With many Venezuelans angry at the government and planning to sit out a July 30 vote for a new superbody assembly, President Nicolas Maduro has ordered all state workers to take part, seeking to avoid an embarrassingly low turnout. ..
“If there are 15,000 workers, all 15,000 workers must vote without any excuses,” he told red-shirted supporters in the jungle and savannah state of Bolivar on Thursday night. ..
Roughly 2.8 million state employees, a sizeable part of Venezuela’s population of around 30 million, are often obliged to attend government rallies. Some have said they have already come under pressure to vote on July 30.

“This is crazy. (They’re saying), workers who don’t go to vote will be sacked,” said one employee of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela S.A.[PDVSA.UL], asking to remain anonymous because he is not authorized to speak to media.

“I’ll vote, but null. I’m not going to vote for any of these nuts running for the assembly,” he added.

Chavismo created the Perfect Consituttion in 1999, but now it isn’t good enough. 1999 Constitution: You must do A, B, C in situation D. Chavez and Maduro response: we will do what we want. 2017 Constitution: Maduro, you can do what you want.

See this, for example.” – Neo

Of course you (and Gringo) are correct in the most recent elections.

Maybe Hazelwood was referring to those.

IDK enough of Venezuelan history to say that its citizens ever had a free and clear election, with real choices (one can argue that is the condition of most of the non-western nations).

As Mike said above, the seeds for Chavez were sown long ago.

Theoretically, on a longer timeline, if they did have free elections, that they ended up here, knowingly or not, it is at their own hands.
.

Now referring to Illinois and Puerto Rico (and one could throw in several other examples within the USA – e.g. Detroit), these are very different animals, where we know there has been much freer choice and fairer elections than in recent years (~2 decades?) in Venezuela.

Thus, it becomes much clearer the link between the peoples’ choices in government policy sets and leaders, and the outcomes.

On this, Hazelwood does have a good point.
.

Incidentally, I wonder if the people of Venezuela initially thought they sorely needed change and that they needed a man like Chavez because he was going to be a “fighter” for them and “drain the swamp” of corruption?

Dakazo refers to a set of actions taken by the Venezuelan government forcing consumer electronic retail stores, with Daka being the most prominent, to sell products at much lower prices on 8 November 2013, weeks before municipal elections.[1] The forced Daka price changes helped Venezuela’s ruling party, PSUV, win in some of the municipal elections,[2] though the massive sale of goods caused further shortages in the months following the initiative.[1]

There was also looting of the stores. Chinese refrigerators have also been handed out.

In Miranda-3, which went oppo, there are 321,909 registered voters.
In Miranda-7, which went Chavista, there are 137,843 registered voters.

Registered voters/Assembly seat
Broken down by victors in Circuitos/Circunscripciones/voting districts, not for statewide winners.

Miranda State
Oppo 255,104
Chavista 170,144

Carabobo State
Oppo 267,524
Chavista 179,382

All votes are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Eection results are from links from the Election Results Main Page.

Registered voters numbers from esdata.

Not all voting districts are so egregiously gerrymandered. These are extreme examples. They help explain why Chavismo won ~64% of the seats in the 2010 legislative elections with only about 50% of the votes.

In the 2015 legislative elections, some of the egregiously gerrymandered chavista-leaning districts ended up voting oppo. Sweet to have gerrymandering blow up in Chavismo’s face.

A further example of Chavismo in action. Capriles, the oppo’s candidate for the 2012 and 2013 Presidential elections, was recently not permitted to leave the country. He was going to speak abroad on human rights violations. IIRC, at the UN.

Venezuela’s Upcoming Election Won’t Be Any Fairer Than the Last One. (2013) Consider the following:
1) State funds used for Chavista campaigns, but not on opposition campaigns.

The electoral campaign process, meanwhile, was patently unfair. Chavez had unlimited use of state funds and state infrastructure to carry out his campaign. The campaign was overwhelmed by a cult of personality that rivals Middle Eastern tyrants. Chavez billboards across the country touted the promises of the revolution and the supremacy of the lider unico. The ruling party campaign was lavishly and freely financed with state funds, while the opposition was denied any public financing whatsoever (and Venezuelan businessmen knew they faced expropriation, or worse, if they openly supported the opposition campaign).

2) Media dominance- a dominance which reflects government interference, not the free market.

Then there was perhaps the most critical element of a modern election campaign: access to the mass media. Via the arbitrary issuance and withdrawal of licenses, Chavez enjoyed the support of all but one TV channel in the country.

RCTV, an opposition TV channel, did not have its license renewed in 2007. Chavismo took over 34 radio stations. Another way is to levy fines on media outlets, rendering them unprofitable- and then have a government friend purchase the media outlet.
3)Another unfair media advantage is the use of cadenas,whereby the President can be broadcast on all channels .

