Talk:2013 Venezuelan presidential election

Length of new President's term

Will the newly elected President get 6-full years in office? or serve until January 10, 2019? GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article 233 of the constitution suggests that the newly-elected President will only serve the remainder of Chavez's term:

When the President of the Republic becomes permanently unavailable to serve during the first four years of this constitutional term of office, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. [...] In the cases describes above, the new President shall complete the current constitutional term of office.

Number 57 22:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a "snap election"

The CIA fanbois seem to be determined to call this "a snap election". As Americans, they clearly have no accurate conception of what a "snap election" actually is. Several of the elections quoted as instances of "snap elections" in Australia, were not, as the term is understood in Australia.

An election called in the inevitable course of government, as this example in Venezuela is, is not a "snap election". A "snap election", is an election initiated early, unexpectedly and at short notice by a governing party, hoping to capitalise on some perceived political advantage.Eregli bob (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A similar election in the Philippines was called as a "snap election" as it was not on a regular-scheduled election. I dunno if the case in Venezuelan constitution states that the presidential election occurs on the Xday of the y month of the zth year since 20__; if that's the case, this is a "snap election", at least on presidential fixed terms system. It says that the winner won't serve the full term for a president, only the remaining term of Chavez, so this leans towards a "snap election". Think of a "snap election" in presidential systems as "by-elections".

Also, the definition of "snap election" as used in parliamentary jurisdictions cannot be possibly used in presidential systems with fixed terms; unless, in Venezuela's case, the presidency was vacated "as planned" (I don't think Chavez planned to die this early). Interestingly, the Philippine example I quoted worked like an example done on parliamentary jurisdictions. In either case, we can't use the definition of "snap election" from a system that allows the incumbent to call an election by himself to a system that prevents the incumbent to call an election aside from a regularly-scheduled one. –HTD 20:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that "snap" is inappropriate, as I have also tended to hear this used in the context of a parliamentary system where the ruling party calls sudden elections, generally to get a mandate for something. I think this is best described as "early" elections. Number 57 21:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

But on a country that uses elections on fixed dates, this qualifies as a "snap election", yes? –HTD 01:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Snap" suggests it's been called by someone, whereas these are being held due to Chavez's death. Number 57 14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On its purest sense, "Snap" suggests "sudden" or "unscheduled". It's not as if Chavez allowed himself to die.

Do local sources call this a "snap" election anyway? –HTD 15:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't. I live in Venezuela. I don't think we even have a definition for snap election here per se. --Yeah 93 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too. "Snap election" doesn't have an article on the Spanish Wikipedia... –HTD 03:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Explaining edits

According to this:

1. moved stuff about the campaign to the campaign section instead of post-election
2. moved monitors to its own section (per precedence on other election articles that have it)
3. cut the overview of the results as its just replicating the data that is already on the page and redundant. But kept some of the information in the results section above the table
4. tagged the section of state results as there is no source and removed the unsourced section on the closeness (this could also be seen in thet able on results by state and thus redundant)
5. put reactions0 separately as per precedence on election articles. (There is also no analysis there, only results)(Lihaas (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)).

Removal of line saying the US, France, and Spain would not recognize the results.

I removed this line: "So far France, Spain and the United States will not recognize the new government until a manual recount is made." The source given does not say anything about any country not recognizing the results, only about Spain encouraging a recount and adding that they believe the Venezuelan institutions will come to the correct decision. I tried searching for news which talks about the US not recognizing the results until a manual recount is made, but was unable to find it. -Solid Reign (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is one source, however in czech language with main source in Czech Press Agency. http://www.novinky.cz/zahranicni/amerika/299406-usa-nechteji-uznat-madura-jako-viteze-venezuelskych-voleb.html

References

What about the foreign votes?

