Venezuelan elections too close to call.

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/24/1839908/polls-election-too-close-to-call.html

This is getting interesting.

[Ocean Seal]

Well lets hope that the Miami herald is biased for the opposition. In which case the Bolivarians will move forward.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The opposition to Chavez is probably going to make some gains. It's more a question of how much the gain will be.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's hoping the PSUV and PCV retain a two-thirds legislative majority.

[Artemis3]

We will know in 18 hours or so...

[Red Commissar]

If the opposition makes good gains, western media will proclaim it an excellent practice in democracy and people making their voices heard.

On the other hand, if the gains by the opposition are not spectacular, western media will cry foul and argue for voting irregularities and fraud.

[Artemis3]

It seems the opposition won't even reach 1 third which was their goal... Stay tuned for the first official report in the next hour or so.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It seems the opposition won't even reach 1 third which was their goal... Stay tuned for the first official report in the next hour or so.

Where you getting this information? If this is true, then Chavez & the PSUV have made considerable gains since the last election.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

From what I have read, the opposition have absolutely no chance of gaining a majority, the only goal they have is to get a third of the deputies and deprive the PSUV+allies of an absolute majority, which will give them some small powers in the NA (enough to harass or delay government spending to poor people, but not anything else).

Also, the Bolivarians are one party, while the opposition are a group of various disparate organizations under 'Democratic Unity', and from what I have read they are mostly inactive between elections and completely reliant on financial donations and patronage from the US to survive.

[Nolan]

Where the fuck are people reading this?

[JacobVardy]

Looks like its going to be a long wait

http://parlamentarias2010.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/Noticias/Larga-espera-de-los-resultados-en-noche-electoral.aspx

[fa2991]

the opposition won't even reach 1 third which was their goal...

Talk about aiming for the stars. :lol:

[Artemis3]

90 PSUV + allies
59 Opposition groups
2 Others
3 Indigenous (1 is a PSUV ally)
7 Undefined (still counting)
From 165 seats (100%)

66% of the registered voters went to cast their votes.

This provides simple majority to PSUV+allies, the opposition did reach a little more than a third.

http://www.vtv.gov.ve/?q=noticias-nacionales/45052

http://www.vtv.gov.ve/files/imagecache/castiilo.jpg

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did the PSUV win or lose the popular vote?

[Barry Lyndon]

Did the PSUV win or lose the popular vote?

I read that they won 1.5 million more popular votes then the opposition, 58% of the total votes.

[Q]

Did the PSUV win or lose the popular vote?
I forgot where I read/heard it now, but somewhere in these last few days I was informed that Chavez made some changes to the election rules, giving much bigger weight to the rural areas where he has traditionally a support base (something like 20k votes needed for a seat in a rural area and 400k(!) for a seat in a city area).

If that is the case, it looks to me like he actually lost majority popular support. This would be a very bad development for the Chavez "Bolivarian" revolution.

[maskerade]

The voter turnout was also very low, with many people abstaining rather than to vote for Chavez/the right.

I think it mostly has to do with the fact that all media (national and international) have singeld out chavez as the source of all crime in Caracas and venezuela.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I forgot where I read/heard it now, but somewhere in these last few days I was informed that Chavez made some changes to the election rules, giving much bigger weight to the rural areas where he has traditionally a support base (something like 20k votes needed for a seat in a rural area and 400k(!) for a seat in a city area).

If that is the case, it looks to me like he actually lost majority popular support. This would be a very bad development for the Chavez "Bolivarian" revolution.

That only adds to the pressing case for implementing "managed democracy" (managed multi-party system, Putin-style):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-venezuela-need-t141876/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html

The gerrymandering occurred because he knew he couldn't get a two-thirds legislative majority.

[Nolan]

How about we get some sources in this thread?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i__0fekJbdDf_Az1Dwb8ecLXESzw



By Sophie Nicholson (AFP)

CARACAS — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's party won most seats in a critical legislative vote, but strong opposition gains weakened his iron grip on the National Assembly, first results showed Monday.

Chavez's party won at least 94 of the 165 seats, while the opposition had at least 62, electoral officials said after a riveting overnight count.

"We have to keep strengthening the (socialist) Revolution!! A new victory for the people. I congratulate everyone," the bombastic leader wrote in his Twitter account, before failing to appear for devoted supporters outside the presidential palace.

The results were set to shake up an assembly that the Latin American leftist champion is used to dominating, and the vote could be seen as an early referendum on Chavez's performance two years before presidential elections in which he is eyeing a third, six-year term.

