would be just as accurate as a Hinterlaces poll to be honest. Also, there are many disenfranchised Chavistas (see: Miguel Rodríguez Torres, etc.) who participated in the referendum beside traditional opposition members. In Catia where the shooting occurred during the referendum, that was once a Chavista stronghold. It's a good question though, I'm currently updating the table with a recent Datanalisis poll.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

SirKeplan, I have softened my position of Hinterlaces since it seems like an outlier among the other polls, so its position appears obvious. However, the source of the percentage states 54% agree that they should "improve the current Constitution to ensure that social achievements are not lost". Anyone can agree with wanting to improve a constitution for a particular position, but the question isn't whether they agree to the call for the Assembly or not like other polls. What do you think? I haven't found a Hinterlaces poll that states "Do you agree with the call for the Assembly?" or something similar. I'm looking at their Scribd site and will let you know when I find one.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I've got no real opinion on Hinterlaces. It seems good to include the token outlier and all, and Wikipedia frequently includes blatantly biased outlying polls, but also seem like a sketchy poll. I do think the referendum should definitely be included, if only because I believe the referendum is absolutely necessary & relevant to this article, and it just has to go somewhere. Nuke (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Number of deputies

@ZiaLater and Number 57: have you got a source about the number of deputies elected by the universel suffrage and the number of the deputies who will be designated ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC) @Sfs90: it is a legislative chamber. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Nope, a Constituent Assembly it's not a part of the Legislative power. The entity that makes the Legislative power, as stated in the Constitution, is the National Assembly. A Constituent Assembly could not intefere with the National Assembly work, and it's not recognised in the Constitution as a part of the Legislative power. --Sfs90 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sfs90: the constitutional assembly have replaced the parliament in 1999 and in the fifties. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Again, nope: the 1999 Constituent Assembly (an Assembly that, unlike the 2017 one, was created after a popular referendum) suspended the National Congress meetings a weeks after the Constituent Assembly begun its sessions, and dissolved the National Congress only a year later (in 2000), but it never replaced completely the National Congress (which in that time had 2 chambers: the Deputies and Senators). The 2 Assemblies were existing in parallel ways, and only the National Congress had the Legislative power. The Constituent Assembly of 1999 doesn't had the power to legislate and create laws. --Sfs90 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sfs90:But Congress has stopped sitting. For the rest, elected by universal suffrage or not, the one of 2017 legally resembles that of 1999. And Maduro announced that the Constituent Assembly will sit in the building of the Parliament. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Again: the 1999 Constituent Assembly doesn't replaced the National Congress, and the 2017 doesn't have the power to dissolve the National Assembly and replace it with another chamber. And what Maduro could say it's absolutely useless here, he could say a lot of crazy things and in the real world, and in the legal world, things could be a lot different (remember that Maduro is chief of the Executive chamber, not the Legislative one, and these are two absolutely different powers, separated each other as stated in the Constitution) ;) --Sfs90 (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sfs90:Justice is on his side. Legitimate or not, these are facts. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Ha! A justice controlled by his supporters... so fair. Aside from your phrase ("These are facts"), I don't have enough time to discuss you about these things, because we could be getting out of the main topic of this article and this discussion. You could still have the time to repeat phrase after phrase that "the Constituent Assembly is a legislative chamber", and I will state you (with arguments and facts) that it's not, and is very clear that you will not change your mind. Regards! --Sfs90 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC) PS: Maybe @ZiaLater and Number 57: and many other users could convince you that you're wrong with your thoughts :D