On top of all this, during the campaign Chavez regularly commandeered all of the airwaves, citing presidential privilege. The process is aptly named cadenas (chains) and compels all TV and radio stations, no matter the ownership or their politics, to broadcast the president’s speeches in full–no matter how long the tirade. Chavez’s “chains” had the effect of crowding out any significant news regarding the opposition. For instance, on September 17, 2012, during one of the largest rallies in the Capriles campaign, hundreds of thousands turned out to hear him speak in a Caracas park. The event was broadcast live all around the country on radio and TV. However, shortly after Capriles began to speak, Chavez abruptly cut him off by declaring another cadena, in which he extolled the virtues of the current Venezuelan state and the benefits of socialism. The opposition network Globovisié³n (which had limited national coverage) was alone in resuming broadcast of the Capriles rally after Chavez finally finished speaking.On top of all this, during the campaign Chavez regularly commandeered all of the airwaves, citing presidential privilege. The process is aptly named cadenas (chains) and compels all TV and radio stations, no matter the ownership or their politics, to broadcast the president’s speeches in full–no matter how long the tirade. Chavez’s “chains” had the effect of crowding out any significant news regarding the opposition. For instance, on September 17, 2012, during one of the largest rallies in the Capriles campaign, hundreds of thousands turned out to hear him speak in a Caracas park. The event was broadcast live all around the country on radio and TV. However, shortly after Capriles began to speak, Chavez abruptly cut him off by declaring another cadena, in which he extolled the virtues of the current Venezuelan state and the benefits of socialism. The opposition network Globovisié³n (which had limited national coverage) was alone in resuming broadcast of the Capriles rally after Chavez finally finished speaking.

The article mentions mistrust of the anonymity of the vote. Some well-informed oppo journalists, such as Franciso Toro of Caracas Chronicles, are of the opinion that the vote is anonymous, even with the capturing of fingerprints. I would consider this unproven. Unproven or not, a lot of Venezuelans believe their vote is not anonymous. The oppo did win big in the 2015 legislative elections, which may indicate the fear factor is much reduced. However, it is documented that Chavismo often has “helpers” accompany voters to voting booths.

4)However, what Chavismo did to those who signed petitions in support of the 2004 Recall Referendum is beyond dispute.

Secondly, Venezuela has a sordid precedent of violating the democratic principle of ballot secrecy from the 2004 referendum petition, which sought to remove Chavez from office in a recall election. Chavez famously warned: “Whoever signs [the petition] against Chavez… their name will be there, registered for history, because they’ll have to put down their first name, their last name, their signature, their identity card number, and their fingerprint.”

This registry of names was later published by a chavista congressman, Luis Tascé³n, on his personal website. The “Lista Tascé³n” was used to create an apartheid-like system, dividing Venezuelans into those who “had signed against the president” and those who were loyal to Chavez. Public employees lost their jobs, those seeking employment were instantly disqualified, and identification papers became hard to get for those who had dared sign the recall petition. Citizens seeking loans from state banks were told they had opted out of any assistance due to their disloyalty to Chavez. Although no law was passed making discrimination statutory, every government official knew they had no incentive to treat declared opponents of the regime in a favorable manner. To the contrary, many ministries circulated instructions to bureaucrats as to the wisdom of engaging in discrimination. It is worth underlining that the social programs instituted by Chavez in the poorest neighborhoods of Venezuela use the capta huellas machine to register the beneficiaries of the programs, thus creating an even stronger psychological link between fingerprinting readers and benefits from the state.

5) Use of militia and National Guard to “get out the vote.”

The third systemic advantage of the Chavez campaigns that has made elections in Venezuela unfree is the blatant use of the National Guard and the Milicia in a nationwide effort to mobilize and oversee voting in favor of the government party by every state employee and every beneficiary of the government’s handout schemes. Brigades are assembled not only to ensure that voters turn out, but also to remind them that voting against the regime would have consequences. In a horrific betrayal of the concept of a free election, last October many state employees were accompanied to polling stations and monitored. And while not a secret to anybody, few people have dared to risk all by formally denouncing the ways and means by which their will was twisted.

I have read that in the latter hours of voting on election days, Chavismo will send crews to bring to the polls those who haven’t yet voted. Chavismo couldn’t do this unless it had access to data on who had and hadn’t voted- which is again unfair use of government resources.

I will stop my comment here.

Do you think Venezuela has held free and fair elections in recent years?

See this, for example.

Obviously you cannot compare the level of corruption during what is perceived to be a democracy and the outright theft and seizure of monies and other assets during a dictatorship can you?
You brought up the issue of corruption during the Fourth Republic, and I replied, correctly pointing out that corruption has been worse under Chavismo. Recall that Chavez campaigned in 1998 on the promise to stop corruption.

And your numbers regarding food and infant mortality support my assertions well.
What assertions?

the corruption and mismanagement was not during CAP’s time only, obviously cumulative of several leaders.
I never claimed that corruption was unique to CAP’s time in office. You used CAP as an example of corruption, and I replied.

Both Illinois’ and Puerto Rico’s peoples (not to mention several other Blue states) voted themselves into their present insolvencies. Their peoples WANTED the governments that they have.

As long as people are willing to vote for this type of ‘Death by Chocolate’, they will always find themselves afflicted with indigestion. TANSTAAFL

You certainly write a lot and have some figures to offer up but:

Obviously you cannot compare the level of corruption during what is perceived to be a democracy and the outright theft and seizure of monies and other assets during a dictatorship can you? And your numbers regarding food and infant mortality support my assertions well. You mention a quintupling of the population, but don’t point out that Venezuela allowed uncontrolled immigration for many years from other countries in SA creating the huge underclass referred to do you? The corruption and mismanagement was not during CAP’s time only, obviously cumulative of several leaders.