Have they been accounted so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.208.48.112 (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No they haven't. Once they are, I will include them. --yeah_93 (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

There is dispute about destroying local PSUV office. However, its look hopeless. But there is no mention about fact that all people who died during unrest were supporters of government. Its look like normal unrest between two sides, however it is massive violence from side of opposition because of their fail in election. This is not POV, this is fact. Plus, there are already 8 died people. Last was Mrs Rosiris Reyes, killed by opposition activists, when defending CDI facility with her husband. She was shot at Monday and died at Wednesday. Her husband was also injured.--92.62.226.31 (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

the controversy/aftermath section is awful. When things are swiftly moving in a situation like this you need to have dates. On XX, YY happened, or ZZ said something... not just "YY happened". It's too much of a mess that I'm even tempted to clean it up; it needs throwing out and redoing. Rd232 ^talk 09:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that something more important than adding dates is using references. Right now in Venezuela, there is a high manipulation of the media. Both political sides claim that the other side is manipulating the truth. So either one is lying and the other isn't or both are lying. Which means that information here should not only have references, but ones with solid facts.Juan Fuentes (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is what the section says at this time:

"Aftermath After Capriles' call for the electoral commission not to officially proclaim Maduro the winner, National Guard troops and students clashed in Altamira Square. The troops used tear gas and plastic bullets to disperse the students who were pacifically protesting the official.[44] At least 7 deaths and 61 injuries were reported throughout the country after the elections.[45] Attorney-General Luisa Ortega Diaz claimed that the violence included the burning of several medical clinics, offices of the national telephone company, grocery stores and other businesses.[46]"

This account makes it appear that the violence was inflicted by the government on the opposition. However, the news reports I have seen report that the 7 casualties were government supporters. I am not going to try to correct the article because I know from direct experience that any such correction will be quickly reversed. I have to say, after reading many Wikipedia articles on left - right conflicts in various parts of the world, that the Right has pretty well hijacked these discussions and the Wikipedia administrators allow this. A serious problem with Wikipedia which will eventually have to be addressed. ---Dagme (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

In Tachíra was also killed police officer by opposition activists. In Venezuela is now 9 dead and 78 injured because of opposition violence.--92.62.226.31 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The said news reports were from whom, exactly? Venezuelan government sources? I find it a little strange that in a shootout between a heavily armed force and a comparatively very lightly armed one, the armed one would suffer all the casualties. Sources, please.89.142.168.64 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

For example here http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/16/post-election-violence-in-venezuela-leaves-seven-dead/ and here http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-venezuela-election-idUSBRE93F0RU20130416 . There are only two options - Opposition is much better armed then saying most of massmedias, or government units are much more peacefull then saying most of massmedias.--62.245.80.47 (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Plus, I did not mean government supporters as government soldiers or policemans, but as government SUPPORTERS! Members or supporters of PSUV, volunteers from local organizations and local armed defenders of chavistas social centers (MERCAL, health facilities...).--62.245.80.47 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Stuff that needs to be added

A few things that need to be added: - allegations about opposition polling witnesses being locked out before vote count (video here http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2013/04/18/pkg-newton-venezuela-election-fraud.cnn?iref=videosearch) - allegations about multiple voting, etc - 3000 or so documented by the opposition - deadline for contesting vote is 30 days, which is relevant if you consider when Maduro was sworn in (well before deadline), when the audit could be completed (well after deadline) and so on - that Caprilles contested the vote in court They seem important to add. Thoughts? 89.142.168.64 (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