@Sfs90:Whether justice is right or not, it remains official justice, we could do nothing about it. We also have puppet courts in Africa that validate anything in elections but we will not deny the facts that such has power. For the rest, never two assemblies (legislative and constituent) have sat at the same time. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Let's wait until the Constituent Assembly begin sessions (if begin sessions at some time) and see their actions, decrees or whatever, before stating if that assembly is a part of the legislative chamber or not. The facts of the future and the actions that they could take are merely speculations at this time. Don't try to make clear statements ("the Constitutional Assembly is a Legislative one") before the assembly begin its functioning. Regards! --Sfs90 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC) PS: The statement you made (that "never two assemblies [Legislative and Constituent] have sat at the same time) is fake in some point: we have other countries (like Iceland) that really do have two assemblies sitting at the same time ;) Regards! --Sfs90 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Procedural section

The article should have a section on how the Assembly will be chosen, and it should be placed before the "Background" section. The current version is almost exclusively focused on the political "game" surrounding the event rather than the actual poll, and its unclear why this is even considered an election (rather than a selection). The process section indicates its a selection procedure and not an actual election.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not a direct election

@ZiaLater, Number 57, Sfs90, and Batmacumba: Hi. It is not an election. A part of members will be appointed by syndicates and the other part elected by the incumbents mayor. We should move the page. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

So you've accepted that now? I suggest moving the article to 2017 Venezuelan Constitutional Assembly. Number 57 13:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I second the move to 2017 Venezuelan Constitutional Assembly.--ZiaLater (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A part of this election is direct and a part is indirect if I have well understood? Wykx (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wykx: any part of the election is direct. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater, Number 57, Sfs90, Batmacumba, Cambalachero, and SirKeplan:

In the end, given that the sources contradicted each other, were the deputies elected by municipal constituencies or designated by the mayors? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Municipal constituencies, I believe.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: So it's an election? And the sources referring to designation were erroneous? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I think what sources were trying to say is that municipal candidates were chosen by the government (since the opposition didn't participate) and then select social groups got to pick the remainder. It technically wasn't a universal vote since select social groups decided a large percentage of the assembly.--ZiaLater (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Whether or not it was right to do so, the opposition boycotted the ballot. After that, there were small parties that were able to participate in the ballot, so the vote on the municipal districts was by universal suffrage. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: And with the small social groups?--ZiaLater (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Explanation

Basically, the Assembly being chosen to rewrite the constitution (545 individuals) is divided between individuals below:

• Municipal government decision (364, 66%)
• Workers (79, 15%)
• Retirees (28, 5%)
• communal councils (24, 4%)
• Students (24, 4%)
• Peasants (8, 2%)
• Fishermen (8, 2%)
• Disabled (5, 1%)
• Businessmen (5, 1%)

I think the count is correct, but Venezuela's teleSUR has so many differentiating numbers (545 total members, 540 total members, 8 additional indigenous members, etc.). Anyways, municipal elections have been delayed by the government for more than one year, meaning that the PSUV (ruling party) still controls the majority of municipal governments which choose 66% of the Constitutional Assembly.

Municipal weight is divided as follows: [1]

• Táchira (30, 8%) — PSUV 43%, MUD 57%
• Falcón (26, 7%) — PSUV 84%, MUD 16%
• Mérida (24, 7%) — PSUV 65%, MUD 45%
• Anzoátegui (22, 6%) — PSUV 90%, MUD 10%
• Miranda (22, 6%) — PSUV 71%, MUD 19%
• Zulia (22, 6%) — PSUV 65%, MUD 45%
• Trujillo (21, 6%) — PSUV 85%, MUD 15%
• Aragua (19, 5%) — PSUV 88%, MUD 12%
• Guárico (16, 4%) — PSUV 80%, MUD
• Sucre (16, 4%) — PSUV 87%, MUD 13%
• Carabobo (15, 4%) — PSUV 64%, MUD 36%
• Portuguesa (15, 4%) — PSUV 93%, MUD 7%
• Yaracuy (15, 4%) — PSUV 100%, MUD 0%
• Monagas (14, 4%) — PSUV 92%, MUD 8%
• Barinas (13, 4%) — PSUV 83%, MUD 17%
• Bolívar (12, 3%) — PSUV 73%, MUD 27%
• Nueva Esparta (12, 3%) — PSUV 64%, MUD 36%
• Cojedes (10, 3%) — PSUV 100%, MUD 0%
• Lara (10, 3%) — PSUV 67%, MUD 33%
• Amazonas (8, 2%) — PSUV 71%, MUD, 29%
• Apure (8, 2%) — PSUV 86%, MUD 14%
• Capital District (7, 2%) — PSUV 34%, MUD 66%
• Delta Amacuro (5, 1%) — PSUV 100%, MUD 0%
• Vargas (2, 1%) — PSUV 100%, MUD 0%

