Chavez dirty tricks? Venezuela prints a confusing ballot.

Ballots are already printed for Sunday's election in Venezuela, but the opposition candidate's photo is shown in at least four places where, if marked, the vote will not be counted for his party.

REUTERS
Venezuela's Ambassador to Cuba Edgardo Antonio Ramirez points at a sample ballot during a news conference in Havana, presenting the Venezuelan presidential election September 26, 2012.

• A version of this post ran on the author's blog, bloggingsbyboz.com. The views expressed are the author's own.

With a week to go before the election and the ballots all printed, the Venezuelan National Electoral Council (CNE) announced that votes for the Unidad Democratica party will go to a relatively unknown third party candidate (Reina Sequera) even though opposition candidate Henrique Capriles's picture is on the ballot in that spot (h/t Miguel). Additionally, three other spaces on the ballot where Capriles's face appears will be marked as null votes rather than votes for the opposition candidate.

The ballot spot in question is the very first time Capriles's picture appears on the ballot if you read left-right, top-bottom (as most people in this hemisphere do). The name of the party in the spot, Unidad Democratica, is very close to the Mesa de Unidad Democratica (MUD) that is the opposition's unified organization. The other spots for the Manos por Venezuela, Piedra y Cambio Pana parties, all with Capriles's picture, appear at the center and right side of the ballot and will be marked as null votes. With so little time to go before the election, it is almost guaranteed that thousands of Capriles voters will not hear the announcement of this change and will mistakenly mark their ballot in those spots.
 
 This is a bureaucratic rule change that amounts to stealing votes from the opposition. In a close election, it could make a difference.

– James Bosworth is a freelance writer and consultant who runs Bloggings by Boz.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.