"It's been demonstrated that the country has an alternative, formed thanks to the convergence of very different people," said Ramon Guillermo Aveledo, spokesman for the opposition coalition that overcame differences to take on Chavez, in a new strategy after boycotting the last vote in 2005.

The electoral council did not release full vote numbers but the opposition claimed its candidates had won 52 percent, but still failed to win a majority of seats due to recent, controversial changes in voting districts.

Such a result would be a major blow for Chavez, who is used to riding a wave of popular support.

A massive turnout of more than 66 percent of some 17 million voters marked the tense elections, which saw an explosion of speculation on online social networks during a lengthy vote count.

"We're happy about the new plurality for the National Assembly," said smiling student Marihug Fernandez, celebrating in opposition headquarters in a Caracas hotel when the results were finally revealed.

The mood was less upbeat outside the Miraflores presidential palace.

"I don't agree that the opposition should be in the National Assembly because they want to destabilize the country," said Chavez loyalist Jose Gonzalez.

"We're still in a majority but we have to organize better," said Maricela Velo.

The ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) had sought to win 110 seats, or two thirds of the congress, to keep pushing through reforms under Chavez's "socialist revolution."

Chavez, who was welcomed at a hillside slum polling station by cheering, red-clad crowds, had dominated the end of campaigning.

In more than a decade of rule, the provocative leader has nationalized public utilities, key industries and media, as well as launched health clinics and subsidized food programs for the poor. He has also increased pressure on opposition groups and dissidents.

The united opposition, after failing to make inroads against Chavez in the past, kept its campaign focused on issues like Venezuela's murder rate, one of the highest in the world, and record inflation.

Chavez, a former paratrooper, has lost only one of 14 votes organized by his government.

Tibisay Lucena, president of the electoral council, said the latest vote had taken place "in an atmosphere of calm and civic-mindedness" without major incidents.

Chavez, 56, is strongly influenced by Communist Cuba and often slams US policy, though the United States remains the main buyer of Venezuelan oil.

[hatzel]

Did the PSUV win or lose the popular vote?

How's your Spanish? According to BBC Mundo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/america_latina/2010/09/100927_venezuela_elecciones_resultados_caracas_med .shtml) (who I've decided are the authoritative source on Latin American affairs, for some strange reason):


Aveledo señaló que el Consejo Electoral se había cuidado de hacer públicos los números globales obtenidos por las partes. La oposición, aseguró, logró el 52% de los votos en todo el país. Pero las fórmulas de distribución de diputados diseñadas por el CNE previo a la votación se habrían traducido en poco menos del 40% de los parlamentarios.Pretty much, the opposition claims to have got 52% of the total votes across the country. However, the (potentially unfair) distribution formulas put in place by the CNE, which I believe it was Q was referring to, is the reason that this translated to only around 40% of the total seats.

I'm sure somebody could find an English-language article which says exactly what I just cited, but I'm a lazy wench, and am busy trying to improve my Spanish by reading Spanish articles, so I can't really be bothered to delve into English-language news at the moment :rolleyes:

EDIT: I see you got an English-language source in whilst I was typing this. Ignore me!

[REDSOX]

I read that they won 1.5 million more popular votes then the opposition, 58% of the total votes.

Source please Barry

[Barry Lyndon]

Source please Barry

http://www.marxist.com/victory-psuv-but-warning-for-revolution.htm

[Artemis3]

The voter turnout was also very low, with many people abstaining rather than to vote for Chavez/the right.
66% is actually quite good compared with previous events. Ppl in these countries don't like parliamentary elections very much.., its always the presidential elections getting the most voters.

These are official results, not really pretty, but the official source: http://www.cne.gov.ve/web/sala_prensa/noticia_detallada.php?id=1868

Here is another chart based in those results:
http://www.aporrea.org/imagenes/2010/09/infografia_distribucion_torta.gif

[Artemis3]

http://www.marxist.com/victory-psuv-but-warning-for-revolution.htm

Umm, i think you are 2 years late, this one is is current: http://www.marxist.com/meaning-today-elections-venezuela-26092010.htm

And yes, i agree with the article.

[Barry Lyndon]

Umm, i think you are 2 years late, this one is is current: http://www.marxist.com/meaning-today-elections-venezuela-26092010.htm

And yes, i agree with the article.

God, I feel so stupid.

[Nolan]

God, I feel so stupid.

That's probably what half the PSUV is thinking right about now.

