Talk:Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Unprecedented

User:Hajor wrote Boud, I think the "US/Can local executives" proviso is unnecessary: Head of State it says, Head of State it means.

The struggle for power between states and States is continuous. The economy of California is bigger than that of many States in the world; while more than 50% of laws of States like France and Germany are imposed by the EU, so it's not really clear that France and Germany (let alone smaller States in the EU) are still sovereign States. But i agree that this makes the statement a bit heavy, probably something lighter is possible... Boud 00:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Head of State is pretty unequivocal in this context. It's also a remark of major historical import -- "first one of its kind ever". Best to let it stand alone, without qualification: if someone is curious about other (non-national) recalls that have taken place, they can go and check the recall election article. Also, re States and states: Venezuela is itself federal, of course, so the natural parallel should be with the USA or Canada (or with the EU, at some point in the future), not with their constituent states . Still, if you want try something lighter, go ahead; I'd just be wary of diluting the importance of the comment by splitting explanatory hairs. Cool? –Hajor 02:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The present version looks OK to me - i think the in any nation bit was what got me most bothered before - since nation does not always correspond to State. But i agree that the present version is clear - head of state already is a rather formal expression, plus you've capitalised it, plus it's a link to a wikipedia page. Cool. :) Long live the Wikirepublic! ;) Boud 11:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Signature gathering, fraud?

Why doesn't the article mention the massive fraud that the opposition had to undertake to get the required signatures to force a recall vote? Over a million of the signatures were ineligible. Eric B. and Rakim 18:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because noone had bothered to wite about it. This is the wikipedia. Boud 21:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And you have done a very good job of fixing that, thank you! I am quite impressed at how this article has progressed in very short time, some cleaning up will be needed, but nevertheless --Dittaeva 21:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The petition

In November 2003, the opposition collected a new set of signatures, with 3.6 million names produced in four days. In February 2004, Roberto Abdul, one of the directors of Súmate the USA-backed NGO that collected the signatures, word missing that at least 265,000 of the signatures were invalid. missing junction here? According to their own calculations. missing junction here? The majority of the CNE rejected the petition, saying that only 1.9 million were valid; 1.1 million doubtful and 460,000 completely invalid. The invalid signatures contained persons that had died many years earlier, infants and persons that weren't even Venezuelan citizens. Of the signatures categorized as doubtful, 876,017 all had the personal details written in the same handwriting except for the signature itself.

There are several problems here.

  1. Did Abdul find or state this?
  2. Which sentence does According to their own calculations match up with? The sentence before or the sentence after?
  3. 876,017 all had the personal details written in the same handwriting except for the signature itself
    1. It's hard to believe that a single person wrote 876,017 signatures - i think what is meant is that on 876,017 petition forms, the signature is in different hand-writing to that of the personal details.

Boud 21:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is all according to an article I've read. And it is all on paper and without proper references so please don't sue me. I tried to write the info as stated in that article without plagiarizing to much and English is not my language:

  1. Abdul did acknowledge that atleast 265,000 signatures were invalid. I guess, in response to growing suspicion that a large number of signatures were fake.
  2. The sentence before.
  3. I try to translate: "Of the dubious 876,017 was written on lists were the personal details (except the signature itself) was filled in with one and same handwriting".

Another sentence is wrong in that section "Reaction to this decision resulted in nationwide riots that led to nine dead, 339 arrested, and 1,200 injured." It suggests a popular uproar that met with massive police brutality. I dont think that was the case. Eric B. and Rakim 01:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

From the article:

  • No 4,991,483 = 58%
  • Yes 3,576,557 = 42%

And that's after 95% had been counted. So: 5 + 3.5 = 8.5 million. Plus the 5% not yet counted: total votes cast = 9 m. Out of a total electorate of 14.25 m. (9 / 14.25)*100 gives me a turnout of 63%. So, why's everyone talking about a "massive turnout"? And which third of the population couldn't be bothered to vote? –Hajor 22:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For comparison, turnout in the California recall was at 61.2% and has been referred to as "unusually high" and "heavy" (e.g. [1]). Turnout at the 2000 US presidential election was only 51% and turnout for referanda is typically lower than for elections.--Eloquence* 22:21, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
But what I have seen claimed is 80%, either here or elsewhere. --Dittaeva 22:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Glad someone noticed - i didn't. Either (1) the 80% is accurate and the CNE has ignored about 17% of the total registered voting population, i.e. about an additional 27% of the total number (8.5 million) who have been counted so far; or (2) the turnout was 63% and not 80%. IMHO (2) seems the most likely. Boud 00:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chávez's two presidential elections had turnouts "in the 60s", if I recall -- don't know, Carter's wide-eyed exclamations, all the talk in the previous months of "national polarization", and the election-day press reports I read led me to expect a much higher number. I haven't seen any actual percentages quoted anywhere, which is why I got my calculator out and did the sums. Presumably the very long queues of voters were more the result of technical glitches (with the thumbprint scanners, particulary) than higher-than-expected voter numbers. A 63% turnout also indicates, to me, a lower likelihood that fraud took place: not much margin for bumping up the figures with tricks like the voting dead there. –Hajor 23:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not really important, but i don't quite follow your argument about 63% turnout decreasing the fraud margin - it seems to me the opposite. If the real turnout is, say, 90%, and you add in 15% dead and other fake voters, because you only expected 60% turnout, then you risk getting 105% turnout and people getting suspicious. Even the least mathematically-minded readers might start suspecting that something's wrong. Secondly, the higher the turnout, the less influence a fixed number of faked voters will have. Boud 00:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The secret is not to go over 100%, of course (blackjack dealers and politicians understand this instinctively). What I meant was that 63% 'sounds' clean to me in a way that percentages in the high 90s never could. (I was thinking of a specific state in one specific LatAm election in the 1990s, but I can't find an online reference, so I shall leave it at that.) –Hajor 02:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] In votingday polls opposition wins?

From norwegian newspaper Dagbladet[2]:

"Grønsund, som har overvåket medienes opptreden under valgkampen, sier til NTB at valgdagsmålingene søndag gikk i opposisjonens favør med en fordeling av stemmene på 60-40 prosent"

Circa Translated

"Grønsund [surname of person], who has surveilled media conduct under the election campaign, tells NTB that the electionday polls [unsure of translation here, but it means unofficial polls on sunday just before the real recall poll] sunday favoured the opposition with a distribution of the votes of 60-40 percent"

It is thus stated the exact opposite of what I have understood from our article: That polls conducted just before the "official" election (more specifically on sunday in this case) favour the opposition by a goog margin. I could find anything on this in English, so I thought I'd mention it. Sorry about the sorry state of my english, have to sleep now--Dittaeva 22:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are polls and polls. IMHO a poll where there is at least the name of the organisation conducting the poll or at least a named, contactable individual (e.g. Robert Jensen who's a professor at the Univ of Texas at Austin - you can email him at - rjensen at uts.cc.utexas.edu - ) makes the poll somewhat more verifiable than just unofficial polls. Someone who's suspicious can search for more info on those organisations or individuals and chase up the info - but unofficial polls is impossible to check. i edited the text so that there are at least names of organisations and one individual, but anyone is welcome to improve on this. My general impression is that the opposition were unable to find any serious poll, based on proper demographic/statistical techniques, which favoured the Yes vote, so they avoided saying anything precise enough that it could be shown to be wrong. Boud 00:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My guess of the translation is that it's either the Sunday one week earlier, or else it's based on exit polls, which AFAIK were not supposed to be taken, because they risked being published quickly while voting was continuing and thereby making the voting process much more unstable (too many positive and negative feedback loops).
What I meant with unofficial polls was not-the-recall-poll-itself. I am 100% positive that exit polls is what was meant, that is what "valgdagsmåling" means, directly translated "electiondaymeasurement". --Dittaeva 08:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I do off course agree that polls should be verifiable, it is sad how the mainstream press oversimplifies everything.
I should add IMHO anyway one needs to mention what kind of polls they were. THis is important, especially in a country like Venezuela. Chavez supporters tend to be poor who I suspect don't tend to have telephones and when they do, often work longer hours so are less likely to be home etc. As such telephones poles are likely to be biased in favour of Chavez opponents.60.234.141.76 20:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV balancing