So, the PSUV (ruling party) possesses at least 90% of the municipal offices, giving them roughly 328 seats or about 60% of the Constitutional Assembly. However, the MUD (opposition) is boycotting the election saying it is rigged. So, 66%+ of those rewriting the constitution will most likely be PSUV.

There was no public referendum to call for a new constitution. President Maduro just declared the election and it was deemed to be held. So municipal governments are choosing candidates for the Assembly while ordinary people are voting for members of certain social groups that applied to be part of the Assembly – with some of those social groups having more power than others – to be part of the Assembly. Hope this helps!--ZiaLater (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, so part of this election is direct. Wykx (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Where does anywhere say that municipal governments are choosing candidates? it seems that people can be nominated by voters. and are voted upon in a universal vote. Telesur SirKeplan (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@SirKeplan: Ah, misunderstanding of TeleSUR's wording. TeleSUR also states in that link that there are only "540 constituents in the national constituent assembly" when there are actually 545 (Plus 8 indigenous members?). The details of the election are so murky that it's hard to find the correct info. The Washington Post explains, "A total of 364 delegates will be selected according to geography: In each of Venezuela’s 23 states, one delegate will be allotted per municipality while state capitals get two. But some of the most populated states have relatively few municipalities, while some smaller ones have many. ... Critics say that unfairly favors rural areas where Maduro is more popular over opposition-friendly cities such as Caracas, the capital". You can see above how MUD is popular in the populous areas with the popularity of the MUD most likely increasing since 2013.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: yeah there's been some conflicting info. for the delegates though if you count up(using the pic you linked) it's clearly 364(municipal)+8(indigenous)+173(social groups) for a total of 545 overall delegates. SirKeplan (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Article talks about the constituent assembly process taking 2 years

The rough text below is stated twice in the article.

"The proposal would be an alternative way to close the National Assembly. It would also allow him to stay in power during the interregnum and skip the 2018 presidential elections, as the process would take at least two years.[4]"

This looks pretty dubious to me, why would it take 2 years? last one took 6 months as i understand. it seems to be only that source stating that, it could be bias trying to paint Maduro as dictator clinging on.

I feel like this should be deleted. SirKeplan (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Added two more references, BBC and the Guardian. Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: Neither say anything about the process taking 2 years, Guardian says "The next presidential elections – which Maduro seems likely to lose – are currently scheduled to be held in 2018, but it is unclear whether this would remain the case under a new constitution" and the BBC article says something similar. This article should be amended to say something to the effect of "the oppositions concern is that the constitutional assembly will decide to suspend the next presidential election." not the current statement about taking a minimum of 2 years, which is unfounded. SirKeplan (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The first reference says it. As for the others, that's simple maths. The presidential elections are scheduled for the end of 2018. If this assembly is kept working deliberately longer, so that it stays working well after that time and gives the excuse to delay the elections, then it end their work... sometime in 2019. Two years. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't personally have an opinion about whether La Nazion is or isn't reliable, but I've walked back my changes to the lede to reflect the Guardian and BBC's take. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks good now.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I should mention that yesterday, during the Assembly's first session, Diosdado Cabello proposed its duration to be two years long; his proposal was approved unanimously.[1]