[Adi Shankara]

Let's not forget: it's not like PSUV lost the election, they just lost the super-majority needed to alter the constitution. Chavez's party still leads, and the votes are still being counted, so it's all up to speculation until then.

[Nolan]

Yeah by gerrymandering. :rolleyes:

But it's not like the Washington Post can say anything. It's a legit strategy in the US.

[chegitz guevara]

Well lets hope that the Miami herald is biased for the opposition. In which case the Bolivarians will move forward.

It is.

[chegitz guevara]

Yeah by gerrymandering. :rolleyes:

But it's not like the Washington Post can say anything. It's a legit strategy in the US.

If what Q writes is true, it's not gerrymandering, it's weighting. Gerrymandering is designing the shape of districts to favor a particular outcome. Weighting is saying some people's votes are worth more. We do both in the U.S. The votes of an individual Rhode Islander count more towards the Presidency than the votes of a New Yorker. It is patently anti-democratic, and if it's true, we should be denouncing Chavez.

Furthermore, the cities are where the proletariat is, and if votes are to be weighted, then they should be weighted towards workers, not farmers. Thus, if true, it's not only anti-democratic, but anti-socialist.

[Ligeia]

According to new estimates the PSUV has 98 seats. The opposition's got 64 seats. PPT has 3 seats.
vtv
(http://www.vtv.gob.ve/noticias-nacionales/45101)But they are still counting and checking.

[Rafiq]

A close election? In Venezuala? Isn't that an Enemy of America? I guess it was a fraud election!

What's that? An opposition called the blue movement is starting to protest the fraud? Oh no, impossible, they can't be funded by the U.S. Let's form a solidarity with them!

[Nolan]

If what Q writes is true, it's not gerrymandering, it's weighting. Gerrymandering is designing the shape of districts to favor a particular outcome. Weighting is saying some people's votes are worth more. We do both in the U.S. The votes of an individual Rhode Islander count more towards the Presidency than the votes of a New Yorker. It is patently anti-democratic, and if it's true, we should be denouncing Chavez.

Furthermore, the cities are where the proletariat is, and if votes are to be weighted, then they should be weighted towards workers, not farmers. Thus, if true, it's not only anti-democratic, but anti-socialist.

Don't the urban barrios support the PSUV though?

[Comrade Gwydion]

Dutch online newssources:

"Opposition prevents [ambigious word meaning 'taking over power', but usually used as in coup d'etat] by Hugo Chavez"

[chegitz guevara]

Don't the urban barrios support the PSUV though?

That's what we're led to believe.

[Nolan]

That's what we're led to believe.

Well that's where the positive impact of Chavez's social programs have been felt the most, so it's a surprise if they don't. When I was there in 06 they were talking about the government building people better houses.

[Red Commissar]

Dutch online newssources:

"Opposition prevents [ambigious word meaning 'taking over power', but usually used as in coup d'etat] by Hugo Chavez"

Foxnews's front page has Venezuela's election on there with the headline

"Venezuelan Voters Loosen Chavez's Grip on Power"

[Nolan]

Yeah the media's gonna shoot their load, that's to be expected.

[Barry Lyndon]

Foxnews's front page has Venezuela's election on there with the headline

"Venezuelan Voters Loosen Chavez's Grip on Power"

Basically, if the opposition didn't win a third of the seats, then Chavez would be guilty of rigging the election because hes an evil dictator. If they do, it shows that Chavez has no popular support.

Like Micheal Parenti has pointed out in his writings, anti-socialism/anti-communism is a practically religious ideology, a non-falsifiable orthodoxy. Whatever the outcome, the socialists are wrong.

[Adi Shankara]

Furthermore, the cities are where the proletariat is

Somewhere, a Maoist just died.

[Barry Lyndon]

Somewhere, a Maoist just died.

Somewhere, a leftist just died....or perhaps never was a leftist, but a homophobic religious fundamentalist in sheep's clothing all along.

[Andy Bowden]

I think some folk should have waited till all the results came out before parroting the opposition's claims to have won the popular vote - actually PSUV had a majority over MUD by 5,399,390 votes to MUD's 5,312,293, as detailed here -http://www.caracaschronicles.com/node/2709.

So despite the setback, PSUV still won the majority of seats and popular vote, even if their victory is much larger in seats than the popular vote.

[REDSOX]

According to a post on aporrea it is reported that Chavez has said the PSUV/PCV won 5.4 million and the opposition coalition MUD won 5.3. The opposition claim that they won 52% is based on the PPT party which split from chavez last year but is not part of the opposition coalition gaining 2 seats and a few hundred thousand votes. Exact percentages have not been stated. However you spin it not a good result for psuv/pcv but not a disaster either.