There is some stuff in this (right wing) that I think merit inclusion. Won't take the time myself right now. --Dittaeva 12:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Using Newsmax.com as a source won't be helpful. If Newsmax is used, it'll have to be balanced by a Communist, pro-Chavez rag like Cuba's Gramna. We should instead utilize the amble array of more credible sources available online, like academic journals, the BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. 172 12:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sure, but assuming its not all lies, there are points (or events) in there that I think merit inclusion, it would off course be best if the source is not Newsmax. --Dittaeva 12:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. If there are points or events in the article that merit inclusion then they should be available from other sources such as BBC, AP, Reuters etc. If they are not, then it is arguable if they do merit inclusion. If still think they do, then there must also be points in Communist, pro-Chavez rags as 172 says which merit inclusion but most Wikipedians don't feel this way.60.234.141.76 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of baised sentence

The start of the article used to say:

Chávez resisted the recall vote using a combination of legal technicalities and – allegedly – threats and violence.

But I deleted this. There are at least two problems. The first is a clarity problem: "resisted the recall vote" doesn't have a clear meaning here. Does "resisted" apply to the word "recall" (i.e. he won, he wasn't recalled) or the word "vote" (i.e. he tried to prevent the vote from taking place)?

The second problem is that the "allegedly" doesn't mention who the allegers are. This implies that it's a cross-party belief, but it would be very strange for Chávez's supporters to make/believe these allegations.

(Other lesser problems include the meaninglessness of "legal technicalities", and that the first half of the sentence is stated as a fact rather than the belief/claim of a particular subsection of Venezuelan society.)

My best guess at the intended meaning is: "Chávez's opponents allege that he disputed the legal grounds for the vote, and tried to prevent it from taking place. Some even allege that he used threats and violence."

Although, given how normal such allegations are in Latin American politics, I really don't think this is worthy of a statement at the top of the article. Gronky 20:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date

I have modified the sentence on the timing. If I understand it correctly, the date chosen would have been significant only if Chavez was recalled (which he was not). Although Chavez may have chosen the date for this reason, the fact is the date was in the end insignificant as far as I can tell. So unless there is evidence people changed their vote because of the potential outcome or the date was otherwise significant in who voted and how they voted IMHO it is important to make it abunduntly clear that the date as it turned out was not significant, even if it may have been chosen because it might have been significant. I feel my modification does this well but if you have a different suggestion change it or discuss it here. 60.234.141.76 20:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-intuitive

The article says the referendum question was counter-intuitive. I would have to strongly disagree. The referendum was recall election. A recall election is about recalling someone, generally a leader, i.e. removing them from office. If you support recalling someone, you want to remove them from office. Obviously then if you vote yes, you want to remove them from office. This is not a motion of confidence/no confidence. If this was a motion of confidence then a yes vote should be expressing confidence and a no vote would be expressing no confidence. In both cases, you are to some extent asking the same thing but in different ways. But in both cases, the answer is not IMHO counter intuitive. Either you are saying yes I want to remove Chavez (or whoever from office or you are saying yes I support Chavez. Which ever question you ask, both are just as intuitive IMHO. At the very least then IMHO the discussion should say something like "to some this may seem counter-intuitive" 60.234.141.76 20:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manual Votes?

From the article: "An interesting piece of information is that 10% of the votes were cast manually, as not all polling places could be automated. In those places where voting was manual Chavez won 70% to 30%, an even wider margin than when using the automated technology. This, of course, puts all claims of electronic voting fraud in a very difficult situation."

I really didn't think the summary was particularly appropriate or accurate. From Venezuelanalysis.com: Manual count of votes from rural and low income urban areas where Chavez has widespread support, and where automatic machines were not used, could increase the President's margin of victory. [3] Hence the change. 129.72.143.42 07:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False exit polls

The entreprise Penn, Schoen & Berland cited in the text is world wide recognized as a mercenary firm. They use to show false survey results in order to manipulate public opinion.

Their habitual program is as follows:

- They show results prior to the elections showing their candidate is wining positions, or is above the other candidate. These results use to be strange (because their are false), compared to results coming from any other firms, that usually coincide between them.

- The elections day, they publish false exit polls, showing their candidate has won the elections. The idea is to manipulate the public opinion in order that masses think about "fraud" , when there is nothing about it.

- This idea, supported by mass media and, often, foreign interests, lead sometimes to a climate of violence that degenerates in rebellion of the losing minority.

Penn, Schoen & Berland have used this tactic in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

It is easy to see that they always fail in their polls, and the reason is that the survey results they present are false.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/n/Talk%7EVenezuelan_recall_referendum%2C_2004_5458.html"