Excerpts of column "Runrunes" (Rumors) of Thursday, October 11

High

VERY CLEAR REPORT. A red-very red friend of mine explained to me the voting strategy of Chavezism. They deployed two groups of voters for President Hugo Chávez. The first group would enter polling stations in the morning and the second group would enter in the afternoon, after a specific time. In the meantime, in the middle of these two teams, red voters would come in small numbers to keep the flow. All this was coordinated through pro-government local groups, organized and financed by state-run oil holding Petróleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa). The strategy used for the recall referendum was replicated: knots and obstacles to voters, particularly in the constituencies with a high proportion of dissenters. Checking the identity was part of the procedure. Remember that in order to kill two birds with one stone, ID cards would appear overlapped to make voters think that their choice would be disclosed.  Late replacement of defective voting machines also formed part of the red strategy. The aim was to wear, tire voters out, together with the sun, menacing motorcyclists and other delays.  At a specific time, the shelling of SMS began, informing that opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski was winning, for people to believe that it was for sure. Therefore, some additional votes would be superfluous. Very specific numbers were sent. They created an information loop. These actions stretched out to opponents. President Hugo Chávez voted and gave the impression of shyness, ambivalence, observing an apparent election setback. Capriles voted and there was a total sensation of triumph. Democratic voters would be over-confident: "We won; if I do not vote it will be not noticeable; it is just my vote."  At 4:00 p.m., the second group was instructed to vote and the transfers started. Here, he told me, the opposition counted on victory because, due to the strategy, it was winning indeed.  The opposition did not take the punch until 6:00 p.m., when they believed that polling stations would close. All of a sudden, another surprise: "last-minute voters" poured into the polling stations located in low-income barrios. In the meantime, middle-class pro-opposition areas were celebrating. Speaking of fraud is nonsense. While we do not trust in the objectiveness of the National Electoral Council (CNE), there is no doubt that the "induced" high turnout gave Chávez an advantage. It is advised to ascertain how much the opposition grew in some places were Chavezism used to be absolute majority. It is recommended to compare in each polling station the results of the presidential elections of 2006 and 2012. If you do it, you will see the advance of the opposition and realize that the way led by Capriles was and is the right one. Certainly, the opposition leapt by 2,175,984 votes, versus only 752,796 for Chávez. Shall we remain united and working hard, from now on through December, to keep the state governments and get some more, namely: Mérida and Bolívar. Again, there was not fraud, but a bunch of banknotes and mobilization based on abuse of authority.

www.runrun.es
@nelsonbocaranda