Nothing but Paspalum Fasciculatum here
Interseting discussion. I like the quote from Farrugia, it really shows the state of affairs in the US, as in freedom, but not democracy.
I'm not sure I understand the implications of your bad democracy versus benign dictatorship idea, though. You later say that though Hugo was elected, this is no reason to suffer the problems he is causing the country. Do you advocate a violent solution to these problems you see?
Do you advocate a violent solution to these problems you see?
Read my position here: http://paspalum.blogspot.com/200...r-
castrate.html
Short answer: No, I don't, and I really hope it does not come to that.
Missed this:
Interseting discussion. I like the quote from Farrugia, it really shows the state of affairs in the US, as in freedom, but not democracy.
That's a little bit of a stretch I'd say, the institutions are still strong (as of now, that is), but if the pendulum does not swing in the next elections. With a clean campaign, instead of the 'thing' that happened last year, I would start to worry.
But then, it's Venezuela I want to talk about, talk to me after Chavez has fallen 
But then, it's Venezuela I want to talk about, talk to me after Chavez has fallen
Geez... you could've just asked me not to post anymore 
I don't think its such a stretch, but then we clearly have different concepts of democracy. The 2004 campaign was devoid of content and debate, but 2000 was really a complete fraud. This has been proven by manual recounts since, and the fact that few know about it and the media never mentions it paints to me a very sad state for institutionality in the U.S.
Geez... you could've just asked me not to post anymore
Nope, just putting the carrot in front...
The 2004 campaign was devoid of content and debate, but 2000 was really a complete fraud. This has been proven by manual recounts since,
Funny, do you realize that this does not even come to compare to the Revocatory Referendum fraud?. Have you actually read the Carter report, the one that says that everything was honky dory?. Take some time to read it in detail (specially the parts where it mentions that no split decisions where _ever_ in favor of the opposition), and then let's compare it to the 2000 'fraud'.
but then we clearly have different concepts of democracy
I would not be so sure about that, the only thing I sense is that a I see things in a more long term perspective, in which Bush is a necessary Evil for the system to correct itself.
I am not sure how much fraud was there, but to me that is really an issue with the system itself was designed, which allowed for whatever hapened to happen.
And again, Venezuela. Remember?
About split votes, I suppose you are referring to this:
CNE directors did not communicate effectively
among themselves. Many of the more controversial
decisions, especially those favoring the government,
were made by a vote of 3-2. In fact, The Carter Center
has not found any evidence of a single split vote (3
votes to 2) of the CNE directorate favoring the opposition.
And often with the more controversial decisions,
individual directors would debate each other and
speak to their clientele through the press, as opposed
to regular, formal CNE communication to the public.
This method served to foment speculation in the
media and the public rather than provide for reporting
based on available facts.
■ Recommendation: The internal divisions, lack of
transparency, and ad hoc decision-making practices of the
CNE led to unnecessary suspicion and lack of confidence in
the referendum process and the CNE as an institution. The
CNE directorate needs to review its internal communication
and coordination, communicate with and consult much more
regularly with the political parties, and put in place much
greater mechanisms of transparency to restore confidence in
the electoral process.
Yes, so the pro Chavez majority of 3 obviously favored the government when controversial decisions were made by the electoral court, but this does not constitute fraud. Notice the part where it says unnecessary suspicion.
I'm glad you got me to re-read the report, though, since I was unaware of the independent American firm that actually knows how to conduct an impartial exit poll- not like those CIA-err NED funded thugs at Sumate. Let me preempt your announcement that there was a discrepancy between results and exit polls:
That said, the panel only concludes that there is
no statistical evidence of fraud based on the reports we
have examined. The panel cannot explain why the exit
polls proved so mistaken– though, following Weisbrot,
the panel can point to one exit poll conducted without
opposition help by the American firm Evans/McDonough
that found results of 55 percent No to 45 percent Yes.
And finally, the conclusion of the report:
The panel finds that none of the reports examined
present evidence that there was significant fraud during
the Aug. 15 presidential recall referendum.
What a lame way to try to cast doubt on a historically fair and legitimate election.
Now that I think about it, you probably haven't even actually read the report, so here's the link:
The panel finds that none of the reports examined
present evidence that there was significant fraud during
the Aug. 15 presidential recall referendum.
Sorry, if I got your expectations high about new commenters, its just me.
http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/2020.pdf
I do resent that implication since, yes, I have read it a few times. So let me point this out:
You highlight the term _unnecessary_, however, who is this referring to?. To the CNN of course, if they desired transparency, why did they do that?. This does not relate to the _fact_ that none, absolutely none, of the split decisions where in favor of the opposing "party" (and that there were no legal instances to go to)
Now let me highlight another term: ...that there was no _significant_ fraud... Notice that they don't dare to say there was no fraud, period, they say _significant_ fraud. What does that imply to you?.
And note the fallacy of implication of this phrase:
the panel can point to one exit poll conducted without opposition help
They did not say at least one, or one of several, they said _one_ exit poll, and then they added, the oppo help part. Thus implying, without saying, that the _opposition_ cheated the polls.