[Queercommie Girl]

Somewhere, a Maoist just died.

Do you really think Maoists don't recognise the urban proletariat, dumbass?

The first Chinese revolution in 1925-27 occurred in Shanghai and was conducted by the urban working class. The CCP officially labels the working class as the leading class while the peasantry is only labelled as the semi-leading class.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

I can't help but think, from the result of these elections, that Chavez and his government maybe reaching some of the limitations of left-wing reformism. Obviously Venezuela continues to have a mountain of problems, but after some 11 years in office capitalism is still a system without any kind of discipline or planning, so it's not surprising to see some level of abstention and political 'exhaustion'. Chavez's policies are all good, he has provided higher education and quality health-care to those who previous would have never got it, but he has been rather ad-hoc.

I'm not in Venezuela so I can't say, but I feel that some supporters of Chavez must be thinking 'if this is socialism, where next?'. I mean Chavez talks about 'socialism' and 'smashing capitalism', but I assume Venezuelan people still must have something of an orthodox view ingrained about what 'socialism' really is. I mean, for example they could say the Soviet Union was socialist, to define clearly between the two systems. Venezuela is clearly not socialist after all.

Also, just a quick question, does Chavez have that much actual working-class support? From what I have read, it's mostly from poor unemployed/informally employed in the barios right?

[Comrade Gwydion]

Foxnews's front page has Venezuela's election on there with the headline

"Venezuelan Voters Loosen Chavez's Grip on Power"

Wow. I actually find Fox's headline less extreme then the dutch one. I mean, losing the 2/3 mayority is indeed 'loosing grip on power', how loaded that term might be.

[el_chavista]

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/9154/elec26s2.jpg
Although in representative figures the PSUV has almost 3/5 of the National Assembly, in vote numbers they practically got a tie with non-PSUV-allies forces.
It is a direct consequence of letting the economic production in hands of the bourgeoisie: they can't cope with inflation nor unemployment.
No wonder if we consider the nature of national revolutions in Latin America. A little more than a half century before Chávez, Juan Domingo Perón in Argentine characterized his government as: "a test in national socialism, not Marxist nor dogmatic".
The Bolivarian revolution is withering due to its reformist leadership.

[REDSOX]

The reason for this reverse are numerous and quite complex but basically from what i can tell and for what i have heard they are the following

1. Crime common
2. Corruption within PSUV
3. Top down bureacracy
4. slow pace of revolution

These elections are a warning to the government and Chavez that the masses are losing patience as their problems/concerns are not being adressed by the government. Mr chavez listen to the people for fucks sake not those wankers around you!!!.

Despite this the opposition hulabaloo about a victory are pretty hollow. They have less seats in the assembly than they did in 2000!!! but nevertheless their tales will be up and Hugo and the PSUV MUST sort the problems out that the revolution has by connecting with their base and having a conversation with them and listenining. If he does not listen and address the problems then the masses will turn on him popular though he still is. Suggestions would be:

1. A community based strategy for dealing with crime and not just reling on the cops to do it

2. Weeding out the opportunists and bureaucrats around chavez

3. Accelerate the revolution by nationalising the banks, insurance, land, and food companies

Hows that for starters

[RadioRaheem84]

Agreed. The revolution must spread into the bourgeoisie camp and they must be prepared for the consequences.

People in Venezuela are getting impatient and right fully so by the opportunist soc dems in the PSUV who wish for the revolution to go no further.

[Crux]

Do you really think Maoists don't recognise the urban proletariat, dumbass?

The first Chinese revolution in 1925-27 occurred in Shanghai and was conducted by the urban working class. The CCP officially labels the working class as the leading class while the peasantry is only labelled as the semi-leading class.
I think it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment.

Well, friend, you don't know as much about this shankara troll as I do. He is just trolling as usual.

[chegitz guevara]

Suggestions would be:

[snip]

2. Weeding out the opportunists and bureaucrats around chavez

3. Accelerate the revolution by nationalising the banks, insurance, land, and food companies

Hows that for starters

Because of the alliance of classes that was necessary to take power from the old oligarchy, this is not possible. Any attempt by Chavez to do so will lead to the middle classes blocking with the oligarchy. Right now, they are playing a Bonapartist role, playing the workers and peasants off against the oligarchs. They allow just enough reforms to keep the workers semi-mobilized, but not enough that the workers will become the leading class.

