Computerized Election Results With No Election 433
_Sharp'r_ writes "In Honduras, according to breaking Catalan newspaper reports (translations available, USA Today mention), authorities have seized 45 computers containing certified election results for a constitutional election that never happened. The election had been scheduled for June 28, but on that day the president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted. The 'certified' and detailed electronic records of the non-existent election show Zelaya's side having won overwhelmingly."
Re:Really (Score:3, Informative)
As it has been said from the beginning, anyone with physical access to the machine and sufficient knowledge of how the machine works can alter the results, and it is clear that the ousted President (who had called for an illegal referendum to have term limits removed so he could basically be president for life) had people with both those things.
For electronic voting, you have to assume that the manufacturer and everyone involved in the storage, transport and operation of such voting machines to be acting in good faith, and I don't think you can find a country on this planet that has everyone acting this way.
Technology is a great thing, but it is not the solution to every problem.
Re:So Impeach Him (Score:5, Informative)
Re:the problem isn't that he is corrupt (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So Impeach Him (Score:3, Informative)
Practicalities asside, that is the rational behind the 2nd ammendment.
No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle? (Score:2, Informative)
The ~referendum that Zelaya was planning might well have been unconstitutionnal, but he didn't get to do it. Hence he did not break the constitution. Therefore the coup cannot begin to be justified by this stupid talking point.
But anyway, there is very good precedent for that kind of thing. De Gaulle ran a referendum in 1958 that gave birth to what we call the Vth Republic, a major change in the type of government (from parliamentary to mostly presidential).There was no provision for this kind of change in the IVth Republic's constitution, therefore it was unconstitutionnal stricto sensu. But constitutionnalists agree that the will of the people takes precedence over the letter of the constitution, esp. when such a vote is won with as significant margin as it was.
Opponents didn't spare the General and called him a dictator. He replied back with a question, "if you look back at what I have done and how I've fought tyranny, do I look like a dictator? And would I begin such a carreer at my age?"
But don't let history get in the way of your rightard talking points. I just want to point out that your ugly type is not in power anymore, at least in the US. (Unfortunately, we have inherited the Bush Jr's diminutive love slave in the mean time)
Re:And This Is the Government of a Country (Score:5, Informative)
This was different from what one normally thinks of as a junta. I don't know if the Honduran constitution has a mechanism to remove a sitting president from office, but it was pretty clear that he was absolutely on his own. His own party told him to back off, and that they didn't support the referendum. As was reported by the media, the legislature had passed a law banning referenda within the 180 days prior to an election. The Supreme Court ruled the pending referendum illegal, and issued an injunction preventing the military from making preparations for it. The military was clearly ready to comply with the Supreme Court, but Zelaya was pushing ahead with the referendum anyway, and fired the head of the military. This action was reversed by the Supreme Court the next day. The attorney general issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya, and the day after, the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya's arrest; whether or not that is constitutional, I don't know. Wikipedia's article on the matter suggests that by even trying to hold the referendum, the constitution required that he was to be removed from office.
Presumably, much of this could have been handled better, particularly the removal of Zelaya from the country. But Zelaya seemed to be intent on doing things in a way that is at best gray; that the original ballots were taken possession of by Zelaya and his backers, and would be issued and counted by the same, shows that he had no intentions of having a fair election. If these election computers can be absolutely tied to him, it will at least complicate negotiations for his return.
Re:No he HAD NOT (Score:5, Informative)
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
He proposed its reform, which means there WAS a basis for removing him.
Re:again, for the morons (Score:5, Informative)
I have actually counted ballots and tampering with them is not at all hard. The fact is that I live in a country that wouldn't stand for this. If there was a government behind it though, fraud is quite easy.
No.
First of all: how many ballots could you have tampered with anyway? What if you had 20 friends helping in other polling stations? Enough to sway the outcome? I find that very hard to believe.
