The situation in Venezuela puzzles me, perhaps at least in part because I haven’t been there for over a decade.
This post provides a postmortem on the recent election there and on the “evolving” stances of the alleged winner, Maduro, and the Chavista hierarchy on whether to have a recount. We don’t know the parameters of the recount, but what might happen if Capriles is found to have been the winner? That seems unlikely – not because it is unlikely that he got a majority of the votes but because such things in Venezuela tend to be rigged to suit the Chavistas. Still, what might happen?
Independent of the outcome of the audit (Just think, besides the irregularities and votes abroad, 166,000 people could not vote because the border was closed ahead of time and 140,000 new voters were not allowed to vote, despite the law saying they could) Nicolas Maduro starts his term weakened by the close electoral result, his backtracking on the audits and the protests and the questioning of his victory. Had he allowed the recount on day one, he would be in a much stronger position, even if still quite weakened by the fact that his candidacy lost some 600,000 votes from the October Presidential election.
Maduro won in 16 states, while Capriles won in eight states, but the latter are the most populous and urban states in the Nation. Among large population states, only Carabobo went for Maduro and in that State is where the opposition appears to have the largest…
View original post 1,307 more words