The main headquarters of the National Electoral Council (CNE) in Caracas, Venezuela. Photo: Victor Bujosa Michelli.
Guacamaya, May 31, 2025. The development of the legislative and regional elections accumulated a series of irregularities that compromised the integrity and transparency of the process. With the official announcement of the results, it is necessary to review the complaints about various inconsistencies.
From the beginning, the lack of transparency and opacity of the National Electoral Council (CNE) marked the event. The call for elections did not include a formal publication of the electoral schedule, neither in the Official Gazette nor in the institutional channels of the governing body. The organization’s website remained inactive before, during, and after the election, making it difficult to access key information.
At the same time, the election dates—initially scheduled for April 27—were modified without an official call in accordance with the Organic Law of Electoral Processes (Lopre). Additionally, key data on voting centers and candidates were scattered, incomplete, and in some cases, shared through links of unknown origin.
Likewise, the lack of information was also evident in the prior audits. Regarding the review of the Electoral Registry and the voting system, no reports were published, neither through institutional channels nor independently by the parties. In fact, it was on May 10, during the electoral simulation, that the removal of the QR code and the electoral turnout from the minutes became known.
Given this scenario, a different behavior from the process itself and the announcement of its results could not be expected. Essential technical guarantees, such as the transmission audit, citizen verification, and electoral data audit, were not carried out. Furthermore, independent observation was also absent, another factor that further calls into question the transparency of the process.
Early Announcements and Contradictory Figures
After the official announcement of the first bulletin on the night of Sunday, May 25, a striking situation arose. The following morning, according to the institutional call, a CNE press conference was expected for the allocation of remaining positions. However, the electoral body suspended the meeting with the media without going into details.
At the same time, Jorge Rodríguez, the campaign chief of the ruling party and current president of the National Assembly, announced on local television that his political faction had won 256 of the 285 parliamentary seats. The statement came before any official update from the electoral body, deepening the perception of political control over the process and the lack of institutional independence.
Although the CNE reported a turnout of 42.63%, electoral source journalist Eugenio Martínez pointed out that, based on the electoral registry of more than 21 million voters, the number of announced voters (more than 5.5 million) should represent 25.63%.
In a calculation made by data analyst and consultant Javier Martucci, the reported turnout percentages were compared with the votes cast for national lists and the 24 gubernatorial elections, but the numbers did not add up. The declared turnout should match the votes cast, but the difference between the two figures is nearly 3 million votes.
Later, Martínez denounced that the electoral body used the concept of “active voters” to artificially inflate the turnout percentage. This definition of “active voters,” as the journalist states, has not been explained by the CNE, nor is there a regulatory instrument that excludes historically abstaining voters from the total count.
Lack of Verification and Suspicious Surges
Another irregularity, despite the announcement of the final bulletin, is the absence of disaggregated data by polling station and the inability to verify minutes or results with the official institution. This was the main point of contention in the past presidential elections on July 28, 2024, an issue that remains unresolved 10 months after those elections.
Regarding the presidential elections, Chavismo in these elections would have obtained more votes than in the July 28 event. With a figure exceeding 83% of the votes (5,024,475 votes), the ruling party would have gained around one million more votes than in the presidential elections. This surge is, at the very least, suspicious given the historical decline in pro-government votes.
Another atypical turnout was recorded in the state of Cojedes, the only entity where a non-ruling-party governor was elected. In the July 28 presidential elections, turnout in Cojedes was 66.25%, according to opposition-tallied minutes. In contrast, in the regional and legislative elections, the officially reported turnout in Cojedes was 70.54%.
Given the national trend of abstention, framed in a context of crisis, demobilization, and social discontent, the surge in votes for Chavismo and the increase in turnout in Cojedes are inconsistent behaviors. Moreover, given the importance of the processes, lower turnout is typically expected in regional elections compared to presidential ones.
The Discrepancy in Seat Distribution
Another anomaly noted is the disproportion between votes and seats allocated to the opposition. Analyst Javier Martucci questioned the allocation of seats on the national list, pointing out that the reported votes do not correspond with the official seat distribution. The situation has raised suspicions about possible manipulation of the electoral system to project an image of plurality.
According to the data, the Great Patriotic Pole (GPP) obtained 5,024,475 votes (83.42%) and should have received 44 deputies, while the Democratic Alliance, the UNTC Single Alliance, and Fuerza Vecinal, with much smaller percentages, received allocations that do not match the proportional D’Hondt method established by law.
For his part, Eugenio Martínez pointed out that the incorrect allocation could be due to three causes: that the allocation does not reflect the real results; that the CNE may have used a different method (Sainte-Laguë) instead of D’Hondt, in violation of the law; or that most PSUV candidates won in nominal circuits, and their seats were distributed to other alliances.
From irregularities in the call for elections, lack of transparency, absence or secrecy of key audits, and widespread distrust in the official results, the process was marked by opacity. The vote is increasingly less seen as an instrument of change, under the looming threat of manipulation.