And if there is large-scale tampering going on by government agents, how likely is it that they are caught out by representatives from other political parties manning the polling stations? Especially if someone suspects tampering and demands a recount.
Our country wouldn't stand for tampering with ballots. But it certainly shouldn't stand for any ballot count done by one institution, without any oversight. And that is effectively what you have with computerised voting. Any half-wit can visually observe paper voting and certify that nothing untoward is going on. But with computer voting, even experts might be hard-pressed that no nefarious bit of code slipped past the overseers.
Re:Barack Hussein Obama supports Manuel Zelaya. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes he did. If you read their constitution, you'll see that there's a section that cannot be changed or amended about the president serving only one term (too many dictator presidents clinging to power) and that it's even illegal for a government official to talk about changing it. According to the constitution, that person would lose his position and be barred from the government altogether for a period of 10 years.
Therefore, he did break the constitution and the moment he did so, wasn't president anymore.
Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle? (Score:4, Informative)
AIUI, their constitution not only forbids removing the term limits, it specifies that any elected official who submits a bill to chage the constitution in that way be removed from office. If so, Zelaya had, in fact, violated their constitution and was properly removed from office.
Re:Yeah, and? (Score:2, Informative)
Zelaya, you bastaheywaitasecond. Didn't the authorities have access to the machines, too?
The new government already has problems with bad press. The army killed a pro-Zelaya protestor: http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20090709-honduran-daily-photoshop-blood-crackdown-victim-murillo-coup-zelaya [france24.com]. And the police arrested his dad for some reason. Also, a union leader was killed (not clear who did it).
So they could have done the manipulation to distract from the bad news about them. They lied previously about Zelaya's resignation letter: http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2009/06/honduras-coup-check-out-false.html [blogspot.com]
Or was it Zelaya? We don't know and we probably never will. What I know is: Voting machines suck.
Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle? (Score:4, Informative)
The ~referendum that Zelaya was planning might well have been unconstitutionnal, but he didn't get to do it. Hence he did not break the constitution.
The Honduran Constitution prohibits the consideration of any amendments aimed at changing terms or eliminating term limits. In effect, by advocating and campaigning on that topic, Zelaya was violating the constitution in his capacity as president.
Not to mention that Zelaya sacked the head of the military for refusing to carry out his illegal referendum, and then tried to have his supporters carry it out on their own contrary to the declarations of Hondura's congress and supreme court, leading a mob to break in and steal the necessary ballots which he had had sent by none other than Hugo Chavez.
And now we see why he was eager to carry it out despite its illegality and his having become rather unpopular--it was always going to be cooked in his favor.
Personally, I don't see how the removal of the president by the congress and the supreme court for his illegal actions and temporary replacement by an elected official from the same party, with no alteration to plans to hold the upcoming election, can be considered a "coup." It didn't change the political landscape at all. It just kept one power hungry president from fraudulently creating a permanent throne for himself.
Re:Yeah, and? (Score:2, Informative)
Addendum/ found some backup (Score:4, Informative)
I have found an article where a constitutional lawyer, who hails from Honduras, explains what happened and why it happened. My best guess analysis mirrors just about exactly what he is saying. There is fault on both sides, but their constitution clearly states not only is it illegal to try and change the one term limit, but it is a crime to even propose it! I didn't know that part.
His own political party, who control the legislature there, voted overwhelmingly for his ouster. Their attorney general ordered the referendum halted, but he was trying to go ahead with it anyway, just by calling it "an opinion poll", just some weasel words. By their law, he shouldn't have been deported (that's the only thing they did technically illegal), but immediately should have been jailed, but they decided it was better to break that one law to avoid mass bloodshed. They estimated if he was still in-country, there just would have been a big bloody mess, and they didn't want that, the rock and the hard place scenario, or what I called picking the lesser of two suckages.