Chavez cannot make the revolution happen. The workers must do that themselves and can only do so by organizing independently of Chavez and the PSUV. Only when they do so will we see the true character of Chavez, whether he sides with the middle classes, bureaucracy, and Boli Bourgeoisie or the workers and peasants.

[Q]

Chavez cannot make the revolution happen. The workers must do that themselves and can only do so by organizing independently of Chavez and the PSUV. Only when they do so will we see the true character of Chavez, whether he sides with the middle classes, bureaucracy, and Boli Bourgeoisie or the workers and peasants.

Why discard the PSUV? Is it not a potential instrument for working class political organisation?

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh come on, Chavez will not side with the Boli Bouge or the upper middle class much less the oligarch if workers took the forefront.

If anything Chavez has given them at least the first phase of revolutionary means to take over. I agree that they should take it and run with it, overriding the PSUV if they must. But I think that they should just take over the PSUV.

[chegitz guevara]

Why discard the PSUV? Is it not a potential instrument for working class political organisation?

Because the PSUV is a corrupt patronage machine. Were it posible for the workers to take control of it, they'd have had control of it from the beginning. Instead, the state bureaucracy has.

As to whom Chavez will side with, we know what he says, but Stalin was a revolutionary once, and he ended up siding with the bureaucracy. I hope he's on our side, but until the workers take a leading role and Chavez sides with them, we won't know.

[Crux]

Just a quick note on the election, it is important to remember that the right-wing opposition, who has traditionally been rather divided, managed to cobble up coalition of over 20 parties, if you break that down the results for the individual parties is not that impressive.

[scarletghoul]

It's ridiculous to compare these results to the 2005 election because that was boycotted by the opposition. Of course the opposition would get more and Chavez would get less now compared with 2005. If however you compare it to 2000, the last national assembly election where the opposition participated, you can see that Chavez has increased his majority and the opposition has decreased in support.

[scarletghoul]

If what Q writes is true, it's not gerrymandering, it's weighting. Gerrymandering is designing the shape of districts to favor a particular outcome. Weighting is saying some people's votes are worth more. We do both in the U.S. The votes of an individual Rhode Islander count more towards the Presidency than the votes of a New Yorker. It is patently anti-democratic, and if it's true, we should be denouncing Chavez. Whoaa hold it right there.. Are you really criticising Chavez for manipulating bourgeois democracy for his own dirty red ends ?

The only reason any revolutionary socialist should participate in the bourgeois democratic process should be to manipulate it, with the aim of overthrowing the system itself. To denounce that is to imply that bourgeois democracy is legitimate and in the interests of the people..
Should we really have a problem with someone changing a system so that the poorer areas have more power than the areas where the rich people live ?? Should we really be outraged that Chavez is reducing the influence of the bourgeoisie-inhabited areas compared to the revolutionary peasant areas ? To do so is to fall into the liberal trap of giving everyone, including the bourgeoisie, equal rights to keep the great fairness of the bourgeois-democratic system intact..

[Barry Lyndon]

It's ridiculous to compare these results to the 2005 election because that was boycotted by the opposition. Of course the opposition would get more and Chavez would get less now compared with 2005. If however you compare it to 2000, the last national assembly election where the opposition participated, you can see that Chavez has increased his majority and the opposition has decreased in support.

It's also remarkable that Chavez still has so much support having been in office for 10 years since then.

[Cheung Mo]

What's sad in all this is that "leftist" parties that oppose the revolution from the right are allowed to continue their dirty work without being forced by the Bolivarian state to either side with Chavez or disband and join rightist parties where they belong. Supporters of parties like PODEMOS, MAS, Cosa R, and Banderas Rojas belong in prison.

[chegitz guevara]

Whoaa hold it right there.. Are you really criticising Chavez for manipulating bourgeois democracy for his own dirty red ends?

It all depends on why. If it was done in order to increase the power of the revolutionary masses, great, though, taking representation away from the urban proletariat seems the wrong way to go about that.

If it was done to enhance the power of the PSUV bureaucrats, not so good.

[scarletghoul]

It all depends on why. If it was done in order to increase the power of the revolutionary masses, great, though, taking representation away from the urban proletariat seems the wrong way to go about that.

If it was done to enhance the power of the PSUV bureaucrats, not so good.
Unfortunately the urban areas are home to the bourgeoisie as well as proletariat. Working geographically the only way to balance the system in favour of oppressed classes is to tilt it towards the rural areas.