Title

The normal term for this kind of a body is constituent assembly. That also appears to be more common per Google. Srnec (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it is a constitutional assembly because the assembly have also legislative powers. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, the label "constituent assembly" is generally a temporary legislative body, often created when a country is newly founded or following an event like a coup that has removed the previous legislature. A constitutional assembly is one elected specifically to draw up a constitution and coexists with a legislature (e.g. Iceland in 2010). Number 57 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

"Constituent" is not in conflict with that fact. And at any rate, we should reflect the name that is used for it in reality, rather than arbitrarily renaming things just because we think their existing name isn't explicit enough about the scope of what they do. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not necessary to stigmatize it as a "arbitrarily renaming," you just tell them that despite "Constitutional" may/could be more accurate in its meaning and definition (albeit these terms are akin and are in some way synonyms), the most common (almost universally) naming used is "Constituent" as the direct translation of "Constituyente", and that's the way Wikipedia goes: naming it in the way others do (not in the way Wikipedian editors wish for). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.40.140 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Polls

I think there are serious issues with the "public opinion" section, somebody should do some cleaning/sorting. All those polls are clearly contradictory, with discrepancies way beyond the theoretical error bars. This is probably explained by a partisan bias, an unscientific method for those polls using non-representative samples. The extreme case is the "Venezuelan referendum, 2017", which has nothing to do in the poll section since it was clearly not designed to be representative: voting to this unofficial referendum organised by the right-wing was already an act of defiance towards the government. The number of voters of this referendum provides an information (although there might be a bit of fraud on that), but the percentage of no doesn't, and it should not be in the same table/section/figure than polls. In the meantime, for the remaining polls, it would be nice to add to the table some column describing the methodology and its reliability. J.frison (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree, and the "Venezuelan referendum, 2017" should definately be separated, regarding the others, the problem is i'm not sure there are any unbiased polls. --SirKeplan (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. Will change.--ZiaLater (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Speaking on polls, can anyone find a Hinterlaces poll where it directly states something like "Do you agree with the constitutional assembly?" or "Should an election be called?"--ZiaLater (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is a poll from International Consulting Services (ICS). It is often referred to as a fake pro-government pollster, which is a common strategy of the Bolivarian government. Maybe we can include it just to help NPOV? I couldn't find any Hinterlaces poll which asked about approval or disapproval of the election.--ZiaLater (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent Edits - 31 July 2017

Zcbeaton We can discuss here. Some looks good and I accidentally removed it. I'll comb through it real quick. Sorry!--ZiaLater (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Zcbeaton, can you find another source for the opposition calling for the 2013 Constitutional Assembly? We just need a better source for that. I will perform some edits if you can look for that.--ZiaLater (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see, many portions of the article where views of media organizations, La Nación and Chávez's responsibility of the economy for example, were edited to falsely attribute their words to the opposition. Media ≠ opposition.--ZiaLater (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute with ZiaLater

Hello, User:ZiaLater reverted my edits today with no obvious reason. Could you please explain before reverting again?

I cleaned up the article and sought to improve the balance. For example, instead of stating that the quality of life of Venezuelans has been "diminished ... as a result of Chávez's policies", I made clear that this is the position of the opposition, and added the position of the Venezuelan government (without stating that either is correct). I corrected the claim that the TSJ "quickly [stripped] four opposition lawmakers of their seats" to clarify that only three of these lawmakers belonged to the opposition (2 MUD, 1 indigenous opposition, 1 pro-government). I also linked this to the alleged "self-coup", as these events are clearly linked. I edited the paragraph about the "international community"'s reaction to also mention Venezuela's regional allies, as otherwise this is hopelessly one-sided. All of these changes are in line with WP:NPOV, and all of my edits were thoroughly cited. According to the edit summary, User:ZiaLater does not think Venezuelanalysis is a legitimate source - why not? What makes it less credible than the right-wing outlets cited throughout?