(And remember that to me the opposition label is pretty meaningless when used this way).
Perhaps you should re-read my piece about bias, just in case. Also remember I resent meaningless labels like those CIA-err NED funded thugs being used in my blog.
However, that was not the point here, fraud or no fraud in the RR, which is as moot to me as fraud or no fraud in the 2000 election, the point is that you decry fraud in florida 2000, in which the paper votes where counted and recounted. However in the RR, in which one of those many denied split decisions was to be able to open a reasonable percentage of boxes _in situ_ was denied, and the forced (by CC and OAS) decision of opening the smallest possible percentage of boxes was blocked in any possible way (to the point of opening even less), and no call for hand recount was heeded. In which even Judges of the Supreme courts decried the CNE attitude in dissenting opinions. It just seems A-OK to you.
I find that attitude perplexing (or dubious, and sorry for the implication) to tell you the truth.
Could you check that piece about bias for a third time please.
Again, the 3-2 decisions against the opposition were not part of the referendum. The CNE was deciding how to conduct the counting of signatures, voting logistics, and other particulars. This is how decisions are made on a five person committee. Its called democracy. What they did was perfectly legal, it just aroused UNNECESSARY SUSPICION because conspiracy theorists were able to claim that they might be doing something wrong when later evidence showed they weren't. And of course as with everything else this was in large part because the escualido media were pounding these non-issues night and day.
Yes, no SIGNIFICANT fraud as in the NO vote won by (roughly) 60% to 40% so that even if fraud existed, which is not proven and highly unlikely according to the report, it would not have changed the result.
I won't debate the 2000 U.S. election with you, because you are frankly not very rational and yourself have said to only refer to Venezuela. If you really want to find out about it, do some Googling and you will see that for many, many, many reasons, there was a systematic and large scale fraud.
As I said, you are missing the point. I am challenging the _absolute_ certainty of your convictions, not the U.S. or Venezuela at this point. And to do that, I am using the contrast between the scenarios.
The "opposition" had significant reasons, conspiracy theories or not, to legally challenge the whole process even before the RR took place, the Electoral Court (which just by name should be the highest court on the matter) agreed with them, which, was reverted (unconstitutionally according to the interpretation of many, including the dissenting opinion judges), by the constitutional court.
And now you are reverting to mob rule democracy, so if I take as a given that filibustering in the U.S. congress, to avoid mob rule is fine, then how can be being trumped on _every_ decision, by mob rule too?
However, this election is fine, while the 2000 is not. Don't worry, you don't have to illustrate me on the U.S. evidence, I know most of it (and to tell you the truth I agree with you, it was suspicious to say the least)
So yes, I would agree, that it was _legal_, as long as the definition of legality means whatever the authorities say, without regard for constitution, morals, or simple common sense. So in that definition, so would the 2000 election be, as it was judges that decided that.
You are not at the very tiny little bit suspicious?
Am I absolutely certain that no fraud or questionable practices existed in the RR? No. I was not there, I don't don't have personal or first hand experience of an election or political/electoral institutions at work in Venezuela.
Am I absolutely certain that the intention of the electorate was to maintain Chavez as president? Yes. I will repeat it once again, the amount of international and independent scrutiny, verification of the process, and statistical analysis of the results is absolutely unprecedented.
It is simply rationally impossible that under these circumstances a SIGNIFICANT fraud would have ocurred to change the result from a majority YES to a majority NO.
Everything else is irrelevant. If you want more transparency and common sense and constitutional application of the law in Venezuela, more power to you. I am not defending senseless bureaucracy or partisanship.
But stop dwelling on these details and pretending that you don't know deep down inside that whatever the problems, the Venezuelan people freely chose to give Chavez another two years.
Think about the recent Ukraine election. A Russian supported incumbent defeats a U.S. (NED, IMF, George Soros- a real coalition of the willing) supported challenger narrowly amidsts calls of fraud and widespread public protests openly supported by the U.S. government.
The popular movement receives so much international support that the fraudulent President is forced to hand over power to his opponent.
Why didn't this happen in Venezuela? Maybe the YES voters really were a minority? Maybe even the U.S. government and the international media didn't have enough political/moral capital to force Chavez out?
It is simply rationally impossible that under these circumstances a SIGNIFICANT fraud would have ocurred to change the result from a majority YES to a majority NO.
It is to you but not to many of us, there was more than enough fishiness in the process that makes this a not so remote possibility, however that is besides the point for me, the point for me is that we, as Venezuelans that think that way, had absolutely no legal resources to contest the preliminaries of the process, the process itself, or the results of the process. And that is what defines a democracy.
Perhaps the NO voters were really the majority, but due to the lack of transparency and legal checks, _we_ will never be sure.
I would say it is due to your cognitive dissonance and unwillingness to accept an adverse truth.
I'm sorry, but I will not follow your wild goose change of subject to the democratic aspects of the preliminaries and recall process.
