The just man is one who does not commit any injustice, but that may be unfair not to be.
(Menander of Laodicea)
One of the things that struck me about the double vote of the governor of Anzoátegui State Wiiliam TAREK SAAB in next Sunday's elections past, has been the way the reviewing the national press and set the wrongs done the same.
all media, without exception, focused both critics and censorship of this event, only and exclusively on the figure of WILLIAM SAAB. For some reason, it is obvious that WILLIAM SAAB is not alone in this electoral crime. Is an accomplice and the accomplice is not exactly the power that gives his inauguration as governor. I refer to the president of the table where voted WILLIAM SAAB. Yes, that person (designated by the CNE) that controls the release button or block the famous typewriter OLIVETTI.
Without the participation of this person, WILLIAM SAAB could have turned into a basilisk and their intention to vote had been thwarted. WILLIAM SAAB have tried (and did) enjoy their status as governor to vote a second time, well that such action could have qualified as an outrage against the president of the polling station. But it was not. We all saw on television as proof WILLIAM SAAB breaking election and handed him a member of the polling station due to its proximity, we understand that it was precisely who served as president of the same. WILLIAM SAAB is not removed, but again stopped getting behind the board to vote again and again.
All press and independent writers focus their criticism on the conduct of WILLIAM SAAB, but left in a policy (which is me and willing accomplice) who did not hesitate more than a few seconds (at a delicate gesture of disgust WILLIAM SAAB) to re-release the voting machine to vote again WILLIAM SAAB. Fortunately, WILLIAM SAAB never again encounter the same stone and was victorious in his second attempt. The question of the 68,000 loaches is knowing what would have happened if WILLIAM SAAB had been mistaken for a second time, what the reaction would have been willing to come from the board chairman or chairwoman. Would you have given a third chance? I'm afraid so.
The national press missed a golden opportunity to highlight that the only way a citizen can vote 2 times in a row on the voting machine OLIVETTI, is only possible if the one who controls the release of the machine allows this to happen . WILLIAM SAAB case is a clear example of the anarchy that reigns in many of the country's polling stations, where there is a balance of forces of the different currents policies contained in the electoral event. WILLIAM SAAB both as a person who acted as Deputy Chairman of the polling station, commit a crime. If the national media had devoted a few lines to the strange and pleasing performance of the president of the polling station, arriving if possible (and what is not possible for a professional journalist?) To interview who allowed (by pressing the button that unlocks the machine) to WILLIAM SAAB vote for the second time, I'm sure this would have served as warning to future members and chairpersons of future elections, because no one likes to appear on radio or television news as the person responsible of irregularity.
The Law of Suffrage and Political Participation set out in Title X, Section Two ( of electoral crimes ) in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Article N ° 256 the following:
Article 256. Shall be punished with imprisonment of six (6) months to one (1) year:
8. Who vote twice or more, to impersonate another in their identity, or assume a decedent in the voting;
This is the case of WILLIAM SAAB, as even he admits in his statements voted 2 times if you did not see ...
9. The member or secretary a polling station who refused to sign the tally sheets, or consent to an illegal voting
double or superseded;
This is the case of the person who served as chairman of the board, as it agreed (and provided) WILLIAM SAAB who voted for the second time. In fact, the text of the article is in the plural, as does also responsible to the Secretary of the Electoral Board. Put another way, but who serves as chairman of the board had control of the button, was not during the act of double voting WILLIAM SAAB, any member of the polling station (including the Secretary) protested to live voice because the chairman of the board allowed WILLIAM SAAB return to vote. That is, there was a willful act of omission of their duties by the other members of the Electoral Board. And we all know, ignorance of the law no excuse. All an aporia, but so are the laws of man.
WILLIAM SAAB As such, it is noteworthy that a man who calls himself as a fighter for human rights, especially individual rights, civil and political rights (as he used to say) has not taken advantage of the opportunity to give a civics lesson and proclaim that although the vote printed on the ballot does not match your intention or choice, he respects above all the laws (in this case the electoral laws) and is therefore appropriate to introduce the ballot in the ballot box, much to his regret. May have behaved like a gentleman, he ended up reacting like a jerk. That it sticks, it sticks.
As the CNE, in reviewing the portal's share of the Basic Law of Suffrage and Political Participation, Section II of Title X (where the offenses and penalties election) reviewed articles appearing in the portal as belonging to this Title X (of the sanctioning system) actually belong to the TITLE IX (REVIEW OF EVENTS AND ACTIONS OF THE ELECTORAL BODIES). TITLE X as such, and all articles (from 251 to 265 inclusive) not exist in the portal CNE. Quite a minestrone.
As the CNE, in reviewing the portal's share of the Basic Law of Suffrage and Political Participation, Section II of Title X (where the offenses and penalties election) reviewed articles appearing in the portal as belonging to this Title X (of the sanctioning system) actually belong to the TITLE IX (REVIEW OF EVENTS AND ACTIONS OF THE ELECTORAL BODIES). TITLE X as such, and all articles (from 251 to 265 inclusive) not exist in the portal CNE. Quite a minestrone.
.jpg)
who is curious to see the articles on the electoral crimes, absent on the porch of the CNE (but present in other Web pages) can do clicking here.
By the way, it's the bloopers on the website of the CNE, is hardly new. When I got their chance to review all matters relating to regional elections for the municipalities of Bolivar State, I had to do with stupor that, according to the physical map of the site of the CNE, Venezuela bordered to the south of Bolivar State Colombia.
Then, one gets a cold in the body into thinking that it is precisely these people responsible for monitoring the results of the various elections of us Venezuelans. I say, taking into account the repeated blunders of the people of the CNE could it be that this first partial result on Sunday 15, where said = 54.36% YES 45.63% NO = was reality upside down and these bobolongos was what they were seeing in a mirror? For I am not going to deny the reader who submitted this first partial result (where both integer part and decimal part of a swap rate is the other) not only proved to be the sea of \u200b\u200batypical, but I believe that as the Venezuelan lottery winnings, broke with the laws of probability and statistics.
Tags: electoral crime, constitutional amendment, constitutional reform , presidential reelection, 15f , February 15, Venezuela
0 comments:
Post a Comment