Please engage with me on this instead of continuing to remove good faith edits. — Zcbeaton (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zcbeaton: Not an opposition position. This was stated directly in the sources that Chávez was the cause of some of the problems. The lawmakers were stripped of their powers too, but this was about a two-year process that had a lot more to do with it. TSJ held NA in contempt, etc. I could provide more details on that. Previous discussions have found that Venezuelanalysis is not a reliable source, it has been taken to noticeboards several times. Give me some time, I'm placing some things back.--ZiaLater (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2017 Constitutional Assembly of Venezuela which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

POV

I'm not satisfied that this article is written from a neutral point of view, as it regularly gives undue balance to the Venezuelan opposition's narrative at the expense of the Venezuelan government's narrative. I'm equally dissatisfied that User:ZiaLater has self-appointed themselves as caretaker of the page, reversing my edits and claiming some kind of authority to personally review my edits and re-implement them as they see fit.

• Article continues to claim that "four opposition lawmakers" were suspended when one of them was a pro-government legislator.
• Article quotes the opposition's response to the breakdown of Vatican-mediated talks, but not the government's response.
• Article contains lots of information about the opposition's actions during the election campaign — what about the candidates' campaigns? Why not mention pro-government rallies in June and July as well as opposition rallies?
• Article only cites critical sources of what the Assembly can achieve (e.g. consolidate Maduro's power) — why is there no account of what pro-government forces think can be achieved? What could this process mean for the status of the communes? What about the LGBTI platform presented to the Assembly? We can't present the Assembly exclusively through the eyes of those opposed to it.

The article desperately needs a rewrite to overcome the heavy imbalance. — Zcbeaton (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you really surprised there are more critical views to show elections than there is government propaganda? It doesn't have to be a 50:50 equivalence. --Pudeo (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zcbeaton: Yeah, thanks for singling me out. I've just been contributing what I can from a fair amount of reliable sources. You're free to add the pro-government info if you want, just know that TeleSUR is Venezuelan propaganda and can't be reliable for everything. Usually I just use them for official statements, voter numbers, statistics, etc. Your edits replaced the words of conventional media and you tried to attribute it to the opposition. Like I said, Media ≠ opposition. Also, you used sources that were not reliable. I'll take a look at what is on your lists and try to word things better. I apologize for any misunderstandings.--ZiaLater (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, here we go:

1. Changed it to three opposition members. Easy.
2. The Holy See said itself in a communique that they were not satisfied with the dialogue due to government not being able to promise elections, recognize the NA/constitution and release political prisoners. Maduro got angry and criticized the Vatican for their demands. I guess we can place how Maduro said that the Vatican was "sabotaging" dialogue between the two parties by demanding elections, respecting the constitution and freeing prisoners.
3. Could not find any other sources except for TeleSUR for the 9 June rally. The 27 July rally was mostly covered by the government and was just the closing statement by candidates and Maduro criticizing his opposition (Trump, Colombia, etc.). I'll see where I can place this info.
4. If you can find sources that explain what this does for the communes, the LGBTI platform, workers, etc., please share them here. We can fit them in, but preferably not Venezuelanalysis or TeleSUR.

Hopefully this helps.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rigged Vote

This article is worth including, the company that supplies the voting machines has said that the turnout figures announced by the government are different to the actual turnout figures, throwing into doubt the what "results" the government chooses to publish. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-40804812 MattUK (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@MattUK: Already in the article. Kinda odd how Smartmatic has been getting so much flak lately for being Venezuelan-related on Wikipedia and now they say that their system has been manipulated. Interesting.--ZiaLater (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: It is also interesting (and thought-provoking) to observe that the most prominent creator of the flak you so innocently say Smartmatic "has been getting" is none other than yourself. Your motives are still far from clear, an authentic mystery, however you've been getting some "celebrity" by now. --AVM (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@AVM: From someone who's buddies with the Smartmatic CEO, I can see why this is still a big deal for you. However, there are no motives since I was just preventing COI edits on the article and the work of other users and I to deter such edits has seemed to be successful.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Should it not be in the Results section, rather than buried at the bottom of the Reactions section? MattUK (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@MattUK: Good point. I'll take a look at that too.--ZiaLater (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Where are the winning representatives?