the video doesn't work for me, and videos are not good sources anyway. No detailed evidence has been made public AFAIK, and there's not much point in rushing to add rumours - regardless of the Supreme Court case outcome, it should clarify the claims. I'm not sure what you mean by the deadlines, or how the deadlines interact with the secondary 46% audit; or if they still matter since Capriles has already filed a challenge. Capriles' Supreme Court challenge is already mentioned in the article. Rd232 ^talk 22:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Dunno about the video, but the mention of a lawsuit and number of complaints should be there imho. We don't know how valid they are, but they were issued, it seems important enough to mention. The deadlines are very important, there is no doubt about that: the audit will be finished only (long) after the deadline to challenge elections in court. Even if it finds major irregularities, Caprilles won't be able to use it to challenge elections, since the deadline will pass already. Furthermore, Maduro was sworn in before the legal deadline to challenge elections, meaning if the Supreme court judges against him in any significant way, Venezuela has a constitutional crisis par excellence. (same commenter as the first post, on different comp.) 193.2.253.126 (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can provide good sources for the deadline issues, I'd be interested in that. The fraud claim details I'm happy to wait for clarification on (there's a mention at Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2013#Audit_demands), but you're welcome to add them now if you provide good sources. PS constitutional crisis: maybe. Wouldn't it just mean a new election? Rd232 ^talk 09:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It would mean new elections only if Supreme Tribunal of Justice (=Supreme court) were to remove him from presidency when it would rule the elections need to be repeated. Source is article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution. But if it did so all descisions made by him in the meantime could become illegal, since he wasn't elected president. But since he was acting presidnet before the elections, maybe they'd still be legal? Who would be the acting president before the new elections, would he revert to his previous post - acting presidnet - or would it go to Speaker of the Assembly? We aren't talking about a month or two of questionable time, the court could take a year or two to rule on something of this magnitude, and many critical descisions could be taken during this time. I could go on. If this weighed on the courts' descision towards favoring Maduro because it would lead to described problems, the election could be declared undemocratic and illegal years later, and all descisions by the government could be made illegal, perhaps even arbitrarily. There's a very good reason why there is a lag between election and swearing in in all countries, and this is the largest aspect. All those answers would be given by Venezuelan courts sooner or later but no matter what the answers would be, they would be controvertial with good legal grounds for any of the other possibilities, and with open possibilities for legal challenges that could continue for many years. International courts could disagree with them, complicating the matters further. That's what I mean by a constitutional crisis par excellence, new elections would be necessary, but not even worth mentioning. Thus I firmly believe we should mention Maduro was sworn in before the deadline to challenge elections. I found this article for deadline for challenging elections Article which also quotes the relevant law. Fraud claim details can be added as they surface, I have nothing extra for now.193.2.253.126 (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

we should mention Maduro was sworn in before the deadline to challenge elections. - well it's OK to put that fact in with that source, but it would be better if it was clear why that fact matters, and on that you're just speculating. Nobody's suggested (AFAIK) that the swearing-in legally had to, or even legally could, wait long enough for all the legal contestation process to be resolved, once the CNE did their 54% audit and declared an outcome. Rd232 ^talk 12:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The speculation (which isn't) is fairly irrelevant, the court won't judge against Maduro anyway. It does, however, demonstrate the lack of rule of law in Venezuela, and the fact it's not a democracy, despite elections and such. I'll put it in the article now.95.176.146.199 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Capriles Never Changed his mind

His demands always included for a full audit of the electoral registry (with validation of all fingerprints and signatures in the records) as it clearly states in sources 2 and 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.46.19 (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not accurate, since the CNE and Capriles had different definitions of what a "full audit" is, or entails. When the CNE accepted an audit of the remaining 46% of the boxes, Capriles did change his position by demanding not an audit, to which the CNE had agreed, but a "full recount." This demand for a "full recount" in Capriles's terms was declared unsupported by electoral law and also impossible because of time constraints. Capriles then did call the 100% audit as defined by the CNE "a joke." This is still the situation, up to this day, since even when the audit if finished, Capriles will still not accept the results. warshy^¥¥ 23:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Special election.

The article should be moved to 2013 Venezuela presidential special election, as it was held to finish out the 2012-18 term. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the "Electoral process" section, the National Electoral Council is described as "non-partisan", but further down the page in the "Conduct" section, the National Electoral Council is described as "pro-government". So which is it: non-partisan or pro-government? 209.239.1.216 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@209.239.1.216: Pro-government, thank you for pointing it out. Only one of the Council's member is considered pro-opposition, and there are many irregularities that show the bias of the body, far too many to explain them at the time being. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)