Alvise Pérez challenges EU election results with parallel vote count

The parallel recount Alvise uses to challenge the June 9 elections

The June 9 European elections left an official result that a segment of the electorate refuses to accept. Se Acabó La Fiesta (SALF) leader Alvise Pérez argues that the official count was rigged and that a popular recount of scrutiny records will prove his party was robbed of nearly half its votes. This theory circulates widely on social media and messaging apps but is not backed by any electoral institution or by parties holding copies of those same records.

The accusation hinges specifically on the scrutiny records. Each polling station produces a record listing votes for each candidacy, and party observers take copies. Thus, parties already possess this data. The claim that the official count does not match the records only holds if these copies differ from published figures, something no one has yet demonstrated.

What the alternative count says and what remains unverified

The fraud narrative rests on three pillars. First: Junts' results in areas where Catalan independence lacks electoral support, such as Madrid, Zaragoza, Las Palmas, or Marbella. Second: the alleged discrepancy between votes SALF supposedly received and those published by the Ministry of Interior. Third: suspicion that Indra's electronic counting system is where results could be altered without touching physical records.

On the ground, some share personal experiences. One participant claims to have voted for Iustitia Europa but found no votes for that party on the official website for their district. Another states they reviewed municipal data and found 88 votes for Junts, compared to barely three in previous European elections. These are anecdotes, not evidence, but they fuel the sense that something doesn't add up.

Counterarguments also circulate. Political parties hold copies of all records because their observers photograph them and send them to headquarters. If the official count did not match these copies, any party could challenge specific stations with documentation in hand. So far, none has done so on a massive scale.

The expert hoax and the shadow of January 6

Amid the noise, inconvenient data undermines the narrative: the IT expert Alvise said would review the entire election night publicly denied the alleged fraud. His circle responded that the expert was compromised. This episode weakens the rigging version but does not stop it.

Many cite Donald Trump's 2020 precedent. The difference is that there were dozens of lawsuits, audits, and recounts, none of which changed the outcome. Here, for now, there are photos, a bot counting records, and a promise of a popular recount. The leap from that to imprisoning Pedro Sánchez is, at minimum, long.

What would be needed to take this to court

Suspicions alone are insufficient to challenge elections. Verifiable documentation is required: original records, station-by-station comparison, and proceedings before the Electoral Board or courts. If the parallel recount produces systematic discrepancies between party copies and official data, the matter would have legal standing. If it only produces tweets, it does not.

The open question is not whether Alvise can put Sánchez in prison. It is whether anyone will truly compare the records, station by station, with names and signatures, or if this will remain another episode of noise that fades when the next controversy arrives.