[edmundo]

> “Under Chavez, elections were still relatively fair. ”

Elections were never fair under Chavez. He seized control of the Supreme Court and undercut the ability of journalists, human rights defenders, and other Venezuelans to exercise fundamental rights.

[ernst_klim]

>relatively fair.

What the hell does this mean in the first place? Elections could only be either fair or not fair, you either can win in a honest competition or you can't since the regime can apply some measures to restrict such possibility. This sounds just ridiculous.

[eesmith]

It means there's a level of fraud in most elections, but these lie on a continuum.

Here's a rough measure. If a system almost always gives the same election results as a fair election then the system is relatively fair, compared to a system which often gives different election results than what a fair system would give.

For example, if someone votes twice (eg, owns property in New York and Florida, registers to vote in both states, etc.) then that's an unfair election.

However, very few people, perhaps a handful each presidential election, do that. This is a relatively fair system because it's extremely unlikely that these fraudulent votes will change the results.

By comparison, some states had a literacy test for voting which was deliberately confusing, and where the (white) registrar was the ultimate judge of who passed. By design, a lot of black people failed. See http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_right... for an example test from Louisiana.

By comparison, this was a relatively unfair system.

[tnzn]

Your definition of a fair election is pretty flowed as far as I understand it... You define a fair election as an election which gives the same results as... a fair election ?

[eesmith]

No, I define a relatively fair election as one which often gives the same results as a fair election.