Here is the article Miguel Estrada: 'Honduran Ouster of Zelaya was Constitutional' [humanevents.com]
Re:again, for the morons (Score:3, Informative)
And what do you think it is that the Electoral College does? I'm putting my money on "votes for a president."
To be completely correct, the United States vote for a president and vice-president and occasionally to ratify amendments to our constitution. None the less you are entirely wrong in disagreeing with me.
If you are truly an attorney, I'd be wary of employing your services as you seem unable to distinguish between something being done and how something is done.
Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Propaganda Yourself (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not going to defend Chavez or his cronies, but that doesn't mean we in the west, for want of a better word, haven't been up to our usual dirty tricks.
And I'm not going to accuse an innocent man of murder, but it doesn't mean you in your home, for want of a better word, have no skeletons in your closet.
So far, we have no direct evidence pointing to anyone in the West. Heck, not even indirect evidence, save for the word of a man who is decided anti-West and anti-US. In the absence of any evidence, only a truther would go out to accuse U.S. of wrongdoing.
Re:No They Didn't (Score:2, Informative)
The Army seized him on the orders of the supreme court because he broke the law:
Article 239 -- No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
You're standing there yammering about the 'rule of law' and you don't even know what it says.
Yes, you might find such a constitutional provision objectionable, but it does, indeed, exist. Merely attempting to alter the term limits of the office of president is illegal and grounds from removal from office. The Honduras Supreme Court found he had, indeed, violated this law, and ordered him removed.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle actually removing him from office, as everyone was unsure that the executive branch would actually do so, but his removal from office was entirely legal and not any sort of 'coup' at all.
What? The military lied? No... how could they? (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with the post "Opposition Faked it to ciminalize [sic] him", the coup plotters are doing what the can to discredit the Zelaya administration. In the two weeks that they have taken control of the executive branch of the government (they already had control of the legislature and judicial system) they are finding out all kinds of things that the Zelaya government supposedly did. None of these things are being done in a transparent or internationally valid manner. What those in power are trying to do is to obfuscate any possibility of a negotiated solution. While it is mentioned that all this was precipitated by a survey to see if a question could be included in the general election ballot regarding the creation of a constitutional assembly sometime in 2010 (there was no possibility of modifying the constitution prior to the end of Zelaya's term since the elections for president would have taken place well before the constitutional assembly).
What many of us who study Central America suspect (and with good information from many of the principal players on the ground) is that this was an excuse for the ruling elites of Honduras to allow the military to deport the president and many around him, including the minister of foreign affairs, Patricia Rodas who might very soon be a presidential contender, and more importantly, has openly advocated for a weakened military that at the moment operates largely as an autonomous institution. The military has been in the business of running Honduras for decades after deposing the Liberal government of Villeda Morales sending him into exile along with the president of the congress Modesto Rodas, father of Patricia Rodas (Mr. Rodas occupied the same position Mitcheletti held until a few days ago, except that the military did not see him as an ally and sent him to Costa Rica, much in the same way they sent Mr. Zelaya. btw. the "hat" Mr. Zelaya wears is a symbol that represents Modesto Rodas, who died in 1979, but is still a strong presence in Honduran politics).
But how does the military operate with the elite families? Who is in control? The military high command is in tight association with the elite families that have the greatest share of the economic interests in the country (and plenty of bank accounts and investments overseas). These families and the military have business relationships in common--in fact they are undistinguishable since not only are they linked through economic interests, they are tightly integrated through family ties that overlap different sectors (public, private and military). And who are these families?
From what I can discern they are: Canahuati Larach: textiles, pharmaceuticals, banking, soft drinks and media [La Prensa, El Nuevo Dia, El Heraldo]. Facusse: textiles, pharmaceuticals, agro, telecom, banking, construction, media [La Tribuna]. Nasser: telecom. Kafati: agro, pharmaceuticals, coffee and casinos. CarriÃn, commerce (shopping malls). Ferrar: media. Agurcia: hotels, telecom and shipping. Faraj: banking, television, and commerce. Arévalo: electricity. Kafie: milk products and electricity. Rosenthal (who are pro-Zelaya): airlines, banking, media [Tiempo]. Goldstein banking. Kawas Sikafie: construction, cement, media, commerce. Andonie FernÃndez: real estate, pharmaceuticals.