This is odd that a national election, no matter how much one-sided and boycotted by opposition, doesn't include the list of winner representatives who were elected. If soneone can find such a list, it will be helpful. I cannot understand Spanish so it will be difficult for me. 59.89.47.103 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a list. Members should be sworn in tomorrow. National Guard has already seized control of the Palacio Federal Legislativo.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Passing by. Tibisay Lucena, the president of the CNE, announced yesterday several of the representatives and today they started receiving their credentials. I'll try to translate from this article: [2]

• Public education (Education sector, 11 representatives): Yasnedi Guarnieri, Yzamary Matute, José Parra, Domiciano Graterol, Eduardo Pérez, Heison García, Antonio Galindez, Eirimar Malave, Noel Jover, Joel Cedeño and Merwin Gollarza.
• Private education (Education sector, 3 representatives): Taina Gonzalez Rubio, Oliver Guzman Aguirre and Frank Mendez.
• Private education (Missions education sector, 3 representatives): Villalobos, Lilibeth Campos, Vanesa Montero, Elvis Mendez, Jordan Pareles, José Pérez, Roberto Naranjo, Carmen Rodríguez, Rusmel Sotillo and Eulices Madriz.
• Pension sector: 28 representatives by regions.

• Capital region (DC, Vargas and Miranda states): Gladys Requena, Julio Escalona Ojeda, Rafael Argotty, Israel López, Néstor Francia, David Paravisini and Aleydis Manaure.

• Central region (Carabobo, Cojedes and Aragua states): Clenticia Matos, Diogenes Linares, Rafael Rodríguez and María León.

• West-central region (Lara, Zulia and Yaracuy states): Blanca Romero, Lilia Marrufo, Ida Elena León, Adán Áñez, Mirian Rodríguez and Luis Soto Rojas.

• Guyana region (Bolívar, Amazonas and Delta Amacuro): Florentina Córdova;

• Insular region (probably Nueva Esparta state): Macrina Mata.

• Plains region (Apure, Portuguesa and Guárico): Freddy Castro and María Mercedes Martínez.

• Oriental region Lenin Oliveros, Hidalme Bastardo y Marelis Pérez.

• Business sector: Orlando Camacho, Oscar Schemel, Gerson Hernández and Keila De La Rosa. Lucena pointed out that there's a position left to announce.
• Worker section (79 representatives):

• Public administration subsector (13 representatives): Frankiln Rondón, Alexis Corredor Pérez, Nicolás Maduro Guerra, Gerdul Gutiérrez Azuaje, Jacobo Torres, Roberto García Messuti, Diva Guzmán, Willian Gil, Euclides Campos, Ricardo Moreno Sosa, Emigdio Iriarte, Luis Enrique Araujo, David Freites Garrido, Elbano Sánchez, Esteban Arvelo Ruiz, Fernando Osuna, and Pedro Arias Palacios.

• Construction subsector: Marco Tulio Díaz, Francisco Javier García, Raúl Ernesto Román and José Orlando Bracca.

• Services subsector: Jose David Mora, Mercedes Gutiérrez, Juan Salazar Ágreda, Raúl Ordoñez, José Novoa Jiménez, Ernesto Rodríguez, Luz Chacón Mendoza, Richard Verde Briceño, Wiliams Golindano, Laura Alarcón, Luis Carrero, Nelson Herrera, Fernando De Sousa and Bettsy Rivero.

• Industry subsector: Angel Marcano Castillo, José Gregorio Gil, Ernesto Rivero Cañas, Yahirys Rivas, Gleiman Vanegas and Frank Márquez.

• Independent popular economy subsector: Mario Silva, Gino González, Alexis Tovar, Alberto Aranguibel, Orlando Castillo, María Alejandra Díaz, Carmen Márquez, Sol Mussett, Loa Daniela Rivas Díaz, Emma Cesin Centeno and José Chauran Hernández.

