Venezuela Ranked Number One in Electoral Fairness by Foundation for Democratic Advancement

Venezuela Ranked Number One in Electoral Fairness by Foundation for Democratic Advancement

venezuelanalysis.com

Merida, July 7th 2011 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – This week Venezuela’s Social Investigation Group XXI (GIS) released new comparative data on electoral fairness in the country compiled by the Canada-based Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) which found Venezuela’s elections to be “exceptionally fair, and thereby highly democratic.”

After a thorough review of Venezuela’s electoral laws and regulations on political news coverage as it relates to elections, equality of campaign financing, equality of candidate and party influence, as well as equality of voter influence, the F

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.inexpressible.com

democracychange.com

Here's an actual study done on comparing various democracies, and Venezuela has scored better than others (including Canada and the US).

I'm sure that a lot of people will instantly disregard this because it's promoting Venezuela. I'll just point out that this was a Canadian study before it was a news article from Venezuela (the reports are included as additional links).

Graphs are also included in the title link for comparison (they're in Spanish but not to hard to decipher ).

venezuelanalysis.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yay! Go Hugo!!!!

Rainbows
jane

Yes really legitimate:

www.washingtonpost.com...

So much for those tricky canadians, they probably got a nice payout from Hugo's goons for that report.

That's him with his hand in the American cookie jar. In his own country he just ignores the constitution and keeps running.

sweetness-light.com...

Does that really look like a fair and correct way to do things?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I'm sure that a lot of people will instantly disregard this because it's promoting Venezuela. I'll just point out that this was a Canadian study before it was a news article from Venezuela (the reports are included as additional links).

I didn't disregard it instantly, only after I read this from the report:

Methodology for the Electoral Fairness Audit:
The FDA focuses on four key areas of electoral fairness:
1) Laws and regulations on the political content of media including newspapers, broadcasters and online media before, during, and after elections;
2) Laws and regulations on the equality of candidates’ and parties’ influence before, during and after elections, such as national televised debates, restrictions on candidate nominations, party registration requirements, etc.;
3) Laws and regulations on electoral finance, such as party and campaign donation limits, third party spending limits etc.; and
4) Laws and regulations on the equality of voter say before, during, and after an election. TheFDA looks at how Venezuelan laws and regulations promote equality of voter say in the media, at the polling booth, etc.

Foundation for Democratic Advancement The FDA decided to evaluate these four areas of electoral fairness because, in our opinion, they are often ignored or overlooked by the international community in determining electoral fairness.

Moreover, these four areas cover broad aspects of the electoral process in which fairness could be compromised significantly.

The FDA acknowledges that electoral laws and regulations may not necessarily correspond to the implementation of those laws and regulations or the public’s response to them. The implementation and response could be positive or negative, in terms of electoral fairness.

Nevertheless, laws and regulations provide the foundation for democracy, framework for the electoral system, and an indication of electoral fairness.

A further study which tracks the actions of mainstream media and the enforcement or non-enforcement of electoral laws and regulation, for example, would provide a more reliable overall determination of electoral fairness.

Their report is based on the laws, not on their implementation, so it's just a theoretical score.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Their report is based on the laws, not on their implementation, so it's just a theoretical score.

Report based on the comparison of such laws between various countries

Yes really legitimate:

www.washingtonpost.com...

So much for those tricky canadians, they probably got a nice payout from Hugo's goons for that report.

That's him with his hand in the American cookie jar. In his own country he just ignores the constitution and keeps running.

sweetness-light.com...

Does that really look like a fair and correct way to do things?

Funny how you critique a Western study by using the Washington Post as a legitimate source of information about Venezuela. And even in the article, it says that the investigation of the ties is being conducted by American officials. Last time I checked, the US labelled Venezuela as part of the "axis of evil"

Fair and correct, as opposed to what exactly? Hugo Chavez is extremely popular in his country due to his strong nationalistic values and autonomous stance in terms of global affairs. Do they really want to switch him up?

And what do you consider to be fair democracy anyways? One where any amount of money from any source can fund the campaigns of the two major party candidates in a secret fashion (ie, the USA)?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Report based on the comparison of such laws between various countries

Yes, but it remains theoretical if they don't do the comparison between the applying of such laws.

In Portugal, during the fascist dictatorship, the laws were relatively democratic: we could have more than one party and the opportunities were, in paper, the same.