The above list is only a very partial listing of their holdings. Also one has to keep in mind that the coup was leadered by a number of individuals with quite checkered pasts, including Billy Joya, who is now a security advisor to Mitcheletti, but in the 1980s was a founding member of the 3-16 battalion, a death squad, responsible for the disappearances of over 184 individuals. He has also been rumored to be connected to the Cali cartel (though this last allegation is a bit hard to prove since they don't leave much of a paper trial).
This is just a small bit of the story, it gets really strange as one finds out more about the details.
Rather not (Score:2, Informative)
I guess you missed that part where *members of his own party* voted overwhelmingly to oust him, THEY didn't approve of what he was doing. Also the judges said what he was trying to do was illegal, and etc.
The last thing any of those nations down there is yet another el jefe for life, they've had and still have in some situations enough of those sort of gents.
So nope, if these are the facts as reported so far, I don't think he needs any support, other than perhaps a good lawyer talking to him in his jail cell back home.
Other than that, I got no dog in this fight, I am a neoisolationist practically when it comes to these sort of things. It's up to those folks to sort their own problems out, and since they got rid of the last military dictatorship they have been pleased with having some more rational and fair government, and they purposefully put in those provisions for ONE term precisely to keep it that way, no if's, and's or but's about it. He was trying to change that, and the bulk of the government there agreed, saw that this was blatantly just wrong, so they nipped his little power grab gambit right in the bud.
Re:again, for the morons (Score:2, Informative)
You're an idiot. You didn't link to a single shred of...well, I would say evidence, but you didn't actually link to anything.
You're lying about his lawyer being 'known' for rigging election, but people should feel free to google who his lawyer is (Marc Elias, but don't trust me either.) and then google what he's known for. (Here's a hint...nothing. Not a single hit on 'rigging' an election, except for stuff about him 'rigging' this one.)
You're an idiot about the 'statistical likelyhood'. Statistics do not work like that. There is no calculable likelihood what several thousands challenged ballots would be.
And you're just plain wrong about the 'local newspaper'. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, who I presume is who you're talking about, indeed scanned the ballets. And the results were...Franken still winning, although by about a third the amount.
Oh, and Franken didn't 'keep doing recounts'. Franken did not ask for the single recount that happened, it was required by law.
He and Coleman then challenged ballots that were not counted, but should be, or vis versa. Every challenged ballot was looked at and decided in court, once.
That was it...the required-by-law recount of all ballots, and a few thousand ballots that both parties had pulled out and said 'Hey, wait, that was a vote for me you didn't count', and 'Hey, that was counted as a vote for him that shouldn't have counted.'. Neither party asked for a 'recount', neither party initiated this, it is part of the process of the required-by-law recount. (And, in fact, the original count.)
This required-by-law recount Franken won, back in January, two months after it started.
Coleman then proceeded to sue and hold the entire thing up for six months.
Re:And This Is the Government of a Country (Score:4, Informative)
Chapter 1 article 2: The sovereignty belongs to the people, from whom emanates all the powers of the state, which are exercised by representation.
Supplanting the popular sovereignty and usurping the constituted powers are considered betrayal of the homeland. The responsibility in that case is imprescriptible [ed. love that prose] and can be alleged by an officer or a petition of any citizen.
Chapter 1 article 3: No one has a duty of obedience to an usurperous government nor to those who take office or public employment by armed force o using means or proceedings that break or ignore what the constitution and laws set forth. The actions performed by such authorities are void. The people has the right to resort to insurrection in defense of the constitutional order.