• Oil and minery subsector: Wills Rangel and Sandra Nieves.

• Social subsector: Oswaldo Vera, Carlos Sánchez, Octavio Solórzano, Orlando Pérez, Sandino Primera, Rodbexa Poleo, Telémaco Figueroa, Rafael Torrealba, Esther Quiaro, Caridad Laya, Zulay Maestre and Alcides Castillo.

• Transport subsector: Francisco Torrealba and Edison Alvarado.

• Comerce and banking subsector: Egle de Los Santos, Frank Quijada, Eliana Leal, Lili Rincón, Avilio Echenique, Deibi Ocanto, Jesús Guedez, Olinda Peroza, José González and Elia Díaz.

• Handicapped sector: Emilio Colina Paz, Linda Barbosa, Tirsa Martínez, Ludyt Ramírez Pineda and María Gabriela Vega.
• Peasant and fishermen sector: Braulio Álvarez, Jesús Marcano, José Valero, Rafael Enrique Colmenárez, Emma Ortega, Gerardo Rivas, Blondy Sangronis and Maire Castillo.

Apologies in advance for any typos and grammar mistakes. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jamez42: So that's only about 150 people. I think in the main article and not the election artilce, the list of people elected should be included. Including percentages of 545 people would take up so much space in an article.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: If I'm not mistaken these are only the sectorial representatives, there should be 181, although I'm not sure if there's anyone missing. My recommendation would be to include the sectors and the presidents of any comission that may be formed; in an extreme case, an expandable table could be added or an article could be created for the list. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Results section

"Results" section's title is slightly misleading, because this section only contains information about turnout and turnout estimates and not about actual results. Perhaps it should be renamed to "Turnout", or its content should be under a "Turnout" subsection of this section. 109.60.39.145 (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2017 Constituent Assembly of Venezuela which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Holy See's Reaction Should Not Have It's Own Heading

Classifying the Holy See under "Catholic Church" is incorrect. And it is not consistent with other pages on Wikipedia. The Holy See is a sovereign nation and an observer at the UN. On the Wikipedia page of "International Reactions to the annexation of Crimea by Russia", the Holy See's reaction is in the same list of states as Germany, France, India, and dozens of others. The Holy See should not be listed separately. If for instance, the leader of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod were to issue a statement about the Venezuelan election, then that would have to be classified under Churches or something. But the Holy See should not be classified differently than the reaction of any sovereign, internationally recognized state. I believe this is inaccurate and contrary to the standards and norms of Wikipedia. Just look at any similar page which lists the international reactions to something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3991:7260:1117:AF95:44B:F31F (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposals

I think we should remove the "Proposals" section. The assembly is already in place, and we should talk about the things it is actually doing. Cambalachero (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: The 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly already has this info. I will try to remove the section and incorporate info into body.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Map

Should a map showing the recognition of the elections by country be created? --Jamez42 (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I think we tried doing that with the protest articles and it never really panned out. Do you have a map?--ZiaLater (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I remember the 2014 protests map, was I deleted? I wanted to look for it as a reference; I haven't found another map, but the article's sections Spanish distinguishes the countries' positions, including more. I wondered if it was possible to work with this map. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There are just too many countries in the world, and not all of them took a position in this issue. Cambalachero (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Over 40 is quite a bit though. I think when it came to the 2014 protests it was maybe 20 at most. I say we can make a file and if it is not used then the file is still there for others. It will not hurt. Where is the list? I might make the file as well.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Here is a somewhat outdated list from three days after the election took place, naming 53 countries. Spanish Wikipedia has its reaction section in the main article of the Assembly. I'll translate the list briefly, but the sources may need to be double checked--Jamez42 (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE 1

• Does not recognize results: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Switzerland, United States and the 28 countries of the European Union (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom).

