Did Maduro technically lose the last election and used his power to disqualify the opposition?

1. The official count: Maduro declared winner by the CNE

Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) announced that Nicolás Maduro won the July 28 vote, first reporting victory with around 51% when 80% of ballots were counted and later publishing final percentages indicating Maduro at approximately 51.95% and his main opponent Edmundo González at about 43.18% ^[1], a result the state apparatus used to proclaim Maduro the elected president.

2. The opposition’s counter-evidence: actas and independent verification

Within days of the vote, opposition organizers released scanned precinct-level tallies — the paper “actas” — gathered by volunteers across most polling stations that they said showed González with roughly two-thirds of the vote and Maduro around 30%; those tallies were later analyzed and reported to be corroborated by independent assessments from outlets and analysts including the Associated Press, Washington Post, Colombia’s Misión de Observación Electoral, and election-forensics expert Walter R. Mebane Jr., which confirmed substantial discrepancies with the official count ^{[2] [1]}.

3. International observers and institutions: not free, not fair

Major observer groups and rights organizations concluded the election did not meet international standards: The Carter Center stated the process “did not meet international standards” and did not reflect the will of the people ^[3], while U.S. and other international statements and analyses described systematic obstacles, repression and institutional control by the Maduro administration that undermined the integrity of the vote ^{[6] [7]}.

4. The disqualifications: legal mechanisms and political consequences

In the months before the vote, Venezuela’s top court and electoral authorities issued bans and “inhabilitaciones” that prevented key opposition figures — most prominently María Corina Machado, the winner of opposition primaries — from registering as presidential candidates; those rulings were upheld by the Supreme Court and enforced by the electoral system, actions criticized by the U.S., human rights groups and regional monitors as violating due process and the October 2023 Barbados agreement meant to guarantee candidate participation ^{[5] [4] [8]}.

5. Who “technically lost” — competing claims and legal reality

If “technically lose” means who holds the certified, institutionally recognized result, Maduro did not lose: the CNE’s announcements stand as the official outcome and Maduro retained control of state institutions to enforce that result ^[1]. If the question instead asks whether credible evidence exists that the opposition actually won the popular vote, multiple lines of reporting and forensic analysis — and strong opposition-collected actas — assert that González received a decisive plurality, a claim embraced by the U.S. government and a suite of independent analysts, even as Maduro’s camp dismissed those tallies as fabricated ^{[2] [9] [6]}.

6. The broader context: power, legal tools, and international responses

The disqualifications were executed through courts and the electoral council within a political system where the Maduro administration controls key institutions, prompting international condemnation that such bans undercut the spirit of negotiated electoral guarantees and were used to limit genuine competition; several organizations have treated these bans and post-election repression as part of a broader pattern of democratic erosion in Venezuela rather than isolated legal disputes ^{[8] [10] [3]}.