This does not change the fact that A RECALL WAS REQUESTED BY CITIZEN SIGNATURES, A RECALL VOTE TOOK PLACE, THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT FRAUD IN THE ELECTION, THEREFORE CHAVEZ WAS RIGHTFULLY,LEGALLY,LEGITIMATELY AND FREELY CONFIRMED AS PRESIDENT.
I will leave the whole Referendum issue to when I put together a post on it, but for now let me just accept your fact as if it was absolutely true.
I would say it is due to _your_ cognitive dissonance and unwillingness to accept an adverse truth.
And let me qualify that your, because it's not me, or my fellow bloggers. it's millions of Venezuelans. That is more than enough reason, to let courts decide on the issue, however _all_ the instances have been blocked in that respect. And that stops being a democracy.
And remember that the topic that started this whole thing was precisely 'democracy' so my 'wild goose chase' is actually more on topic than the RR.
If it was not a fraud, Poder Escualido, how do you explain the decrease on people voting on the last elections (only 28% of the registered citizens)?
How come the President's party got so few votes of the total?
Isn't this a way to show that nobody believes in the CNE any longer?
Or they don't believe in Chavez?
Lets be rational here, Tito.
Nothing that happens after the referendum can be used as proof that fraud ocurred in the referendum. Thats just silly.
Chavistas got 80% of the vote, I don't know what you mean by so few votes of the total. The fact that there are several pro-Chavez parties and organizations who don't always agree with each other is a testament to the diversity and democracy of the revolution.
I rather think people didn't vote because they didn't care, or weren't inspired by the candidates. Chavez's approval rating is still very high
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/
0,,1555725,00.html
and he will probably win next years election with another massive turnout. If he doesn't, then you can say that people don't believe in Chavez anymore.
And nobody is complaining about the CNE except Sumate and other high-profile escualidos.
Toni, don't feed the PSFs if you are not going to follow through...
So, just to keep facts straight:
Chavistas got 80% of the vote
No, chavistas got 58% of the seats with less than 50% of the vote remember the morochas? (with which they now control 80% of the city councils!!, I dare you to figure that one out, and when you do, explain it to me please) . And that is just 15% or less of the voting population (good luck trying to figure out what the real numbers are, the CNE is not very helpful on that).
And nobody is complaining about the CNE except Sumate and other high-profile escualidos.
You wish!!!, the same poll company that you quoted (which might have used questionable procedures and gives contradicting results) also says that 43% of the population does not trust the CNE!!!, if you want to call that 43% "high-profile escualidos", that's fine with me. But then the "low-profile escualidos" like myself and Toni, would add up some more to that count....
And BTW: The most popular institutions in the country are the Catholic Church (78.7% approval), followed by the banks (75.2%), and the mass media (75%).
The catholic church, as a whole, has called Chavez a dictator. And the media is anti-Chavez according to Chavez himself. Just some of the many contradictions in polls after the RR.
Sources:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2...8/
14.html#a2420
http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2...8/
08.html#a2406
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/...php?
newsno=1702
My bad on the 80% figure, but the Chavista vote was still a plurality, of those who voted the greatest groups supports Chavez.
The numbers game:
Abstention was ~70% of registered voters, leaving 30% who did vote, what do you mean by 15%?
So, according to the article, about 70% of people think favorably/support the Church, the banks, the mass media, and Chavez. More than 55% of people trust the CNE, while of those who distrust this entity, a vocal 15% anti-Chavez opposition regularly makes its case in the mass media.
It's all in the spin, right?
What I'm interested to know is how the question about mass media was phrased, did it include the commercial media, dailies, television, community television and radio, or just some of these groups?
Check Daniel's analysis of the poll (one of the two links I posted), he has a better idea than I do.
By 15% I mean that Chavez's party got 50% of the vote (at most, according to some, but hard to know for real), so since only 30% of voters voted, that gives a 15% of the voting population.
No, it's not on the 'spin', I am not spinning anything, I am just quoting figures, and I am quoting them _textually_ as CPM™ central itself(Venezuelanalisis) quoted them. You said:
And _nobody_ is complaining about the CNE _except_ Sumate and other high-profile escualidos.
Which is patently false, and goes beyond spin. Spin is moving the numbers in your favor, as you have just done in your post (which not even Chavistas use that way, BTW). Saying things that are just false is not spin, it is either lying or delusion at best.
A HUGE portion of Venezuela does not trust the CNE. And given than the CNE is supposed to be the impartial judge when it comes to elections that is clearly not a good thing.
And by the way, your 'spin' on the numbers is also false, it is known in logic as the fallacy of the converse of a conditional combined with the law of excluded middle (see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glos...g/
glossary.html ). That 43% of Venezuelans do not trust the CNE does not imply in any way that 57% of Venezuelans _trust_ the CNE.
Yes, for me to reverse the numbers here would be the logical fallacy you describe. However, you may notice I was simply giving an example of spinning statistics a certain way, which often includes logical fallacies.
Commenting by HaloScan