• Recognize results: Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Iran, Nicaragua, Syria and Russia. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE 2

• Condemns election: Holy See (Vatican City) declared that tbe Assembly generated a tense environment.

• Approves election: China warned about intervention of other countries in internal affairs and declared that the election took place in a "generally stable way".
• ALBA, which includes Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, accused the United States of interference in the elections due to the sanctions

• Other reactions: India's prime minister Narendra Modi decided not to assist to the last summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, whose secretary general is Maduro.

• Portugal declared that political commitment was needed to solve the crisis
• Dominican Republic expressed that the "situation in Venezuela is worrisome and that other events have complicated furthermore the situation"
• Uruguay expressed that "El Gobierno de la República ha mantenido con firmeza el rumbo recomendado por la prudencia, la moderación y el escrupuloso respeto de la legalidad internacional aun a costa de las críticas que le reclamaban mayor indulgencia por una parte y mayor severidad, por la otra."

I recommend using countries with light and dark colors depending on the severity of the position --Jamez42 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Almost done with the map. I'll upload it and you can take a look before we place it anywhere.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Map created

• 

@Jamez42: How does it look? The file might be moved since I requested a move from the original name.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I'm wondering how it looks with lighter colors or to use blue, similar to this political map of the Iraq War, but this looks like it took a lot of work and I wouldn't want you to start over again, so I'd like to ask for the opinion of other users. It's an excellent depiction of the positions, thank you very much :) We could preview it in the article and change it accordingly to how it looks better. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

UN's vote map on Taiwan's membership may be a better comparison. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Any opinion Cambalachero?--ZiaLater (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine, but it may be a good idea to point in the file description the source for the info depicted in the map. If it is this article, add a link to it (the several references to each specific country's position are thus given by proxy, you don't need to add them all to the file page). --Cambalachero (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is evident that a clarification of what the vast areas in gray mean is badly needed. --AVM (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hinterlaces

Hinterlaces published a map illustrating and explaining the international position towards the ANC, I'll leave it here to whoever might be interested (source in Spanish). --Jamez42 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

POV template

@Kilgore T: Hi, could you please point out which are the claims that are unsourced to improve? Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There are so many problems with this page I don't even know where to begin with. A good starting point may be the "public opinion" subsection. None of the links lead to the information claimed (one of them is even broken), and the sample sizes are ridiculous in any case. The entire section reeks of propaganda. Kilgore T (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kilgore T: I have reviewed the "public opinion" and all the content is referenced as well as consistent with the information, and only one save for the first one.[3] Sample sizes polls in Venezuela usually range from 800 to 1200 people, which also seem to be the average of the table. What other troubles are there? --Jamez42 (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

'Delegates chosen by municipal governments'

I have removed the two false assertions that 364 of the Constituent Assembly delegates were chosen by "municipal governments," as such delegates were actually chosen by direct election at the local level. See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/25/venezuela-elections-all-you-need-to-know ("364 members of the assembly will be chosen by local polls open to all registered voters."). The assertions that they were chosen by municipal governments were not only unsupported by the EFE article cited, but also in contradiction to the introductory section of this Wikipedia article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mserard313 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That's because there's a difference between the election of the candidates, which would be kind of a primary election, and the election of the members. I added an additional reference to reflect this, but it isn't a false assertion; it was one of the main reasons why the opposition boycotted the election. If you haven't already, please make sure to read the previous discussions on the matter, namely the "It is not a direct election" section; this has been thoroughly discussed before. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC).

The above-referenced talk section further confirms that you have not even attempted to provide a single source of support for this completely fallacious claim. In so far as this is not even a charge promulgated by the opposition, one can only reasonably surmise that it is exclusively a product of your own imagination. Mserard313 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mserard313: As long as I'm concerned the Bloomberg reference talks about this, and I did include another Spanish source to back this claim;[4] the Juntas Electorales Municipales were in charge of choosing the candidates. A little of Civility doesn't hurt either. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)