In practice, only one party besides the ruling party was allowed (all other parties were too "subversive"), and although some people were elected from their lists, there were many cases in which the voters were more than the inhabitants. As most common people didn't bother to vote (the presence of the political police and the common practice of informers in any possible place made people fear what could happen if they got on the wrong side of an informer), many votes appeared as being made by people that were still on the voters list but that had already died for a long time. That way the government could should a relatively high percentage of voters and they would always win with those extra votes.

That's the problem with only a theoretical approach.

Yeah, and in Russia Stalin was a godly saint.

Originally posted by 547000
Yeah, and in Russia Stalin was a godly saint.

You know thats getting really irritating now with your anti russian junk
atleast in soviet russia everyone had a job and freedom unlike the supposed fake freedom and the goal getting everything Americanized, colonized.


Destroying European languages and replacing it with english, oh and i can say the same thing about all the american presidents.


Ya and Americas presidents were a heavenly saint to.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


You missed the point completely.

I hope the US is well down in the list after you guys pathetically allowed Bush Senior to become your president after he clearly lost the election.

reply to post by Pimander


In the FDA global study on electoral fairness, the US received a failing overall score of 30%. The score means that the US federal electoral system from the standpoint of constitutional and electoral laws is significantly more unfair than fair.

The FDA auditors note that a country's legal foundation for democracy tends to mirror the application of democracy. In the case of the US, the FDA believes the 30% failing score mirrors reality in US democracy.

www.slideshare.net...

It should noted that the FDA audits are not just theoretical, as the constitutions and electoral laws audited are part of reality.

Originally posted by fdadvancement
It should noted that the FDA audits are not just theoretical, as the constitutions and electoral laws audited are part of reality.

I consider them theoretical because they do not analyse the application of the laws, they only analyse how the laws can be used to provide democratic and free elections.

But in reality, the application of the laws is what matters.

Originally posted by Pimander
I hope the US is well down in the list after you guys pathetically allowed Bush Senior to become your president after he clearly lost the election.

Correction: That would be Bush Junior!

reply to post by ArMaP


In my opinion, you are incorrect.

Constitutional and electoral laws are very much part of the reality of a democracy, and the application is dependent on them.

A country with very unfair electoral laws like the USA, will impact the application of those laws. You get my point?

I would hope the US scores low on the poll. We aren't a democracy, we are a republic. Think some of you guys need to learn the difference.

Originally posted by fdadvancement
A country with very unfair electoral laws like the USA, will impact the application of those laws. You get my point?

I understand that, but the problem I am talking about (not applying the laws or applying them only when they want it) happens in the opposite situation, when a country has good laws that are not applied or applied in an unjust way.

That's why I say this is just a theoretical score, they do not analyse the electoral process, just the laws that allow it to happen (or not).

Originally posted by wardk28
I would hope the US scores low on the poll. We aren't a democracy, we are a republic. Think some of you guys need to learn the difference.

A country can be both a democracy and a republic, those are not mutually exclusive things.

reply to post by ArMaP


Your point is valid in the sense that the most democratic laws are no good if their application is undemocratic. But that would not happen in a democracy based on rule of law; it would happen in an authoritarian type of society. Portugal does not sound like a democracy.

However, constitutional and electoral laws are part of the fabric and reality of a democracy. They are more than mere theoretical.

A democratic country with electorally unfair constitution and electoral laws, will likely face shortcomings in its democracy. The laws provide a framework for action.

A country with electorally fair constitution and electoral laws would have a more democratic framework, and thereby will likely be more democratic (but not necessarily so).

reply to post by ArMaP


I understand your point. Though the electoral process is premised on the electoral laws etc., and their application as you mentioned. Reality is not exclusive to application.

It seems your argument only applies to country's with democratic laws undemocratically applied, rather than the other way around. Egypt (under Mubarak) has very undemocratic laws. Was there a democracy there?

By understanding the constitution and electoral laws, an individual can at least point to issues of democracy in the very foundation of a country's democracy, or to very positive aspects about it as in the case of Venezuela. (The fact that Venezuelan politicians have not corrupted Venezuelan electoral laws is a positive sign for that country.)

I wonder also if a country which does not apply its laws, can even be called democratic? Sounds more like anarchy or totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, many western politicians in political power have created unfair electoral laws to the advantage of their respective parties. The US Republicans and Democrats are an obvious example, as are the Liberals and Conservatives in Canada. This is a serious issue in western democracy in which democracy is being used for self-serving purposes and actually being created into an entity serving minority interests (rather than being an extension of the people).