Reply #15: Did you expect The Economist to be satisfied with the election?

[1932]

The Economist's editorial policy is to support the sort of free-trade/neoliberalism of which Venezuela's government is a very persuassive critic.

I read somewhere else that this off-year election in Ven. (no nation-wide elections) had higher turnout than the last off-year election and that particularly bad weather was a problem this year.

Also, when people are satisfied that their country is moving in the right direction and that their favorite candidates will win, there's less urgency in getting out to vote.

I'm not saying that's always the case, but it's a possiblity. It's not always the case that low turnout means disenchantment. Clinton's second term had the lowest turnout (49%) since 1960, but today he's the most popular president of the past 45 years. 1998 and 1986 tied for the lowest off-year turno ut during that same period (36.4%). I don't think you can say that 1998 was a year of disenchantment.

Furthermor, in the US the five highest turnout national elections (including off-year and presidential year elections) since 1960 were:

1960: 63.1%
1964: 61.9%
1968: 60.8%
2004: 55.3%
1972: 55.2%

Do you think there's a correlation between "enchantment" and turnout? The correlation might be the opposite. With the exception of '64, those are five of the most polarized elections we've had in the US.

I don't think the Economist has any interest in presenting these historical counterarguments or any facts that might contradict their editorial agenda, which leaves it to us to investigate them for ourselves.