Chapter 1 article 4: The alternation* in the exercise of the president of the republic is mandatory. Infracting this rule constitutes the crime of betraying the homeland.
Chapter 6 article 239: Any citizen who has served in the office of the Executive Power shall not be President or Vice President.
Whosoever breaks this law or proposes its reform, along with those who support him directly or indirectly, shall immediately cease the service of their respective offices, and for ten years shall remain unable to hold any public office.
Chapter 6 article 240: The following cannot be elected president of the republic: Vice presidents, Secretaries and subsecretaries of state, Members of the national election tribunal, judges and magistrates of the judicial power,
So the supreme court seems to have acted correctly in removing him from the country. In fact, they gave Zelaya a second chance by initially prohibiting him from trying to hold the election. It seems they would have been in good legal standing already at that point to remove him.
Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle? (Score:3, Informative)
If indeed that was what he'd done, then it could indeed have been legal to remove him from office. But that was not what he did, and the maneuvres against him were in fact manifestly illegal.
The coup was of course presented as legal by those who perpetrated it and now constitute the new de facto government (surprise surprise), but no other government anywhere has recognised the coup as a legal process. Not one. The coup d'etat has been condemned by the UN general assembly, the Organization of American States, the UNASUR, the US, the EU, etc, etc. Don't be fooled into thinking that the Honduran judicial system is some high-minded and independent branch of government. Honduras is a banana republic and has a thoroughly militarized and corrupt political system.
The new regime has tried (with some success, in the US at least) to put forward a cover story in which Mel Zelaya was unconstitutionally attempting to seek reelection and was impeached and removed legally. The tame MSM in Honduras has by and large gone along with the story (any media which haven't have been shut down by military force). But in fact Zelaya has always denied that he wanted to seek reelection. The right wing all say it was "common knowledge" he wanted to establish a "Chavista dictatorship", but this is just what they want to think: there's no actual evidence for it.
The poll which Zelaya attempted to hold was not an official referendum, in fact, but simply a public opinion poll with no official status. The constitution explicitly guarantees the right to hold such polls, by the way.
The poll merely asked Hondurans if they agreed that at the upcoming elections, there should be a "fourth ballot box" installed (i.e. alongside the 3 votes for president, congressional and municipal representatives), where voters could decide if there should be a national consitutional assembly to approve a new consitution. It did not ask what provisions any new constitution should contain. It certainly made no mention of term limits. In fact, even if the opinion poll had taken place, and if the result had favoured a "fourth ballot box", then Zelaya would've had his hands full ensuring that the ballot box actually was installed. If it were installed, and if the voters approved the idea of a constituent assembly, then there would have to have been further elections for the constituent assembly itself, then the assembly would've had to approve a new constitution. At that final point, the hypothetical assembly might hypothetically decide to remove some of the provisions which are "cast in stone" in the current constitution, and they might have run into legal trouble in so doing. But this is all "what-if" stuff ... Zelaya himself was a long way from breaking the constitution - he didn't even get a chance to do so.
Re:And This Is the Government of a Country (Score:3, Informative)
Ha ha, except exiling Hondurans is expressly forbidden in their constitution. That in itself says volumes about the golpista's concern for the constitution.
Re:And This Is the Government of a Country (Score:3, Informative)
This story has certainly crossed the line from possible to being actual ... an actual story that is. In terms of credibility, though, it's about as likely to be real as the "resignation letter" allegedly from Zelaya which the Honduran congress voted to accept, despite it having a strange signature, and being dated a few days previously, at a time when Zelaya was publicly leading a mass delegation to a military base to regain control of voting papers for his consultative poll.
Re:And This Is the Government of a Country (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't a referenda. It was an opinion poll.
Also, if you want to discuss breaking the constitution, the coup leaders have broken the constitution several times since the coup.
No freedom of speech. Killing protesters. Beating people against the coup.
It is really sick to hear an opinion poll being used to justify a military coup. Completely disgusting.